Which was man to man the strongest team ever to play in the cricket world cup ?

[putrevus]

6 hours ago, rkt.india said:

Nah. Aussie batting was just too strong especially against pace.  Aussie bowling attack was even better.

That WI pace attack would demolish Aussies anywhere and Aussie attack with even Mcgrath would not even come close to that WI attack.

 

If guy like Lee is ATG  great bowler then all the West Indies fast bowlers were 100 times better than him.

[putrevus]

1 hour ago, rkt.india said:

I don't think any of them was even close to Bond. Shane Bond was just a special bowler if not for his injuries.

Are you kidding me,Shane Bond while being great was nothing compared to those WI bowlers. If one Shane Bond is special try dealing with 4 of him.

[Suhaan]

20 minutes ago, SK_IH said:

you are at it again. how can someone be on his last legs when he is in prime form. 

Just as some say Sachin was in his last legs in 2011 wc,this is debatable ,see Dhawan too was going great guns last year but suddenly his form has gone south, Gilchrist didn't either have a outstanding wc then,his decline started before the marque event

One can downplay teams by just saying few players from those sides werw on last legs

2003 Auss team too had Bevan,Lehmann on their last legs,this is debatable ,there are players who hit peak form for a brief period then start declining at a rapid rate

2011 team had Sehwag,Sachin,Zaheer,Bhajji all of them on their last legs,but didn't perform hopelessly in that wc,infact bhajji was  out of the reckoning right after wc 11

[Gollum]

Lloyd's ODI strategy those days even on flat Indian pitches was to bombard the opposition with high quality pace for the 1st 30 overs, no respite. Reduce the other team to 100/6 and then give the ball to Viv/Gomes. Without the best batsmen and after so much pressure the remaining batsmen would try to compensate by attacking the 5th bowler, only to lose another flurry of wickets, Gomes had better bowling average than Warne as a result while King Viv had 2 5fers . Then the return of the quicks to finish the innings, predictable pattern repeated day in, day out. You think there is a counter for that? Sure the legendary Aussie team would have developed its own method and we would witness epic encounters with both sides trading blows. But to see few posters say that WI would have no chance is ridiculous. 

 

The one time I noted a similar strategy and quality was at U-19 level, again by the WI team. I followed their SF and F in the 2016 U-19 WC in Bangladesh. For that level they had an outstanding pace battery and their captain used the best quicks upfront for 30-35 overs without showing the spinner or weak link. It was like a boxing KO with fate of the match decided early. 

Edited March 28, 2019 by Gollum

[putrevus]

^^^ I don't think it was a strategy to bowl spinners. If I am not wrong they had to bowl spinners after certain number of overs in those days.Australia and England came up with so many restrictions since they controlled ICC those days to reduce the menace of that pace bowling attack.

Even in 1983 world cup finals the spinners completed their overs while the fast bowlers did not finish their quotas. 

 

Greg Chappell who is rated higher than any 2000s Aussie batsman was made to look like utter novice by that attack.

 

Edited March 28, 2019 by putrevus

[rkt.india]

1 hour ago, putrevus said:

Are you kidding me,Shane Bond while being great was nothing compared to those WI bowlers. If one Shane Bond is special try dealing with 4 of him.

You don't understand. I meant there was no one close to him on his day in his prime. No one. None. And there have been plenty good and great bowlers bowlers even after those WI Pacers. None compares to prime Bond on his day.  None. Very difficult to call 80s ODI bowlers great or better than modern ODI bowlers because ODIs were still in their nascent age in those days.  Batsmen lacked safety gears and less batting friendly rules. 200 was winning total most of the time. Most batsmen had SR in 60s.

[rkt.india]

1 hour ago, Gollum said:

Lloyd's ODI strategy those days even on flat Indian pitches was to bombard the opposition with high quality pace for the 1st 30 overs, no respite. Reduce the other team to 100/6 and then give the ball to Viv/Gomes. Without the best batsmen and after so much pressure the remaining batsmen would try to compensate by attacking the 5th bowler, only to lose another flurry of wickets, Gomes had better bowling average than Warne as a result while King Viv had 2 5fers . Then the return of the quicks to finish the innings, predictable pattern repeated day in, day out. You think there is a counter for that? Sure the legendary Aussie team would have developed its own method and we would witness epic encounters with both sides trading blows. But to see few posters say that WI would have no chance is ridiculous. 

 

The one time I noted a similar strategy and quality was at U-19 level, again by the WI team. I followed their SF and F in the 2016 U-19 WC in Bangladesh. For that level they had an outstanding pace battery and their captain used the best quicks upfront for 30-35 overs without showing the spinner or weak link. It was like a boxing KO with fate of the match decided early. 

And this strategy won't work today because batsmen can smash any bowler these days express pace or not.

[Gollum]

6 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

And this strategy won't work today because batsmen can smash any bowler these days express pace or not.

Like how we smashed Cummins in the recent series 

[rkt.india]

1 hour ago, putrevus said:

That WI pace attack would demolish Aussies anywhere and Aussie attack with even Mcgrath would not even come close to that WI attack.

 

If guy like Lee is ATG  great bowler then all the West Indies fast bowlers were 100 times better than him.

Lee is ATG because he has phenomenal ODI stats in a batting friendly era where you had batsmen scoring 100s in less than 40 balls. 380 wickets in 221 matches. Better wicket per game ratio than even Akram and McGrath, garner, Holding. Marshall doesn't even come close with ODI bowling average of 27 and SR of 45. Only bowler with more than 250 wickets close anywhere close to Brett Lee is Allan Donald. Brett Lee probably has the best SR among fast bowlers over 200 ODI wickets. He is up there one of the top three ODI bowlers with McGrath and Wasim.

 

And You are talking about 80s where batsmen batted at SR in 60s. It's very difficult to take ODI fast bowlers of 80s seriously where ODIs were just a shorter version of test matches most of the time.

[rkt.india]

7 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Like how we smashed Cummins in the recent series 

Good bowlers bound to have good days but every bowler gets thrashed in modern LOI cricket. No one is spared. Good bowlers will have less bad days than others but they will have those bad days.

[rkt.india]

2 hours ago, Gollum said:

Marshall was overall GOAT, Garner was ODI GOAT, Roberts averaged 20, Holding 21. Not even close you say , but then again you are one of those who will say the Earth is flat just for the sake of arguing.

When all 4 are of such high calibre, rest assured even on normal days they will be very difficult to deal with. 

Again just for the sake of arguing. Different rules those days with red cherries, liberal bouncer rule, long boundaries, no free hits, relaxed fielding restrictions etc, openers were required to survive the initial overs like test cricket. A maverick like Srikkanth had SR 72 as opener. Their SR is no worse than Hayden's if you take the era into account. But if you want to go down that route this Indian batting line up will be superior to the 2000s Australian one based on stats alone. You agree with that?

 

Yeah they could destroy Indian spinners in India across formats, but Hogg would be their nemesis. Makes total sense. 

Srikanth had average in 20s, Hayden in 40s. Srikanth was India's poor man's Afridi.  and Marshal was test ATG. not great in ODIs with SR of 45 and average of 27.

Edited March 28, 2019 by rkt.india

[putrevus]

29 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

You don't understand. I meant there was no one close to him on his day in his prime. No one. None. And there have been plenty good and great bowlers bowlers even after those WI Pacers. None compares to prime Bond on his day.  None. Very difficult to call 80s ODI bowlers great or better than modern ODI bowlers because ODIs were still in their nascent age in those days.  Batsmen lacked safety gears and less batting friendly rules. 200 was winning total most of the time. Most batsmen had SR in 60s.

Safety gear was there in 1980s. The uniqueness of those 1980s WI fast bowlers was all them were tall except Marshall.They were all 90 MPH and more. Garner would be the best bowler in all shorter formats in any era. The bounce he could extract from short of good length will be nightmare for any batsman.

 

Shane Bond in his so called prime was not better than Marshall in tests and Garner in odis nor he was quicker than Holding in his prime. Walsh ended up with most wickets for a WI bowler but he was not better than any of those 1980s WI bowlers.

 

Batting friendly conditions don't matter they would be a nightmare even on the flattest wickets. People are underestimating the effect of constant bombarding of pace with accuracy.

 

SR was by product in the era they played and also targets they were chasing.It is not an indication of their talent.The same WI team could score 337 in 47 overs in 1983 batting first.

 

I don't care what batting line up from Bradman to Kohli no one would be able to beat that 1983 WI team in a series.You are saying Aussie team is better, are you kidding me they would beat that Aussie team to pulp.

 

 

Edited March 28, 2019 by putrevus

[putrevus]

14 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

Lee is ATG because he has phenomenal ODI stats in a batting friendly era where you had batsmen scoring 100s in less than 40 balls. 380 wickets in 221 matches. Better wicket per game ratio than even Akram and McGrath, garner, Holding. Marshall doesn't even come close with ODI bowling average of 27 and SR of 45. Only bowler with more than 250 wickets close anywhere close to Brett Lee is Allan Donald. Brett Lee probably has the best SR among fast bowlers over 200 ODI wickets. He is up there one of the top three ODI bowlers with McGrath and Wasim.

 

And You are talking about 80s where batsmen batted at SR in 60s. It's very difficult to take ODI fast bowlers of 80s seriously where ODIs were just a shorter version of test matches most of the time.

Who cares about SR, do you seriously think Brett Lee is ATG and better than those WI bowlers.

[rkt.india]

1 minute ago, putrevus said:

Who cares about SR, do you seriously think Brett Lee is ATG and better than those WI bowlers.

Yes, in ODIs. You are mixing up test matches. Those were better test bowlers but not better ODI bowlers. Now you dont care about SR but when it will suit your argument, you will start caring about it.  Even if you dont care about SR his average of 23 in combination of than SR and that more wickets per game ratio than anyone in history is what makes him an ODI ATG.

[rkt.india]

6 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Safety gear was there in 1980s. The uniqueness of those 1980s WI fast bowlers was all them were tall except Marshall.They were all 90 MPH and more. Garner would be the best bowler in all shorter formats in any era. The bounce he could extract from short of good length will be nightmare for any batsman.

 

Shane Bond in his so called prime was not better than Marshall in tests and Garner in odis nor he was quicker than Holding in his prime. Walsh ended up with most wickets for a WI bowler but he was not better than any of those 1980s WI bowlers.

 

Batting friendly conditions don't matter they would be a nightmare even on the flattest wickets. People are underestimating the effect of constant bombarding of pace with accuracy.

 

SR was by product in the era they played and also targets they were chasing.It is not an indication of their talent.The same WI team could score 337 in 47 overs in 1983 batting first.

 

I don't care what batting line up from Bradman to Kohli no one would be able to beat that 1983 WI team in a series.You are saying Aussie team is better, are you kidding me they would beat that Aussie team to pulp.

 

 

Did you measure Holding to say he was quicker than Bond in his prime? 1979 fast bowler competition says something else.  Even if you talk about tests, Bond has an average of 22 and SR of 38 with 14 4+ wickets hauls in just 18 tests. Had he lasted longer, he would have been one of the top ATGs in both formats.

[putrevus]

1 minute ago, rkt.india said:

Did you measure Holding to say he was quicker than Bond in his prime? 1979 fast bowler competition says something else.  Even if you talk about tests, Bond has an average of 22 and SR of 38 with 14 4+ wickets hauls in just 18 tests. Had he lasted longer, he would have been one of the top ATGs in both formats.

I don't need measure. Batsmen who were well adapt in facing fast bowling have lined up and swore about their effectiveness. Who cares about fast bowling competition. Read about nightmares of batsmen like Greg Chappell.

 

Shane bond is one guy these guys were four.That is what people like you are not understanding.When as a batsmen you have no outlet to score over after over, session after session it becomes a nightmare.You are taking just about pace but these guys were not just about pace , it was pace with bounce to go along with accuracy. I don't know if there is a video on youtube but I remember Greg Chappell was talking about the effect these bowlers were having on his mental state.

 

No Australian team of 2000s posed that challenge.

[putrevus]

18 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

Yes, in ODIs. You are mixing up test matches. Those were better test bowlers but not better ODI bowlers. Now you dont care about SR but when it will suit your argument, you will start caring about it.  Even if you dont care about SR his average of 23 in combination of than SR and that more wickets per game ratio than anyone in history is what makes him an ODI ATG.

Brett Lee was not better than them in any format. SR did not matter because they were chasing mostly subpar totals. Why are you assuming WI batsmen would not increase SR if they were playing today.

 

WI batsmen even today have the most power than any other batsmen from any team. 

 

 

[R!TTER]

Aus 2003 - we had the second best WC streak IIRC, yet weren't close to beating them in 2 games. That team won without Warne, Gillespie & a record 21 matches in a row over 3 continents! Call me partial but that team was by far the best ever LO monster, kinda like peak WI test side circa 1983.

Edited March 28, 2019 by R!TTER

[Tattieboy]

2 hours ago, rkt.india said:

Srikanth had average in 20s, Hayden in 40s. Srikanth was India's poor man's Afridi.  and Marshal was test ATG. not great in ODIs with SR of 45 and average of 27.

Just as a matter of interest , did you see the 70s 80s West Indies team?

[Gollum]

2 hours ago, rkt.india said:

Srikanth had average in 20s, Hayden in 40s. Srikanth was India's poor man's Afridi. 

I was making a point about how openers then generally operated at lower SR.

As batsman Srikkanth>Afridi LOL

2 hours ago, rkt.india said:

 

and Marshal was test ATG. not great in ODIs with SR of 45 and average of 27.

Great in ODIs too, stats-wise like Imran. Maybe not ATG. What does it tell you when Marshall is a weak link in a pace quartet ? What to do with the other 3?