West Indies (70's-80's) vs Australia (2000's)?

[aussie_ben91]

I can't believe rate him the best ever West Indies fast bowler over Curtly Ambrose.

 

[Dare]

Haha, this Manee guy is such a tool. :

Why don't you actually go watch clips of them bowling and compare them with fast bowlers in the modern day instead of going on statistics and theories of bitter older people for once. You probably won't believe it as you come across as the guy who doesn't think the originals can be 'bettered' by anyone.

I just watched Fidel Edwards bowl a 84.7mph ball and it looked far more pacey then anything I saw Malcom Marshall bowl.

Malcolm Marshall was never a express pace bowler. He was more like McGrath and he could swing the ball as much as him and even better, he also new how to move the ball of the seam better than anyone. West Indies win it in the pace bowling department hands down, Australia the spin obviously and the batting is even.

All the West Indies bowlers back in the day could put the ball on the spot and swing it as well as anyone.
Holding>Lee, Garner>Gillespie, Marshall=McGrath.

 

[manee]

I can't believe rate him the best ever West Indies fast bowler over Curtly Ambrose.

Why not? Same sort of pitches, same sort of average, better strike rate, could do more with the ball at approximately the same pace.

 

[karnog]

Ambrose had height but Marshall had sweet swing. The one where he knocked the middle stump of gooch was good (on youtube).

 

[aussie_ben91]

Just the bounce and pace and Ambrose's whole persona makes him better Marshall. I'd wanna see express fast bowlers, not medium trundlers who can move the ball a tad.

Going by some people's logic in this thread, Glenn McGrath must be the greatest bowler of all time.

The batting is NOT even. Australia's is far superior.

 

[smssia0112]

McGrath is one of the best of all time, you don't have to be fast to be great. Marshall's record speaks for itself.

 

[manee]

You speak like Marshall was slow, which he just plain wasn't. He wouldn't be classified as 'right arm fast' if he was a 'medium paced trundler',

 

[karnog]

In 81 test matches he averaged 20.94 and had 376 wickets. In 96 matches Ambrose had 406 wickets at an average of 20.99. If ambrose was a brilliant player so was Marshall. Those records speak for themselves. We come to Brett Lee who averages under 30. Gillespie averages around 26 after 71 matches. Mcgrath has played 123 matches and averaged 21.64. Thats a major achievement and while slightly higher he played many more matches. Australia are not miles ahead. In fact the teams are very close. Australia edge the batting and windies edge the bowling. As a result its impossible to say who was the better team. We can only guess.

 

[Cricketman]

Haha, this Manee guy is such a tool. :

Why don't you actually go watch clips of them bowling and compare them with fast bowlers in the modern day instead of going on statistics and theories of bitter older people for once. You probably won't believe it as you come across as the guy who doesn't think the originals can be 'bettered' by anyone.

I just watched Fidel Edwards bowl a 84.7mph ball and it looked far more pacey then anything I saw Malcom Marshall bowl.

The thing is, modern day camera's are faster and better then what they were back then. Everything appears to be quicker, theres no denying that.

Speed was measured at the batsman back then, and they were clocked at 140+ even then.

 

[nightprowler10]

*Bump*

After watching a few West Indies matches from the 1980's. IMO I'd say Australia would not only defeat the Windies but literally destroy them.

Wasn't really impressed by Malcom Marshall, he looks like the sort of bowler who nowadays would get slaughtered by attacking batsman worldwide. I'd hate to see him come up against the likes of Hayden, Symonds, Gilchrist because I'd have no doubt that he would get destroyed.

McGrath & Warne would rip through their batting lineup aswell.

Also, I'd like to also mention that the theory that pitches weren't flat until the modern days is a load of ****. The matches played in the 1980's were flat is not flatter then the modern day pitches! Infact I'd have to say the bowler look far more threatening nowadays aswell. The pace of some of the Windies bowler don't even look like they'd have a chance of hitting any batsman in the head!

Haha, this Manee guy is such a tool. :

Why don't you actually go watch clips of them bowling and compare them with fast bowlers in the modern day instead of going on statistics and theories of bitter older people for once. You probably won't believe it as you come across as the guy who doesn't think the originals can be 'bettered' by anyone.

I just watched Fidel Edwards bowl a 84.7mph ball and it looked far more pacey then anything I saw Malcom Marshall bowl.

I honestly cannot decide if I should laugh or cry at your absolute lack of knowledge about some of cricket's greatest bowlers and your arrogance about your said ignorance.

Fair enough that the Aussie team in question could give the Windies of the 70-80s a run for their money, maybe even beat them once or twice, but to say that these Aussies could destroy those great Windies is farcical. Without even putting real thought into it, I could probably name a West Indies all time XI that could beat even Bradman's invincibles.

Coming back to the bowlers that you so easily dismissed as medium pace trundlers; Marshall for one was a tactical genius, a thinking man's bowler. Whether he was bowling on a flat deck or a spinner's paradise, he could take wickets better than anyone else and at a better SR than his counter parts. The man wasn't express pace like Holding or Roberts, but he was fast enough and accurate enough which, coupled with his ability to swing/cut the ball in almost any pitch, was deadly to the opposition. FFS, the man once took 7 wickets while bowling with a cast on his left arm.

As for the others that you think seem slow, as someone else mentioned, all you see is a blur when the ball leaves their hands with the low quality coverage back then so I don't know where the hell you're coming up with your assumptions.

I'll close this post with one piece of advice, don't be fooled by their front on actions, these guys really knew how to use their height and bodies to deliver the ball at express pace.

 

[Cricketdude]

Why does Tendulkar average less than he did in the 90s with Akram, Younis etc.
Because The standard has got better and the way West indies batsman hits their shots it seems not as fluid and very risky and edgy. They seemed very uncoordinated and you know these days you will get out. Also the reason West Indies dominated was because the other teams were crap it wasnt because they were that good. Richards was able to smack part timers out of the park... so what?

I actually think the poms would give them a run for their money.

 

[Will_NA]

By that logic, Bradman wasn't all that. He obviously didn't have the most graceful technique.

 

[shravi]

Why does Tendulkar average less than he did in the 90s with Akram, Younis etc.
Because The standard has got better and the way West indies batsman hits their shots it seems not as fluid and very risky and edgy. They seemed very uncoordinated and you know these days you will get out. Also the reason West Indies dominated was because the other teams were crap it wasnt because they were that good. Richards was able to smack part timers out of the park... so what?

I actually think the poms would give them a run for their money.

Just out of curiosity. Would you go as far as to say in 30 years, the number 1 team (doesn't matter whether it's still Australia or not because the XI will be different) in 2038 would beat the 2000 Australian XI?

 

[Cricketdude]

By that logic, Bradman wasn't all that. He obviously didn't have the most graceful technique.

Thats right.

Just out of curiosity. Would you go as far as to say in 30 years, the number 1 team (doesn't matter whether it's still Australia or not because the XI will be different) in 2038 would beat the 2000 Australian XI?

Not really as back then the coaching wasnt very good and didnt have much technique. These days its if you have a sort of unorthidox technique its really hard to make the team only for some.

The strokes these days are much more justified and thats why these days teams score more than they did back then even when batters have to push up the run rate to leave something for the bowlers near stumps.

 

[aussie_ben91]

I honestly cannot decide if I should laugh or cry at your absolute lack of knowledge about some of cricket's greatest bowlers and your arrogance about your said ignorance.

Fair enough that the Aussie team in question could give the Windies of the 70-80s a run for their money, maybe even beat them once or twice, but to say that these Aussies could destroy those great Windies is farcical. Without even putting real thought into it, I could probably name a West Indies all time XI that could beat even Bradman's invincibles.

Coming back to the bowlers that you so easily dismissed as medium pace trundlers; Marshall for one was a tactical genius, a thinking man's bowler. Whether he was bowling on a flat deck or a spinner's paradise, he could take wickets better than anyone else and at a better SR than his counter parts. The man wasn't express pace like Holding or Roberts, but he was fast enough and accurate enough which, coupled with his ability to swing/cut the ball in almost any pitch, was deadly to the opposition. FFS, the man once took 7 wickets while bowling with a cast on his left arm.

As for the others that you think seem slow, as someone else mentioned, all you see is a blur when the ball leaves their hands with the low quality coverage back then so I don't know where the hell you're coming up with your assumptions.

I'll close this post with one piece of advice, don't be fooled by their front on actions, these guys really knew how to use their height and bodies to deliver the ball at express pace.

LMAOOOOOO!!!

Excuses, excuses and poor excuses at that. To say that the camera's were slower back then is an absolute farce, just like the theory that pitches that were played on back in the day were almost impossible to score runs. I watched the clip and there is absolutely no difference between the matches shown in the 1980's and the ones of the current age.

Shaun Pollock was once as successful as Malcom Marshall but look what happened towards the end of his career. I'm sure at the time the Windies were a great side and were as dominant as what Australia have been but cricket has evolved and will continue to evolve and improve for future generations and nothing will stop that. Players will most likely be allot better then the ones of the current age in 20-30 years time because old traits and technique have always been passed down and younger players have found ways of executing them in a more effective fashion.

You're just in a make believe world and can't admit that someone or something can't be bettered just because they were the original.