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

[Will_NA]

todays pitches are alot placid than those days and medium pacers of those days would have been hammered,similarly todays batsman would have struggled in 70's

so its better not to compare teams form different era's

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=michael+holding&search_type=&aq=-1&oq=

Useless on flat pitches. Watch any of these Michael Holding videos or any of the others - Croft, Marshall, Andy Roberts, Joel Garner and you'll see that your argument goes out the window.

 

[WestIndian]

todays pitches are alot placid than those days and medium pacers of those days would have been hammered,similarly todays batsman would have struggled in 70's

so its better not to compare teams form different era's

I totally agree, I believe in my opinion that is one of the most important and honest comment thus far, there are just too many variables.

As a Pakistani who watched both teams play, I just see the current Aussie team just winning very comfortably.

Fielding, Fitness standards have gone up so much in the last 20 years that a team playing 20 years ago would just not compete. To be honest I could almost see this Aussie team of around 2004-05 winning by 10 wickets!

Yeah maybe you are right in your comment, I guess you are saying that back then guys did not have gyms, and specialist trainers and diets etc.... and while you are at it, you might even add drugs and enhancers too, so back then you had naturals born and raised, today you have science made, machine aided. So I agree with you.

 

[Ollie_H]

Simple...


You can't compare two teams from a different era and who would win? Well it's a question we would never get answered. You can discuss it but you can't get a real answer.

 

[manee]

But respect must be given to both generations as both were great in their time - which is why I take exception to the assumption that this hypothetical fixture would be anything but close.

 

[aussie_ben91]

See thats why your argument fails dude, you admit that you dont know crap about the West Indies and yet you keep putting them down.

And where have you seen Marshall bowl?? on those crap youtube clips where you cant see anything. what do you think that his 376 wickets came out of nowhere. go and check his stats against India in India and Pakistan in Pakistan. Seriously man you are talking about a pace bowler who is in the top 3 pace bowlers of all time.
Marshall could swing the ball as well as anyone in his day and as well as anyone today. and he used the seam better than anyone to say that he would struggle in non swing conditions shows how little you know about him.

You're not even listening to what I'm saying. :

Batting has gotten ALLOT better and most aspects of batting have improved. He didn't swing the ball everytime he bowled. It's general knowledge that 130kph bowlers aren't all that threatening in the modern day.

I watched him on FoxSports against Australia in a One-Dayer & against England in a Test match from the 1980s. Could watch em perfectly.

You judge but what you see, not what myths you've heard.

 

[shravi]

It's general knowledge that 130kph bowlers aren't all that threatening in the modern day.

 

[aussie_ben91]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Sa16_z-7bE

 

[manee]

You're not even listening to what I'm saying. :

Batting has gotten ALLOT better and most aspects of batting have improved. He didn't swing the ball everytime he bowled. It's general knowledge that 130kph bowlers aren't all that threatening in the modern day.

I watched him on FoxSports against Australia in a One-Dayer & against England in a Test match from the 1980s. Could watch em perfectly.

You judge but what you see, not what myths you've heard.

Stop talking about 130kph bowlers, the West Indian fast bowlers were all quick in their prime.

 

[aussie_ben91]

We're talking about Malcom Marshall?

 

[Cricket_god]

its not that holding, garner, were genuine fast bowlers,compared to todays bowlers they were fast medium they made use of their height and the pitches were quicker so its a mis conception that they were quicker than mordern bowlers whose fitness standards
are much better than the bowlers of the 70's .

 

[King Pietersen]

Ben, seriously, you don't know what you're talking about. You claim that 130kph bowlers aren't successful in the modern era, but Pollock 421 Test wickets at 23, and 393 ODi wickets at 24 at an amazing economy of 3.67. Then there's McGrath, arguably the best pace bowler of the past generation, Stuart Clark's been immense in his introduction to test cricket, Matthew Hoggard has been one of England's best bowlers for years, there are many fast-medium bowlers who still destroy test attacks.

Also, you've obviously read nothing regarding Malcolm Marshall, he is widely regarded as the most dangerous of the 4 West Indian seamers. His deadly accurate bouncers, late swing, and decent pace considering his height. I'd reccomend you read about the bloke before claiming he'd be ineffective in the modern game. Try reading the following articles:

BBC Article
Cricinfo Article

If you'd read the articles you'd realise that Marshall was far from the 130KPH bowler that you're making him out to be. He was out and out quick, cricinfo has him down as a "Fast" bowler, not "fast-medium". I think many of the West Indian players and fans from that era would take serious offence from your blatent disregard for the quality that Marshall possessed. Try gaining some knowledge on an issue before parading your biased views

 

[Cricket_god]

Ben, seriously, you don't know what you're talking about. You claim that 130kph bowlers aren't successful in the modern era, but Pollock 421 Test wickets at 23, and 393 ODi wickets at 24 at an amazing economy of 3.67. Then there's McGrath, arguably the best pace bowler of the past generation, Stuart Clark's been immense in his introduction to test cricket, Matthew Hoggard has been one of England's best bowlers for years, there are many fast-medium bowlers who still destroy test attacks.

Also, you've obviously read nothing regarding Malcolm Marshall, he is widely regarded as the most dangerous of the 4 West Indian seamers. His deadly accurate bouncers, late swing, and decent pace considering his height. I'd reccomend you read about the bloke before claiming he'd be ineffective in the modern game. Try reading the following articles:

BBC Article
Cricinfo Article

If you'd read the articles you'd realise that Marshall was far from the 130KPH bowler that you're making him out to be. He was out and out quick, cricinfo has him down as a "Fast" bowler, not "fast-medium". I think many of the West Indian players and fans from that era would take serious offence from your blatent disregard for the quality that Marshall possessed. Try gaining some knowledge on an issue before parading your biased views

pollock ,mcgrath started in the 1990's there was something in the pitches then,look at pollock in the last few years he was in effective.
from 2003 onwards the picthes everywhere except south africa are batsman friendly hoggard is gone,stuart clarke needs assistance from the pitch and as in india series when there is no assistance he is of less use
and mainly does the role of containing one thing also hoggard had flintoff
and harmy who were quick,pollock had donald to help on flatter tracks.

its not articles that we should believe the fact is in every sport fitness
has improved is the 100 metres record not better than it was in the 70's.
at that time the so called fast bowlers were in the 130-140 range-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPDW7hj1yfs
.on todays flat pitches with low bounce i can see them getting plenty of stick specially in odis

 

[Cricketdude]

I dont think West Indies have gone down its just other teams have gone up and they dont have the bowling machines,coaching etc.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Ben, seriously, you don't know what you're talking about. You claim that 130kph bowlers aren't successful in the modern era, but Pollock 421 Test wickets at 23, and 393 ODi wickets at 24 at an amazing economy of 3.67. Then there's McGrath, arguably the best pace bowler of the past generation, Stuart Clark's been immense in his introduction to test cricket, Matthew Hoggard has been one of England's best bowlers for years, there are many fast-medium bowlers who still destroy test attacks.

Also, you've obviously read nothing regarding Malcolm Marshall, he is widely regarded as the most dangerous of the 4 West Indian seamers. His deadly accurate bouncers, late swing, and decent pace considering his height. I'd reccomend you read about the bloke before claiming he'd be ineffective in the modern game. Try reading the following articles:

BBC Article
Cricinfo Article

If you'd read the articles you'd realise that Marshall was far from the 130KPH bowler that you're making him out to be. He was out and out quick, cricinfo has him down as a "Fast" bowler, not "fast-medium". I think many of the West Indian players and fans from that era would take serious offence from your blatent disregard for the quality that Marshall possessed. Try gaining some knowledge on an issue before parading your biased views

If I don't know what I'm talking about then how come I constantly reply to your posts but you can't seem to gather anything meaningful to reply back?

Deadset, have you actually seen him bowl other then youtube clips? Have you watched any of the Foxsports matches from the 80's & early 90's? Yes, he was quite tidy but you could obviously tell the difference between to today's batsman and the batsman of 30 years ago. They didn't play as many shots and didn't always put the clear bad ball away.

Look what happened towards Shaun Pollock's career. Even the great Glenn McGrath wasn't as threatening towards the end of his career as batsman begun to figure out that he was indeed a bowler that constantly put the ball on a good length. Look what the likes of Tendulkar, Lara & Pietersen were able to do to him at the best of times.

Go look at Shaun Pollock's career timeline and that you'll see that over the last several years, his average in Test Cricket deteriated as soon the quality of batsman started coming into their prime.

Seriously, use ya head. Stop reading articles and basing your opinion on other people's opinion when you can't even use pure logic on what you've seen.

 

[King Pietersen]

Pollock's last 2 seasons in Test cricket were actually quite impressive, 21 wickets at 18 at an economy of 2.33 in 2006/07 and 5 wickets at 17 in 2007 at an economy of 3.03. They were against fairly decent teams aswell, with India and Pakistan in 06/07 and West Indies in the 1 test match in 2007. He struggled slightly more in ODi's though, but his economy was still fantastic, 3.46 in 06/07 and 3.04 in 2007. Pollock only had 2 slightly dissapointing years in Test Cricket in his whole career, 2005 against England, and 2006 against Australia. Those are the only 2 series that he's majorly struggled, his averages and wickets then improved in the next 2 years. Also, over his entire Test career, the only team he averaged above 30 against was Australia. Seems he wasn't found out too much after all.