West Indies vs South Africa - The greatest battle never played

[Satan666]

True cricket fans have dreamt of this match up overtime. My opinion is that South Africa would have received a thrashing just as the other teams did during the period the WI dominated, their bowling was the main power they had and backed up by one of the best batting side to ever graced the cricket field. Having four fast bowlers all topping 150kph is a nightmare for any batting side and the Proteas wouldn't have been any different in my estimation.

There is one match we can draw some findings from what may have been, the one test match in Kensington Oval between SA and WI in 1992, the match announcing the return of the Safricans to the game, by 1992 there was already talk that the Windies had gotten a bit weaker and their dominance was close to an end; having drawn the test series against the English in 1990. The end of the 92 test was a win by WI, mostly due to Ambrose and Walsh wrecking the 2nd inns, ripping apart the South Africans for a meagre 148 runs, funnily enough the Safricans were in control for most of the match. So in essence we may have all missed out an exciting 20 years of cricket seeing possibly the greatest rivalry in cricket, next to the ashes of course.

 

[Owzat]

Minor observation, but surely "the greatest battle never played" might be say the aussies of the 90s and 00s against the West Indies of the 70s and 80s.

We can conjecture what a non-banned rebel saffer side might have done off paper, but we know how dominant the West Indies and Australian sides were. A West Indian pace quartet against a strong aussie batting line-up, McGrath, Warne et al bowling to the likes of Greenidge, Haynes, Richards and Lloyd.

As an aside, both those sides were strong batting sides with a four man bowling attack. Has any side sustained long periods of dominance with five?

 

[sifter132]

Answer: Invincibles, 1948! Miller was the 5th bowler with 4 of Lindwall, Johnston, Toshack, Johnson, Ring.

So really you are looking at teams who had a decent all-rounder and were successful. Teams in the 50s and 60s might be worth a look eg. Australia had Davidson, Miller and Benaud, England had Trevor Bailey, West Indies had Sobers, India had Mankad, South Africa had Trevor Goddard. Modern teams had Kallis or Flintoff as the 5th bowlers in pretty successful teams, Watson too although Australia hasn't been at their best when he was.

Bottom line is that you need a respectable all-rounder to sustain a 5 man attack. I don't know any team that played 5 specialist bowlers from 7 down - 1 or more of them had to be able to bat. Maybe back before WW1 But then those games were so short, sometimes they only needed 2 bowlers!

 

[War]

Minor observation, but surely "the greatest battle never played" might be say the aussies of the 90s and 00s against the West Indies of the 70s and 80s.

We can conjecture what a non-banned rebel saffer side might have done off paper, but we know how dominant the West Indies and Australian sides were. A West Indian pace quartet against a strong aussie batting line-up, McGrath, Warne et al bowling to the likes of Greenidge, Haynes, Richards and Lloyd.

As an aside, both those sides were strong batting sides with a four man bowling attack. Has any side sustained long periods of dominance with five?

Those AUS and Windies team were from a different era though.

The banned SA team and Windies team was essentially the same era and would have clashed if S Africa had sorted out their apartheid situation and returned to test cricket in less time than 22 years.

 

[spooony]

Would having a South African team of Whites beaten by the West Indies not have done a huge blow to the racial superiority themes?

Sure, for England, Australia, etc with majority white teams - non engagement certainly was a far better policy, but for the West Indies, I think playing matches against them could have potentially sent a different message about equality.

Apartheid was not about race superiority. We all belong to one race that is the human race. Visible physical variations among people are generated by minor genetic differences, that individual and not population differences account for most genetic variation, and that human physical variation does not fall into discrete categories.

We had scientist that build a nuclear bomb so they knew that. Money and power was the only reason for Apartheid. The only one who profited from Apartheid was De Beers. They played both sides so they were in control and they could do business with the outside world while they were guaranteed cheap labor as long as Apartheid was there. They just stirred up the one side then the other side will make more laws to prevent them. They sat in the middle raking in billions and billions of dollars with their Diamond consortium, gold and steel mines.

If you do not know what scum De Beers really are I encourage you to read this http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~lcabral/teaching/debeers3.pdf

For the cricket its sad that guys like Pollock and Richards as well as hundreds of other sporting greats were robbed from greatness. But like everyone already mentioned what had to be done had to be done.

 

[spooony]

Many of the very knowledgeable cricket fans are well aware of the the amount of great cricketers than South Africa had during their isolation from world cricket. But every time i look at it & shake my head with disappoint i can't help but wonder during that period while they were out, the windies were dominant & really had no competition for 20 years.

If South Africa weren't banned, damn we could have saw some great cricket & a great rivalry could have have been formed. For example these two sides:

WEST INDIES 79/80

Greenidge
Haynes
Richards
Kallicharan
Rowe
Lloyd
Murray
Marshall
Roberts
Holding
Garner

2nd Test: Australia v West Indies at Melbourne, Dec 29, 1979 - Jan 1, 1980 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo


SOUTH AFRICA REBELS 1982

Cook
Richards
Kirsten
Pollock
Rice
Procter
Kourie
Jennings
Le Roux
Jefferies
Van der Bijl

1st 'TEST': South Africa v England XI at Johannesburg, 12-15 Mar 1982

Could cheat a bit a put Allan Lamb & Tony Greig into that South Africa XI, but regardless its still an awfully strong side that, the perfect side if any at the time to challenge the windies as the best in the world given their all-round strenght & depth. Not saying they would beat the windies but geez i really feel cricket was robbed of a great contest at that time..

SA team of 76

Barry Richards
Eddie Barlow
Peter Kirsten
Graeme Pollock
Allan Lamb
Lee Irvine
Clive Rice
Mike Procter
Garth le Roux
Vintcent Van der Bijl

Denys Hobson

This is what Proctor did against Hampshire which included Greenidge and Barry Richards. 1982/83 they were past their best almost.

True cricket fans have dreamt of this match up overtime. My opinion is that South Africa would have received a thrashing just as the other teams did during the period the WI dominated, their bowling was the main power they had and backed up by one of the best batting side to ever graced the cricket field. Having four fast bowlers all topping 150kph is a nightmare for any batting side and the Proteas wouldn't have been any different in my estimation.

There is one match we can draw some findings from what may have been, the one test match in Kensington Oval between SA and WI in 1992, the match announcing the return of the Safricans to the game, by 1992 there was already talk that the Windies had gotten a bit weaker and their dominance was close to an end; having drawn the test series against the English in 1990. The end of the 92 test was a win by WI, mostly due to Ambrose and Walsh wrecking the 2nd inns, ripping apart the South Africans for a meagre 148 runs, funnily enough the Safricans were in control for most of the match. So in essence we may have all missed out an exciting 20 years of cricket seeing possibly the greatest rivalry in cricket, next to the ashes of course.

1969-70 side that beat Australia 4-0 has become the stuff of legend but by the mid-seventies, say the season of 1976-77, South Africa would have been even better. Graeme Pollock was 39 years old and played against a Rebel West Indian team in 1983. Sylvester Clarke bowled him against the head and he went off. Hour later he returned with stitches just above his eyebrow and Clarke having 5 balls left in his over and went at Pollock hard. Pollock at age 39 stitched up smashed him for 4 x fours and a six. We are talking about the guy who was the 2nd best test batsman in history after Bradman

 

[Robelinda]

here's that Clarke delivery vs Pollock, as spoony mentioned above.....by the way some of the SA rebel players have requested footage from me, and ive sent it over to them, cool!


BLOOD WARS - West Indies vs Graeme Pollock 1983 - YouTube


and something else



1987 Graeme Pollock 43 vs Australia 1st ODI Port Elizabeth - YouTube

 

[Satan666]

1969-70 side that beat Australia 4-0 has become the stuff of legend but by the mid-seventies, say the season of 1976-77, South Africa would have been even better. Graeme Pollock was 39 years old and played against a Rebel West Indian team in 1983. Sylvester Clarke bowled him against the head and he went off. Hour later he returned with stitches just above his eyebrow and Clarke having 5 balls left in his over and went at Pollock hard. Pollock at age 39 stitched up smashed him for 4 x fours and a six. We are talking about the guy who was the 2nd best test batsman in history after Bradman

Many would argue that Tendulkar is second to Don or even better than him, well certainly not me.

Your point goes down the gutter since Clarke by all means was crap compared to Holding/Garner/Croft/Marshall, the poor bloke couldnt even make the second 11, he played only 11 tests.

Again your point goes down the gutter since I highly doubt the frail 39 year old couldve standup to the four prone pace attack, while I agree he is regarded by many as secound to Bradman at age 39 youre old!

 

[spooony]

Many would argue that Tendulkar is second to Don or even better than him, well certainly not me.

Your point goes down the gutter since Clarke by all means was crap compared to Holding/Garner/Croft/Marshall, the poor bloke couldnt even make the second 11, he played only 11 tests.

Again your point goes down the gutter since I highly doubt the frail 39 year old couldve standup to the four prone pace attack, while I agree he is regarded by many as secound to Bradman at age 39 youre old!

Well let me explain it this way. You see this Aussie side who beat the Windies team on their home turf in 1973?

Now that team got trounced 4 - 0 by South Africa with Pollock and Co

And Pollock was 39 in 82. The matchup would not have been equal as they peak outside one anothers era. SA started at 70 to 77 would have been their time then age would start to take over.

Like Windies SA had pace bowlers as well. I don't think you know who Mike Proctor was or care to look up or Pollock.

" Don Bradman remarked at the time simply that Pollock was the best left-hander he had seen.

Banned from International cricket did not mean they played no cricket at all. They played for world XI and for English counties. This is what Mike Proctor did to Hampshire in 1977

Gordon Greenidge fell to the first ball of the over, middle stump ripped from the ground; then a single by David Turner. First, Procter's compatriot, the mighty Richards; then Trevor Jesty and John Rice to complete his hat-trick.

Look at the batsman he destroyed. Look at the bowling figures. He destroyed Chappell and the Aussies as well.

This is what they had to say about Pollock Simon Kuper on Graeme Pollock | Specials | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Sachin at 39 can't even react quick enough against a avg first class player who bowled him. Pollock at age 43 smashed Rodney Hogg, Carl Rackemann, Rod McCurdy, John Maguire to all parts of the field.

 

[sifter132]

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.

 

[War]

To be fair i would say a 39 year old Pollock in 1983 would have been far less fatigued mentally and physically than a 39 year old Tendulkar in 2012. For the obvious reasons that Pollock due to SA banning wouldn't have played half the amount of cricket at a similar age.

However i'd say Sobers or Viv Richards has much more stronger to be the 2nd best batsman after Bradman in cricket history.


Also saying that Sylvester Clarke was crap is highly misinformed. The only reason he didn't more test for the windies in the 80s was because he was on the many players banned for playing in those rebel series vs S Africa.

 

[Satan666]

Also saying that Sylvester Clarke was crap is highly misinformed. The only reason he didn't more test for the windies in the 80s was because he was on the many players banned for playing in those rebel series vs S Africa.

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

 

[Satan666]

Well let me explain it this way. You see this Aussie side who beat the Windies team on their home turf in 1973?

Now that team got trounced 4 - 0 by South Africa with Pollock and Co

And Pollock was 39 in 82. The matchup would not have been equal as they peak outside one anothers era. SA started at 70 to 77 would have been their time then age would start to take over.

Like Windies SA had pace bowlers as well. I don't think you know who Mike Proctor was or care to look up or Pollock.



Banned from International cricket did not mean they played no cricket at all. They played for world XI and for English counties. This is what Mike Proctor did to Hampshire in 1977

Gordon Greenidge fell to the first ball of the over, middle stump ripped from the ground; then a single by David Turner. First, Procter's compatriot, the mighty Richards; then Trevor Jesty and John Rice to complete his hat-trick.

Look at the batsman he destroyed. Look at the bowling figures. He destroyed Chappell and the Aussies as well.

This is what they had to say about Pollock Simon Kuper on Graeme Pollock | Specials | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Sachin at 39 can't even react quick enough against a avg first class player who bowled him. Pollock at age 43 smashed Rodney Hogg, Carl Rackemann, Rod McCurdy, John Maguire to all parts of the field.

Maybe the South Africa team were ahead in the early 70's but as the years continued after 76 to the 80's the WI team would have been to strong for the ageing Pollock/Richards/Procter.

There were two rebel tours in 82 and 83 by a second string WI side with players like Clarke/Rowe who couldnt break into the full WI team, the results being:

1982: 4-2 ODI SA won, 1-1 SA won

1983:4-2 ODI WI won, 2-1 WI won

 

[War]

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

That was certainly a reason. But a money issue was involved too, since team regulars like Colin Croft and Lawrence Rowe, David Murray (a keeper who many reckon was better overall than Dujon) went along.

With Roberts retiring after 1983 and Holding a little past his ultimate peak after 1983, leaving Marshall/Garner as the main duo - i'm pretty sure Clarke would have had more first team chances if he didn't go to S Africa. Similarly too Franklyn Stevenson, which would have meant the likes of Courtney Walsh may not have made his debut as early as 1984.

While if you ever saw the documentary "fire in babylon" Amazon.com: Fire in Babylon: Ian Botham, Colin Croft, Jeffery Dujon, Stevan Riley: Movies & TV - you would see Viv Richards had to deliberate long and hard whether to accept a massive money offer along with a status as an "honorary white" to go over an play too.

----------

Maybe the South Africa team were ahead in the early 70's but as the years continued after 76 to the 80's the WI team would have been to strong for the ageing Pollock/Richards/Procter.

That essentially is the argument. From 70-76, S Africa would have been the clear # 1 over Chappell's Australia. And, therefore cricket missed potentially the greatest test battle ever, with the great S Africa team vs the upcoming windies team who had emerged circa 1976.

 

[Satan666]

That was certainly a reason. But a money issue was involved too, since team regulars like Colin Croft and Lawrence Rowe, David Murray (a keeper who many reckon was better overall than Dujon) went along.

Colin croft I agree, Rowe played only 30 tests but wasnt able to continue makeing the final 11 of WI, he may have been a good batsman but bot good enough for the WI team of the 80's. Murray, (Deryck not David) would have been 40 years old in 83, obviously way past his prime. Also he had a batting average of 22 in tests without a century compared to Dujon's average of 31 with 5 centuries, so definitely he was not better overall than Dujon!

With Roberts retiring after 1983 and Holding a little past his ultimate peak after 1983, leaving Marshall/Garner as the main duo - i'm pretty sure Clarke would have had more first team chances if he didn't go to S Africa. Similarly too Franklyn Stevenson, which would have meant the likes of Courtney Walsh may not have made his debut as early as 1984.

Maybe but its only speculation they wouldve been selected, the WI were already an extraordinary outfit by 1980, which the fact remains Clarke coudnt have make it.

While if you ever saw the documentary "fire in babylon" Amazon.com: Fire in Babylon: Ian Botham, Colin Croft, Jeffery Dujon, Stevan Riley: Movies & TV - you would see Viv Richards had to deliberate long and hard whether to accept a massive money offer along with a status as an "honorary white" to go over an play too.

No I havent seen it nor I plan to in the future!

Any player who participated in the rebel tours from WI, Eng, AUS and SL deserves zero respect.

That essentially is the argument. From 70-76, S Africa would have been the clear # 1 over Chappell's Australia. And, therefore cricket missed potentially the greatest test battle ever, with the great S Africa team vs the upcoming windies team who had emerged circa 1976.

Obviously its the topic of the thread which you made!

Considering the rebel tours and ageing SA dinosaurs playing I think its safe to say the question really should be could SA team of the 80's dominate the WI second string team. Its like this we recently saw AUS's dominance of world cricket, even their second 11 was strong and was more than able to compete against the test playing nations!