West Indies vs South Africa - The greatest battle never played

[spooony]

The reason he played in the rebel side is due to him not being able to break into the WI full team.

Clarke was still 29 in 83. He played 11 tests for Windies and after the incident where he got suspended in Pakistan where he threw a brick in the crowd was one of the factors as well.

Yet there was a host of players in England, where he spent nine productive seasons with Surrey between 1979 and 1988, who rate him as clinically fearsome as any of his contemporary West Indian colleagues. Those who played with and against him in South Africa, where he also represented Transvaal, Northern Transvaal and Orange Free State, speak in similar awe of his ability to generate frightening pace and steep lift from a relatively short, ambling approach and an ungainly, front-on delivery.

His secret was his immense strength and a snappy, pliable wrist that he used with telling effect. Like so many Barbadian Test players, Clarke came through the ranks of the BCL that has efficiently organised the game in the country areas for more than 60 years. A return of 21 wickets in his debut season for Barbados in 1978 included a hat-trick against Trinidad and a summons to the West Indies team for the Third Test of the home series against Australia after those contracted to Kerry Packer's World Series Cricket - in other words most of the team - withdrew. In the absence of Roberts, Holding, Garner et al, he spearheaded the weakened attack on the subsequent tour of India where his 21 wickets in five Tests - including Sunil Gavaskar five times

Sylvester Clarke | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[spooony]

As an Aussie fan, I can vouch for the fact that the team of 69/70: a) wasn't as good as the team in the 70s eg. Lillee, Thomson, Marsh and G.Chappell weren't in it, and b) they'd just come to SA from a HORROR tour of India where everyone got sick, they had to stay in crappy hotels, there were fan riots, security issues and the players complained bitterly to the board about it.

Now Australia would have lost the SA series anyway, but implying that SA beat Aus 4-0 at their best would be a fallacy.

1. SA did beat them 4 - 0
2. Horror tour was in India not SA and they had more than enough time to recover from whatever excuse and stayed in lovely hotels.
3. They lost 4-0
4. They lost 4-0
5. They lost 4-0

Bacher, in his first series as captain, was determined on a clean sweep for the first time in South Africa's history; whereas victory for the Australians could only salvage a portion of their damaged prestige. South Africa's only change was Trimborn for Trevor Goddard, who had announced his retirement from first-class cricket. McKenzie, after a three week lay-off on medical advice, returned to replace Freeman.

Wisden - South Africa v Australia 1969-70

Typical Aussie trying to steal someone elses thunder

 

[Satan666]

Clarke was still 29 in 83. He played 11 tests for Windies and after the incident where he got suspended in Pakistan where he threw a brick in the crowd was one of the factors as well.

He was suspended for 3 matches only, upon his return the team already had Garner/Holding/Croft/Marshall, there was simply no place for him after!

 

[Satan666]

Furhtermore I agree that Clarke was a great bowler but not as great as guys like Holding and company!

 

[spooony]

Furhtermore I agree that Clarke was a great bowler but not as great as guys like Holding and company!

Yes and he was quick. Now imagine him at 28 he was at his prime. Pollock though past his best at 39 climbed into him.

That Great Windies team would have missed the SA team as 1966 SA started to build that team which was the complete product in the 196970 series and they would have dominated till around 77. But 80's most were past their best as that's the period the Windies took over. The guys like Clive Rice and others who would have taken over were not as great as that Windies so yes the Windies would have beaten us. But in the 70's we would have beaten them.

Just to show you Mr. Chappel and Lawry was lying a bit about fatigue we have to go back to 1966/67 series which SA won 3-1 against the same Australian side.

That was when SA started to build the side. Mike Proctor was 21 years old then and still young. 69/70 he was 24 not even at his peak which is 28 normally for fast bowlers. The 7 matches he played he took 41 wickets. Which is phenomenal.

In 69/70 the picture was completed with a young Barry Richards coming in and avg over 73 in that series. He and Graham Pollock are both inductees in the Hall of fame of the ICC. Even if he played only 4 matches that good was his ability recognized by others. Graeme Pollock was 19 years old when he made a double ton vs a International Cavaliers side with Chappel as the captain of the Cavaliers. He said then Pollock was a great talent and he turned out to be right as he avg 76 and 73 against Australia in both series. Shaun Polocks dad and Graem Pollocks brother also played in both series and with Mike Procter and Goddard to extent in 67 series ripped them apart. You will note that the SA team were stacked with all rounders which was a tradition of producing them down the years. Not as good these days as they were back then.

For the Aussies being tired well I call it fud. First of all Mr. Chappel claimed they been on tour in India for 5 months. That is BS because they started to tour India in November and the first test was on the 04/11/1969. Their previous series was against the Windies which ended on 14/02/1969. 8 Months later they went to India where the last match was played on 24/12/1969. 22 January 1970 they played their first game against SA which suppose to be 2 tests. The reason for it being 4 was due to the fact the Aussies wanted to set the 3-1 record straight and give SA a hiding as well as they got paid handsomely as well. But after losing the first 2 a request by Australia cricket board was made to make two of the tour matches against provincial sides to test matches. Two in fact were changed to Aus vs SA tests. They wanted to see if they could pull it back to 2-2 as the first to tests were lost by 170 odd runs. But they got hammered even more in the next two. When they were 4-0 down the SA cricket board asked to add another test match and the Aussies said no as they knew 5-0 would have look very bad and they went home.

The trouble in India was all their own doing. Who told Lawry to insult the Indian woman and not to ask the Indian batsman to come back when he clearly saw that the umpire was wrong in the decision. He should have he did not and the tour turned sour. That was after the third test but they still managed to win them. So they had about 2 weeks of bad hotels and heavy security which was all their own doing. But the horror tour of them being tired is fud. Plain and simple.

 

[Robelinda]

Geez man, calm down. Some of those facts are plain wrong regarding the extra tests in 1970, just plain wrong. The aussies didnt even get a say AT ALL over the extra tests, the players were never consulted and almost walked out. I dont know why the grudge against Australia, seeing as that series happened 42 years ago, and YOU WON. You are sounding like a bad winner, Indian style.

 

[spooony]

Geez man, calm down. Some of those facts are plain wrong regarding the extra tests in 1970, just plain wrong. The aussies didnt even get a say AT ALL over the extra tests, the players were never consulted and almost walked out. I dont know why the grudge against Australia, seeing as that series happened 42 years ago, and YOU WON. You are sounding like a bad winner, Indian style.

Heh? What are you on about? I have nothing against the Aussies stop making presumptions you know what they lead to.

Late in India's second innings Venkat was controversially given out caught behind after a lone appeal from gully. As he trudged off, wicketkeeper Brian Taber shrugged and said "He missed itby a foot." Unfortunately radio commentators said exactly the same thing, triggering unrest in a crowd already angered by the home side's inept performance. They thought Bill Lawry, Australia's captain, should have recalled the batsman; Lawry, who wasnot a person likely to turn down anything given by umpires, was in no mood for diplomacy.

Rewind to 1969: India v Australia - Australia's greatest challenge | Regulars | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Actually, the Australians had chinks in their armour and these were ruthlessly probed and exposed in the series against South Africa which followed immediately. The bowling was not thatstrong to bowl out India twice in a match three times.

The visit of the seventh Australian team to tour South Africa lasted only twelve weeks, but will always be remembered by cricket enthusiasts because of the generosity of the Australian Board of Control and the willingness of W. M. Lawry and his team to tackle the Springboks immediately following a strenuous and disturbing Test series in India.

Wisden - Australians In South Africa, 1969-70

You say THEY had no say? You call getting paid handsomely and agreeing as no say?

However, Ian Chappell , who had already gained a reputation as a straight-talking, no-nonsense individual, saw that this presented the players with a chance to bloody the board's nose. "That's bullshit," Chappell said. "The board can get****ed." Although initially all bar three of the squad - Chappell, McKenzie and Ray Jordon, the reserve wicketkeeper - agreed, in the end theyasked for A$500 each to play the game instead of the board's A$200.

Australia's no pay, no play tour | Regulars | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Oops you didn't know they were paid handsomely? Tony Greigg said once on television. The reason why Lawry and Lawry had no hair for SA is due to that tour.

So don't turn the subject into trying in making a personal one and a attack on me. Play the ball not the man and keep the argument directed at the topic as a personal attack on the poster is a sign of desperation as providing facts will prove you wrong. Normally what follows is a attack on the grammar and spelling.

 

[sifter132]

^The reason they were paid handsomely was clear. None of the players wanted to go, and the board bribing them with extra cash was the only way to get them to play. Wisden can paint it as rosily as they like: "generosity of the board" "willingness of Lawry and his team" double

I'm not going to argue Australia would have won, but if ever you wanted to play Australia, that would have been a good time.