How would the current Australian side stack up against the Windies of the 80's ????

[Arch]

hmmmmm ......

Exclude current injuries to Warne and Gillespie, and I think our bowlers (mcgrath,Lee, warne and gillespie) would be a very close match to the likes of malcolm marshall, garner,holding and roger harper.

Gilchrist is just as good a keeper batsman as what Dujon was, if not better.

The batting may not have the power and flair of the likes of Clive Lloyd & Viv Richards, but Steve waugh is man of steel, and Justin langer would be the match of Larry Gomes.
Maybe our opening pair (slater & whoever else is in there) dont have the same authority as greenidge and haynes, but ponting can be just as devastating as richie richards, plus hes better in the field.

its an interesting question i reckon.

Id like to make a case for us, but I think it'd be really close.

what do yez reckon ????

 

[Pessimistic]

How would the current Essendon side go against the best team of the eighties ?

 

[goatmaster]

Sorry to say that the best of the Windies would flog the Australian team of today.
If you compare the players
Greenidge & Haynes vs Slater & Hayden - Windies by a mile.
Langer v Richardson - closer but still Windies
Mark Waugh v Richards- you are kidding
Steve Waugh v Gomes- one for us
Ponting v Lloyd - I like Ponting but he hasn't yet got the record of Lloyd
Gilchrist v Dujon - 2 for us
Bowlers Mcgrath & Warne are great but v
Holding , Garner , Marshall & Walsh windies easily Pess's question is the better one Essendon 2000 v Hawthorn 88/89 .
Should have a thread on that one

------------------
Goatmaster
the prime minister of the principality of Mooball

 

[Shinboners]

Agree with the Goatmaster here....that Windies side of the 80s would beat the current Australian side, although the current side wouldn't get humiliated like the Aussies in the 80s.

The thing about those Windies sides is that they never let their opposition get the slightest sniff of victory. While the current Australians tend to score comfortable wins, there are normally two or three test matches where the Australians have let their opposition have a sniff of victory. The last thing is that we're a fully professional outfit and we're probably extracting the best that we can out of our players. That West Indian team didn't have the same professionalism to training, but won through their sheer skill and ruthlessness.

The one glimmer that we would have is this. Warne at his peak bowling to them. At his best, he could still spin the ball on a dead track and the SCG (when it was really spin friendly) was usually an Australian win.

 

[servo]

Hang on.

If we are to compare them then pick an actual team not a period of years.

Garner, Marshall, Holding and Walsh probably never all played together. There was always one lesser quick such as Croft or Daniels.


If we take a look at probably the best side in any one test and compare them to our best team if all fit lets take a look.

WI
Greenidge
Haynes
Richards
Gomes
Richardson
Lloyd
Dujon
Marshall
Holding
Garner
Croft

Aussies
Slater
Hayden
Langer
M Waugh
S Waugh
Ponting
Gilchrist
Warne
B Lee
Gillespie
McGrath


If all were in form then their 4 quicks would shade our 3 but Warne would add that other dimension and in form would tip the bowling in our favour.

Keepers ya just can't split

I would back the Windies middle 4 bats against ours on consistency. All four were always good. Only two of ours are consistently good, S Waugh and Punter.

The opening spots are no contest. Greenidge & Haynes are the best combination the game has seen. They cannot be compared.


My prediction???
Windies would win by 180 runs if batting first and 6 wkts if batting second.

Either way the game would finish on the last day. Something that will not happen at all in this series.

 

[Dipper]

As a pom I feel that I can give an unbiased view on this topic-basically if it was a test played on a quick wicket or a grassy one then I reckon it would be pretty close but maybe the West Indies to shade it,BUT if it was played on a good batting pitch then you'd have to go for your blokes because of the variety of bowlers available especially good spinners which the Windies didn't have (Harper was crap) & if it was on a turning pitch then they wouldn't stand a chance.
The current Aussie team are a hard lot mentally & although people say the same about the 80's West Indians they had no-one to really get at them in those days-so as an alround team I back the current Aussie team but watch out next year because we're gonna give you a run for your money in the Ashes battle.
Secondly Essendon against 'the best team of the 80s', well the Hawks would slaughter the Essendon mongrels without even breaking sweat.
Go the Hawks!

 

[Kobe]

Windies...easy..Gillespie is a croc, Bichel and Hayden are duds and the Waugh bros even though they are great players dont like express bowlers banging it in short at the throat.There was no respite from the Windies attack no dud bowlers to milk while you kept the decent ones out..only hope for the aussies would be a turning wicket like sydney with the windies batting last and Warnie bowling at his best.

 

[Grendel]

servo, Croft a lesser bowler??? Did you ever see him, third choice at the Windies maybe, but he would have opened with the wind at any other country at the time.

On the current Aussies vs Windies, no contest.

Dont go so much bowler vs bowler, bat vs bat. Look more at bowler vs bat.

McGrath has Lara phsyced out. Could he do that to Viv? Bullshit he could, man Richards would just do the gum chew and hammer him back over his head. Grenidge was the most techinchally correct opener ive seen, Dessie could thrash just like a Slater. Their top order aside from Steve Waugh is all over ours. Ponting WILL be a great, but how would he be with 90 mile an hour missiles at his throat all day every session.

Their bowlers re our bats. Hayden would be back in the sheild where he belongs after Andy Roberts or Joel had sent a few at his head. Slater struggles ONLY against real quality, Holding and Marshall were real quality. Langer would grunt it out, but the flaws in his game would be exposed by the relentlessness of their speed attack.

Dujon still has an average of thirty plus to his credit, Gilchrist has only been around for a year. At the present you would call them even.

The one factor is WARNE. How would he have gone is anyones guess. No leggies were aroung then except for the Pakistani whose name i cant remember (i hate that!!!) who was a very good leggie. Yet from memory i dont think he caused any lost sleep to the Windies of the time either.

We have a good current day test side, trouble is aside from the South Africans all the other test nations are rabble in either one dept *bowling or batting* or the other.

They might be the best nowdays, but they are certainly not the best ever, not ever close. Hell they cant even get a setteled top order and theyve won 11 straight. That should tell you something about how weak the rest of the world is.

 

[goatmaster]

Grendel,
Abdul Qadir is the one you are looking for.
Cheers GM

------------------
Goatmaster
the prime minister of the principality of Mooball

 

[Denno]

Gillespie a croc.? what a load of cr@p!

 

[Grendel]

Thanks GM, you know how it is when its at the tip of your tounge and just WONT come out!

 

[GoEagles]

Wow. What a match that would be! Like most of the comments, I have to agree the West Indies would win, solely on their batting aspect.

 

[acuguy]

I think you have to be careful when discussing this topic, australia in that era when the windies were awesome were only an average side after lillee, chappell and marsh went off the scene. I also believe that pakistan was about the same strength it is now, india is the same.
I believe we would beat the windies side of that era, over a sustained period of time, say two years, we would end up with a better record.
I don't know if our current team would be selected or we would bring in some other players, namely the ilk of martyn, cox, lehnamm
This is how our boys would go i think.
Slater: he could make or break the series, if he was able to maintain his positive mental state then he could get us off to many a flyer, though if he is not mentally prepared they could destroy him.
Hayden:i think he has now the technique to combat the windies, his biggest asset is his mental toughness, the windies would not be ablet to break his mind cause he just gives every innings his best and does not carry any failures with him.
Langer:would have the grit and the patience required also plays the horizontal bat shots very well.
M.Waugh:at this point in time would struggle against the sheer pace, five years ago, this may not bethe case. Katich would be my replacement for him, based on katich brillian horizontal bat shots and his temperament
S.Waugh:tough as nuts, would prosper just in the heat of the battle, he would make sure his troops understood the task at hand and losing is not an option
Ponting:would be similar to d.walters in his attack of the windies, again horizontal bat shots would allow him to prosper
Gilchrist:Not so sure about him, i don't know whether at this stage he would be mentally strong enough to cop the barrage. If he did the windies would be devastated with his attack.
Batting wise the tail is very important
Warne would struggle,
Gillespie would struggle
lee would struggle
mcgrath would struggle
the runs would have to be made by the batsmen

Bowling wise:McGraths line and length would hurt the free flowing west indian batsmen.
Lee and gillespie pace and agression would ensure that the west indian batsmen were continually hopping. Warne is the key, he either destroys them or they destroy him.
It is hard to compare sides, confidence is a huge factor, both sides are extremely confident and it would make a huge difference, why i side with the australians is because they really know the pain of losing, a core of them do, and that is pain can drive you to greatness, ie steve waugh.
It is so hard to compare, i just wish we could see it happen.
Go the hawks

 

[Arch]

pess-
RE : Current essendon vs 80's Hawks.

Are we playing by current rules or 80's rules ????

 

[Dipper]

The same question could be asked RE West Indies/Australia-in the 80's bowlers could deliver unlimited bouncers (which West Indies did)& they really put the shits up the opposition batsmen (especially tailenders)I remember Holding bowling in the first over to Boycott & anyone who's seen it says it was the most fearsome over ever-he bowled him 5 fast, short ones straight off before bowling him with the last ball of the over.Then there was the time that Croft bowled Boycott 11 bouncers in 14 deliveries.If that team had to play now with the restrictions on bouncers they would still be a good team but they wouldn't be a great team as they would have lost their main weapon-the fear factor.
In the Sunday Times newspaper here in England they had an article which team is the greatest-the current Aussies or the 1984 Windies & they pretty much said on a quick pitch it would be Windies & on a turner the Aussies-but they also picked a joint side-
1.Greenidge
2.Haynes
3.Langer
4.Richards
5.S.Waugh
6.Lloyd(Captain)
7.Gilchrist
8.Marshall
9.Warne
10.Holding
11.McGrath

 

[karnaby]

Good point Dipper. Different rules forms an important part of the comparison.
I heard ChapellG on this subject the other day, he highlighted the change in the number of bouncers per over, frankly I think that if the Windies of the 80s had to play by the current rules you could add a few runs to most of the better batsmen's averages.
Another change he mentioned was minimum over rates, he pointed out that in those days the Windies might bowl as few as 72 overs per day as against the present 90. There are two aspects to this: 1..It enabled them to play four quicks and enhanced their intimidation capability, 2..It built 'score board' pressure.
I'd love to see the two teams play but I'd prefer if we played to the modern rules rather than the eighties version.
Also, Dipper, re the Ashes:
don't get your hopes up, we're looking to extend our winning streak to 50!!!

 

[Drakey]

Don't forget the no. of overs they would have to bowl as well.

In the 80's the windies used to struggle to bowl 75 overs in a day.

With the 90 over rule they would either have to pick a spinner, bowl a part timer or be in the field for an extra hour + a day.

The current aussie side is as mentaly tough, is superior in the field, has a better captain, has a more balanced attack & if the top order isn't quite as strong it at least has more depth.

I'm getting very sick of people trying to put down the performances of this Australian side. Back in 84 I don't remember too many West Indian's putting down their own performances & talking about the weakness of the Aussie team due to retirements & rebel tours to South Africa.

I hope we thrash them 5 zip & f@$#% them up for the next 10 years.

 

[Arch]

giddyup drakey.

 

[frenchcutforsix]

hmmmmm ......

Exclude current injuries to Warne and Gillespie, and I think our bowlers (mcgrath,Lee, warne and gillespie) would be a very close match to the likes of malcolm marshall, garner,holding and roger harper.

Gilchrist is just as good a keeper batsman as what Dujon was, if not better.

The batting may not have the power and flair of the likes of Clive Lloyd & Viv Richards, but Steve waugh is man of steel, and Justin langer would be the match of Larry Gomes.
Maybe our opening pair (slater & whoever else is in there) dont have the same authority as greenidge and haynes, but ponting can be just as devastating as richie richards, plus hes better in the field.

its an interesting question i reckon.

Id like to make a case for us, but I think it'd be really close.

what do yez reckon ????

I thought Gillespie was one of the best bowlers I've ever seen. He had everything including a vicious leg cutter