[POLL] Was the 1983 WC F team fielded by WI the strongest ODI XI ever?

[Gollum]

Thinking about the 2003 WC F blowout reminded me of the 1983 F where we felled the then giants of cricket. We beat that team in WI earlier that year and also in the WC group match (a first in WC history...they went undefeated in 1975 and 1979). 

 

Greenidge

Haynes

King Viv

Lloyd (c)

Gomes

Bacchus

Dujon (wk)

Marshall

Roberts

Garner

Holding

 

I think it will be wise to stick to WC winning/runner-up teams because that demands mental toughness too apart from skills, firepower, tactics etc. For instance SA in this millennium often had kickass teams but can't be included in the GOAT debate because they were mentally fragile in big matches and merely masters of meaningless encounters. FFS they won their 1st ever WC KO game only in 2015 against a poor Lanka .

 

1979 WI didn't have Marshall and 1975 team was too raw. Moreover by 1983 that team had an unmistakable aura that usually decided the result even before the coin toss. I can only think of the Aus teams under Ponting that can even enter this discussion. As good as Ind, Pak, Lanka and 87/99 Aussies were they can't seriously be in the GOAT race. WI 1983 had the GOAT batsman, ATG opening pair, legendary captain, ATG keeper and most importantly the greatest pace battery for eternity - 48 overs (total 60 overs back then)  of Joel Garner, Michael Holding, Andy Roberts and Malcolm Marshall !!! The lucky ones were Gomes and Viv who would get gifts courtesy desperation of the batsmen who had no idea how to get runs in the remaining 80% of the innings. 

 

P.S: The unexpected victory of India in Lord's must surely rank among the greatest upsets across all sports. How remarkable were Kapil's Daredevils , whole greater than sum of parts, effing guts, team unity and insane self belief in the group !!!!! WI toured India after the WC and buried us dead, only reinforcing the gulf in class between the 2 teams, stars aligned in an unusual configuration that day in Lord's for a team of India's level to beat a team of WI's level. WI's overconfidence surely helped but most teams wouldn't even have dreamt of winning that day especially in the interval, Kapil and co kept faith right till the end and were justly rewarded. 

Edited June 23, 2018 by Gollum

[Gollum]

Day after tomorrow will be the 35th anniversary of that glorious triumph. Most probably later this year a Bollywood movie starring Ranveer Singh (Kapil Dev) and directed by Kabir Khan, titled '83 will hit the theatres. Hope the film does justice to the heroes who sparked a cricket revolution in this country.

 

 

[lamellavig]

19 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Day after tomorrow will be the 35th anniversary of that glorious triumph. Most probably later this year a Bollywood movie starring Ranveer Singh (Kapil Dev) and directed by Kabir Khan, titled '83 will hit the theatres. Hope the film does justice to the heroes who sparked a cricket revolution in this country.

 

 

Any team that does not include McGrath/Warne can not be classed as GOAT. hence 1999/2003 Aussies for me. McGrath/Warne were like Xavi/Iniesta: excellent philosophers and skilled players of the Pep Guardiola variety.

[Gollum]

2 minutes ago, lamellavig said:

Any team that does not include McGrath/Warne can not be classed as GOAT. hence 1999/2003 Aussies for me. McGrath/Warne were like Xavi/Iniesta: excellent philosophers and skilled players of the Pep Guardiola variety.

2003 team didn't have Warne (doping ban). 1999 team had both but also Moody and Reiffel. Besides that batting order was yet to peak, 2003 and 2007 had much better batting line ups. 1999 Aussie campaign was quite unconvincing tbh whereas in 2003 and 2007 they swept through the field. 

 

What do you think of Marshall-Garner-Roberts-Holding?

[lamellavig]

5 minutes ago, Gollum said:

2003 team didn't have Warne (doping ban). 1999 team had both but also Moody and Reiffel. Besides that batting order was yet to peak, 2003 and 2007 had much better batting line ups. 1999 Aussie campaign was quite unconvincing tbh whereas in 2003 and 2007 they swept through the field. 

 

What do you think of Marshall-Garner-Roberts-Holding?

Marshall-Garner-Roberts-Holding were very brutal and muscular indeed. However, I always think of the West Indies team as a fairly defensive team in comparison to the Aussies. The discussion is ODI but even in test cricket, the West Indies never seeked the most efficient way to win. Pep Guardiola, Xavi and Iniesta hypothesised that the most efficient way to win is the boldest, most attacking approach along with huge hunger and motivation: such a strategy multiplies the talent gap between teams.

Therefore, even on a purely philosophical basis, I go for the Aussies, who played cricket for the spectators with an attacking form of cricket and also won. 

[Gollum]

2 minutes ago, lamellavig said:

Marshall-Garner-Roberts-Holding were very brutal and muscular indeed. However, I always think of the West Indies team as a fairly defensive team in comparison to the Aussies. The discussion is ODI but even in test cricket, the West Indies never seeked the most efficient way to win. Pep Guardiola, Xavi and Iniesta hypothesised that the most efficient way to win is the boldest, most attacking approach along with huge hunger and motivation: such a strategy multiplies the talent gap between teams.

Therefore, even on a purely philosophical basis, I go for the Aussies, who played cricket for the spectators with an attacking form of cricket and also won. 

Agree that in tests Aussies were way hungrier and pushed boundaries to win matches...WI were content with draws while Aussies risked defeats to search for victories...a rare trait at that level. In fact because of their brand of attacking test cricket, red ball cricket these days features team trying to push for victories more often rather than limp dick draws..in that aspect 2000s Aussies were trendsetters.

 

But let us stick to ODI cricket here. How were Aussies aggressive and WI defensive? In ODI cricket I would argue that offensive brand of cricket entails aggressive bowling more than aggressive batting. WI always looked to get the opposition all out, the 4 quicks would continuously bowl upfront for 35 odd overs and aim to end the contest there. In case of Aussies the focus was on limiting damage rather than searching for wickets. Scorecard pressure while batting 1st and efficient chasing of moderate totals seemed to be the mantra. WI would look to bowl the opposition out no matter what. You can call Aussies more efficient because with evolution all aspects of the game tend to get more efficient, but at least in ODI cricket WI weren't defensive. Spectators would still throng to see the fearsome WI quicks in action and get viewing pleasure from Viv/Greenidge making mincemeat of bowlers. I don't quite catch the drift of philosophy you are talking about. 

[lamellavig]

6 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Agree that in tests Aussies were way hungrier and pushed boundaries to win matches...WI were content with draws while Aussies risked defeats to search for victories...a rare trait at that level. In fact because of their brand of attacking test cricket, red ball cricket these days features team trying to push for victories more often rather than limp dick draws..in that aspect 2000s Aussies were trendsetters.

 

But let us stick to ODI cricket here. How were Aussies aggressive and WI defensive? In ODI cricket I would argue that offensive brand of cricket entails aggressive bowling more than aggressive batting. WI always looked to get the opposition all out, the 4 quicks would continuously bowl upfront for 35 odd overs and aim to end the contest there. In case of Aussies the focus was on limiting damage rather than searching for wickets. Scorecard pressure while batting 1st and efficient chasing of moderate totals seemed to be the mantra. WI would look to bowl the opposition out no matter what. You can call Aussies more efficient because with evolution all aspects of the game tend to get more efficient, but at least in ODI cricket WI weren't defensive. Spectators would still throng to see the fearsome WI quicks in action and get viewing pleasure from Viv/Greenidge making mincemeat of bowlers. I don't quite catch the drift of philosophy you are talking about. 

WI were definitely one of the most attacking. I just think, even in ODIs Australia were more attacking. McGrath and Warne played for Australia. I think this is significant, because attacking cricket also involves perfectionism. McGrath, in particular was impossible to hit even if you stayed not out. For me, attacking cricket is cricket which brings you closer to a win in the most efficient manner. McGrath was literally perfectly reliable. He always looked for wickets, but he looked for wickets in a manner that he was impossible to hit. Warne, for obvious reasons, was an attacking bowler. The Aussie batting line up also had more big hitters than WI.

 

One way to explain is that the Aussies were always more imposing. They were never well beaten when McGrath and Warne played. At worst, they were always close. Whenever they lost, it was always an upset or a result of the balance of probability. 

 

The philosophy I talk about is the exact same as that espoused by Barcelona and Spain between 2008-2012. These two were the most dominant and imposing football teams of all time. 

Edited June 23, 2018 by lamellavig

[Gollum]

16 minutes ago, lamellavig said:

WI were definitely one of the most attacking. I just think, even in ODIs Australia were more attacking. McGrath and Warne played for Australia. I think this is significant, because attacking cricket also involves perfectionism. McGrath, in particular was impossible to hit even if you stayed not out. For me, attacking cricket is cricket which brings you closer to a win in the most efficient manner. McGrath was literally perfectly reliable. He always looked for wickets, but he looked for wickets in a manner that he was impossible to hit. Warne, for obvious reasons, was an attacking bowler. The Aussie batting line up also had more big hitters than WI.

 

One way to explain is that the Aussies were always more imposing. They were never well beaten when McGrath and Warne played. At worst, they were always close. Whenever they lost, it was always an upset or a result of the balance of probability. 

 

The philosophy I talk about is the exact same as that espoused by Barcelona and Spain between 2008-2012. These two were the most dominant and imposing football teams of all time. 

Applying your definition Nadal is more attacking than Federer which no one can possibly admit. Propensity to limit unforced errors even if one can't find winners is the analogy. BTW Garner was similar to Mcgrath, in fact a better ODI bowler...way harder to hit because the ball would either come at chest height or toe crushers delivered from a tree top. Mcgrath wasn't an attacking bowler by any stretch of imagination, he preferred to tease the batsmen, test the patience, make it a battle of attrition, give no loose deliveries, be consistent whole day....he was a master no doubt just like how Nadal and Carlsen are in their respective fields. Examples of  proper attacking bowlers are Marshall, Steyn, Waqar, Donald who had the ability to blow apart world class batsmen on dead tracks with their skill set, Mcgrath/Pollock/Ambrose were a different breed. 

Edited June 23, 2018 by Gollum

[Jimmy Cliff]

Their top 4 is gold but the lower middle order of Gomes/Bacchus/Dujon seems relatively weak for an ATG side. If you somehow manage to get a few early wickets including the GOAT Richards (easier said than done of course) I wouldn't worry too much about the rest of the batting. The bowling of course is extraordinary with 4 ATG pacers. Richards and Gomes are alright as the 5th/6th bowlers.

 

I think the Australian side in this game is arguably stronger just for the extra depth in batting and the presence of an ATG spinner in Warne. Although in a 2002 side I'd prefer Symonds ahead of Watson at no. 7.

 

Gilchrist +

Hayden

Ponting (c)

Martyn

Bevan

Lehmann

Watson

Warne

Lee

Gillespie

McGrath

 

They almost achieved the perfect balance here but Warne missed out thanks to his ban. Although Hogg is a pretty decent replacement.

 

Gilchrist +

Hayden

Ponting (c)

Martyn

Bevan

Lehmann

Symonds

Hogg

Lee

Gillespie

McGrath

 

 

 

[Gollum]

@Jimmy Cliff great post as always. I remember Holding was asked this question after the 2007 WC..he said with helmets Australia is better, without helmets WI . Ponting once when asked about Australia's dream ODI opponent said he would prefer to play 1996 Lanka as that was the highest level of ODI cricket he had ever seen, that cheeky b@stard trying to downplay the greatness of Aus' only true competitor, Lloyd's West Indies. 

[MechEng]

Aus of 2003/07, the greatest limited overs side ever.

 

West Indies were too reliant on Viv Richards in limited overs cricket, Australia had heavy artillery in it's ODI batting side. A great example is 2003 world game Australia vs Pakistan, Australia were 100 odd for 6 courtesy superb bowling by Wasim and Shoaib, in comes Andrew Symonds and blasts 140 taking Australia to a 300+ score. This is hard to do even in present fancy bats t20 era.

[Gollum]

25 minutes ago, MechEng said:

Aus of 2003/07, the greatest limited overs side ever.

 

West Indies were too reliant on Viv Richards in limited overs cricket, Australia had heavy artillery in it's ODI batting side. A great example is 2003 world game Australia vs Pakistan, Australia were 100 odd for 6 courtesy superb bowling by Wasim and Shoaib, in comes Andrew Symonds and blasts 140 taking Australia to a 300+ score. This is hard to do even in present fancy bats t20 era.

Had WI been in Pak's place Roy would have had to face 20 more overs of WI quick bowling , bahut kismat chale toh 180 bana dete wahaan. That WI  fast bowling was something else man, by any chance did you watch the U-19 WC in 2016 which WI won beating us in the summit clash...similar modus operandi was the hallmark of that legendary WI team. 30-40 overs of pace upfront and not just any pace..imagine Steyn, Ambrose, Bond and Donald bowling together non-stop. 

Edited June 23, 2018 by Gollum

[Jimmy Cliff]

6 hours ago, Gollum said:

@Jimmy Cliff great post as always. I remember Holding was asked this question after the 2007 WC..he said with helmets Australia is better, without helmets WI . Ponting once when asked about Australia's dream ODI opponent said he would prefer to play 1996 Lanka as that was the highest level of ODI cricket he had ever seen, that cheeky b@stard trying to downplay the greatness of Aus' only true competitor, Lloyd's West Indies. 

That's a predictable response by Holding but I can see where Ponting is coming from. Sri Lanka played like men possessed in 1996. What was amazing back then was the confidence they had going in to the tournament. There used to be a show called "The Final Countdown" hosted by Harsha Bhogle leading up to the 1996 World Cup where they eventually asked all the experts about who they thought would win the tournament. Almost all of them picked Australia with the exception of Duleep Mendis (who was the SL manager at the time IIRC) who just casually said "Of course Sri Lanka will win the World Cup!". Dude wasn't kidding.

Edited June 23, 2018 by Jimmy Cliff

[Gollum]

Poll attached, so do vote. Right now 2000s Aussies are leading 3-1. I am expecting more votes for the Aussies because most of us have grown up watching those beasts in action. Wish one day we have a similar Indian team to talk about. 

[SK_IH]

Aus of 2000s,too many match winners

 

[Moochad]

No, I think one of the Aussie teams in their consecutive cup winning streak were better. The Aussies were basically perfect, bowlers, batsmen, allrounders, WK, captain, fielding

[MechEng]

32 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Had WI been in Pak's place Roy would have had to face 20 more overs of WI quick bowling , bahut kismat chale toh 180 bana dete wahaan. That WI  fast bowling was something else man, by any chance did you watch the U-19 WC in 2016 which WI won beating us in the summit clash...similar modus operandi was the hallmark of that legendary WI team. 30-40 overs of pace upfront and not just any pace..imagine Steyn, Ambrose, Bond and Donald bowling together non-stop. 

I don't buy that WI pace hype anymore, it's getting stale now, people complain Sachin fanatics of raising him to god status but same can be said of WI bowlers who as seen as breed of superhumans, not to forget Holding's patronizing comments on wearing helmets, violence chahiye then go fight war and don't play cricket.

 

West Indies were the greatest ever in tests there is no doubt, but Australia's limited overs batting/fielding superiority was way ahead of it's time.

Edited June 23, 2018 by MechEng

[rkt.india]

14 hours ago, Gollum said:

@Jimmy Cliff great post as always. I remember Holding was asked this question after the 2007 WC..he said with helmets Australia is better, without helmets WI . Ponting once when asked about Australia's dream ODI opponent said he would prefer to play 1996 Lanka as that was the highest level of ODI cricket he had ever seen, that cheeky b@stard trying to downplay the greatness of Aus' only true competitor, Lloyd's West Indies. 

WI ODI team is/was overrated.

[Tattieboy]

14 hours ago, Gollum said:

Had WI been in Pak's place Roy would have had to face 20 more overs of WI quick bowling , bahut kismat chale toh 180 bana dete wahaan. That WI  fast bowling was something else man, by any chance did you watch the U-19 WC in 2016 which WI won beating us in the summit clash...similar modus operandi was the hallmark of that legendary WI team. 30-40 overs of pace upfront and not just any pace..imagine Steyn, Ambrose, Bond and Donald bowling together non-stop. 

I think you meant ...imagine watching faster and better than Stein, Ambrose, Bond and Donald bowling together non stop 

[rkt.india]

52 minutes ago, Tattieboy said:

I think you meant ...imagine watching faster and better than Stein, Ambrose, Bond and Donald bowling together non stop 

Yes, teams were nowhere close to modern ODI standards those day. That WI team will be thrashed big time by Aussie of 2000s.