Does the skill level in a sport go up with time?

[The Outsider]

This kinda seems to suggest as though it is the countrys' boards that have actually instructed the pitches to be made flat , bowing to corporate pressure.

Why corporate pressure? Don't the boards want to make more money?

[CC1981]

I think an attack of McGrath' date=' Warne, Gillespie, and Lee/Kasprowich/Fleming would outperform Marshall, Holding, Roberts, and Garner in more varied conditions with Warne being the deciding factor. Of course, on a fast track the WI attack would trump anything.[/quote'] Err, McGrath & Warne apart, none of the Aussie bowlers in the last 15 years would even break into the Barbados first XI, nevermind WI XI. Barbados first XI used to be Marshall-Garner-Daniel-Clarke. Gillespie at his best might come close to Daniel & Clarke but lets just say he wont get picked often ahead of Clarke or Daniel. Nevermind Fleming/Lee etc. If Gillespie/Lee/Kaspa/Fleming were 20 years older and caribbean, they'd probably never have played a test match or had one of those 10-15 match careers like Clarke/Daniel etc. WI from the 70s-90s had Roberts, Holding, Garner, Marshall, Croft, Daniel, Davis, Clarke, Walsh-Ambrose-Bishop-Patterson. Apart from Patterson, each and every one of those bowlers are superior to any Aussie not named McGrath or Warne in the last 15-20 years.

[The Outsider]

^ The proof is in the pudding. Gillespie averaged pretty much the same as Holding and Roberts on more batting friendly surfaces against batsmen with better protective wear. And what the Aussie attack would loose through Lee/Kappa/Fleming, Warne would more than make up on a 4th/5th day track.

[CC1981]

Gillespie averaged pretty much the same as Holding and Roberts on more batting friendly surfaces against batsmen with better protective wear.

Holding & Roberts bowled at much better batting lineups than Dizzy did. Dont forget too that Holding & Roberts had their greatest years ( as well as Viv) coincide with WSC- which was cricket at an extremely high level & they both dominated the scene there. Roberts and Holding came a bit before the WI pace revolution- so for a while, they(especially Roberts) were the lone gunman in the attack. But if you think that Gillespie was about as good as Holding or Roberts, i seriously doubt your cricketing knowledge. Gillespie wasnt/isnt as good as Wayne Daniel !

And what the Aussie attack would loose through Lee/Kappa/Fleming, Warne would more than make up on a 4th/5th day track.

Unlikely. WI pace-quartet is indisputably the best damn bowling attack to ever take the field and its not even close. Warne is not going to be more effective consistently than Garner. McGrath is covered by Marshall. So now its Garner & Holding vs Gillespie & Kaspa/Lee/Fleming. I call no-contest, WI wins the bowling stakes easily. Not to mention, if its the WI bowlers bowling on the 5th day, any batting lineup = dinner!

[Lurker]

I think an attack of McGrath' date=' Warne, Gillespie, and Lee/Kasprowich/Fleming would outperform Marshall, Holding, Roberts, and Garner in more varied conditions with Warne being the deciding factor. Of course, on a fast track the WI attack would trump anything.[/quote'] No way would an Australian attack of McGrath/Warne/Gillespie/Lee match a Roberts/Holding/Marshall/Garner attack. For starters it is well known that Warne's stats suffers when Mcgrath did not play. And Mcgrath himself would be hard pressed to make it into the West Indies bowling attack. Lee and Gillespie had their moments but they would not hold a candle to what was the second WI attack of the time of Sylvester Clarke, Colin Craft, Wayne Daniel. xxx

[CC1981]

I don't think people realize how potent the WI attack was. They were the only bowling attack where bench-warmers like Clarke or Daniel would be a shoo-in for ANY other test side! Clarke for eg doesnt have good test stats- primarily because he hardly got two games back to back and his career is 1 game here, 2 games 2 years later, 1 game another 3 yrs later etc. But if one is to guage how good Clarke was- consider his rebel tour to South Africa. South Africa at that time was easily the second strongest team after the WI, boasting a plethora of quality players. Barry Richards was seen as second only to Gavaskar by most of that era, Pollock was acknowledged by Bradman as one of the best lefthanders he's ever seen. Plus an allrounder like Mike Procter was equal to Imran/Botham at his peak. Yet clarke went in and nuked the Saffies on their home grounds, picking up several five-fers & i think a couple of 10-fers. Yet this bowler was a bench-warmer for most of his career. Mikey Holding is on record saying that he feared injury more than any other batsman because one injury = career may be over and you may never get another chance to play for the Windies. When a bowler of Mikey Holding's callibre makes a statement like that, its evident how ludicrous it is to compare the WI bowling with the Aussie bowling.

[The Outsider]

Holding & Roberts bowled at much better batting lineups than Dizzy did

How so? Lineups consisting of Tendulkar, Lara, Dravid, Sehwag, Laxman, Kallis, Kirsten, Inzamam etc. were as good as any from the late 70s early 80s.

Dont forget too that Holding & Roberts had their greatest years ( as well as Viv) coincide with WSC- which was cricket at an extremely high level & they both dominated the scene there.

Irrelevant. We are talking about bowling attacks fielded in test cricket on a regular basis.

Roberts and Holding came a bit before the WI pace revolution- so for a while, they(especially Roberts) were the lone gunman in the attack.

Again irrelevant. We are not comparing individual bowlers but bowling attacks. Which brings me to my next point. I had always suspected this Marshall, Holding, Garner, Roberts attack to be more of a myth than reality and a quick check on cricinfo confirmed it. They featured together in a grand total of FOUR test matches. McGrath, Warne, and Gillespie bowled together in around FIFTY test matches.

Warne is not going to be more effective consistently than Garner.

:cantstop::cantstop:

No way would an Australian attack of McGrath/Warne/Gillespie/Lee match a Roberts/Holding/Marshall/Garner attack.

Why not? Lets do the numbers.

For starters it is well known that Warne's stats suffers when Mcgrath did not play

Again, I am not comparing individual bowlers, but bowling attacks.

Lee and Gillespie had their moments but they would not hold a candle to what was the second WI attack of the time of Sylvester Clarke, Colin Craft, Wayne Daniel.

How come Gillespie's average is comparable to Holding and Roberts then in an era of much better batting tracks and protective gear. Both of you are suffering from the disease of glorifying the past beyond reason. If you claim that its your personal opinion that the WI attack was better, fine but the authoratative and universal manner in which you guys are making the claim, it needs to be backed by facts and numbers.

And Mcgrath himself would be hard pressed to make it into the West Indies bowling attack.

Sure, one of the two/three best fast bowlers of all time, would struggle to get in the WI attack.

[King]

Fielding and run rate are the only two things that has improved over the years. Just that people are used to watching Lara, Tendulkar and the likes so they don't want to see outside the pond. The great batting lines up of India and the rest have folded against the bowling of Bangladesh, Kenya and the rest consistently. No disrespect to Bangladesh but their bowling is not one of the best in the history of cricket as we all know but still the top batters come under lot of pressure and find it hard to counter such bowling. Some say batting technique has evolved but I say bull ****. These guys that are supposed to be solid cannot handle continuous barrage of bouncers or big turners. The pitches are covered, the boundaries are shortened, limit on bouncers are imposed, fielding restrictions are imposed but still these guys can't get runs consistently. Speak of improvement in batting. The bat sizes have increased, weight has reduced but run scoring has not increased by as much. As for bowling, how many great bowlers have we seen in the 90s and 2000s? You would be hard pressed to pick about 10, that's about it. The rest are simply put mediocre. I don't see any improvement in terms of bowling talent in the current crop. In fact bowling has gone down in the 90s and 2000s. The batting quality and the bowling quality have both gone down considerably in the 90s and 2000s. I don't reckon the current players are any better than the past players. Just that these guys play a lot of mindless cricket.

[CC1981]

How so? Lineups consisting of Tendulkar, Lara, Dravid, Sehwag, Laxman, Kallis, Kirsten, Inzamam etc. were as good as any from the late 70s early 80s.

Err no. Indian lineup apart, the PAK lineup, English lineup, etc. were ALL significantly stronger overall in the 70s/80s period. A batting lineup is not just one 50+ batsman - i'd say that in the early-mid90s, OZ had a better batting lineup than India, despite it not being reflected in 'pure numbers'

Irrelevant. We are talking about bowling attacks fielded in test cricket on a regular basis.

Not irrelevant. Just because the WSC supertests werent given official test status doesnt change the fact that it was tougher competition than test cricket and cricket at a higher level - everyone i've read who've played WSC says so- Viv, Imran, Garth leRoux, Roberts, etc.

Which brings me to my next point. I had always suspected this Marshall, Holding, Garner, Roberts attack to be more of a myth than reality and a quick check on cricinfo confirmed it. They featured together in a grand total of FOUR test matches. McGrath, Warne, and Gillespie bowled together in around FIFTY test matches.

Those 4 may've taken the field together very rarely but any 3 of the 4 played a LOT of cricket together with the 4th man being Colin Croft/Wayne Daniel etc.

:cantstop::cantstop:

Clearly then, you arnt familiar with Joel Garner. Sorry but its a very very close call in terms of their effectiveness.

Why not? Lets do the numbers.

Right after you do the numbers for Hayden & Gavaskar and conclude that Gavaskar was inferior. :omg_smile:

Again, I am not comparing individual bowlers, but bowling attacks.

Put it this way - the WI four-prong was considered the best ever attack fielded. Period. By a country-mile. And McWarne's Australia wasnt even the best ever Aussie attack. That should tell you how laughably short-sighted your comparison is.

How come Gillespie's average is comparable to Holding and Roberts then in an era of much better batting tracks and protective gear.

I've explained this to you but you didnt pay any attention. Gillespie has NEVER had to carry an attack all by himself, Holding & Roberts had to for a period in the early-mid 70s. Its a no-brainer that if you are the ONLY good bowler in the attack, batsmen will play you very conservatively, thus bloating up your average. This is why people in better bowling attacks end up averaging better. Plus none of Holding/Marshall got freebie wickets from mediocre batsmen like Gillespie's period.

Both of you are suffering from the disease of glorifying the past beyond reason.

Mate, to be blunt, if anyone is dumb enough to think that Gillespie is even remotely comparable to Holding/Roberts, then i must say that they have never seen Holding & Roberts bowl/ dont understand cricket one iota. Sorry but numbers too have to be used with qualification and with reason.

Sure, one of the two/three best fast bowlers of all time, would struggle to get in the WI attack.

Yes because throughout the late 70s to early 90s period, WI has fielded ATLEAST two alltime great fast bowlers ever at all times. Sometimes three, sometimes four. if Marshall himself had only two years of cricket where he felt secure in the team (his own words!), McGrath too would be fighting for his spot. I don't think you realize how much better the WI attack in those days were - one doesnt go undefeated in a series for 15 years (their entire playing careers and more!) without a jaw-dropping bowling attack. If you take the WI four-prong, the second best attack is about 60% as good. THAT is how huge the gap is !

[Lurker]

Some say batting technique has evolved but I say bull ****. These guys that are supposed to be solid cannot handle continuous barrage of bouncers or big turners. The pitches are covered, the boundaries are shortened, limit on bouncers are imposed, fielding restrictions are imposed but still these guys can't get runs consistently. Speak of improvement in batting. The bat sizes have increased, weight has reduced but run scoring has not increased by as much. As for bowling, how many great bowlers have we seen in the 90s and 2000s? You would be hard pressed to pick about 10, that's about it. The rest are simply put mediocre. I don't see any improvement in terms of bowling talent in the current crop. In fact bowling has gone down in the 90s and 2000s. The batting quality and the bowling quality have both gone down considerably in the 90s and 2000s. I don't reckon the current players are any better than the past players. Just that these guys play a lot of mindless cricket.

Hear hear! I must say one thing that ALWAYS pi$$es me off these days is the shortening of boundaries. It appears that every time you watch an International Games these days the boundary rope is about 10 yards INSIDE the ground. A far cry from 80's(or even mid 90's) when the boundary was...well the boundary. That coupled with big-ar$ed heavy bats have ensured that a miscue back in the day that would have been caught at long-on or long-off now goes for a six!! I am not sure if anyone else gets so peeved but frankly this is one development that really pi$$es me off. xxxx

[The Outsider]

Err no. Indian lineup apart, the PAK lineup, English lineup, etc. were ALL significantly stronger overall in the 70s/80s period.

Just because you say so? How is a lineup of Gavaskar, Amarnath, Viswanath better than Tendulkar, Dravid, Sehwag, and Laxman? The comparison does not even start.

Not irrelevant. Just because the WSC supertests werent given official test status doesnt change the fact that it was tougher competition than test cricket and cricket at a higher level - everyone i've read who've played WSC says so- Viv, Imran, Garth leRoux, Roberts, etc.

How are bowling attacks in the supertests relevant to bowling attacks fielded in test matches? Please explain.

Those 4 may've taken the field together very rarely but any 3 of the 4 played a LOT of cricket together with the 4th man being Colin Croft/Wayne Daniel etc.

Okay now we are talking. McGrath and Marshall were pretty much at par. The 4th cog ie. Croft/Daniel vs. Lee/Kappa were pretty much at par. Warne and Gillespie combined would be better than Holding and Garner. Warne and McGrath lay claim to being among the 4 best bowlers of all time. Only Marshall from the WI attack can lay that claim.

Gillespie has NEVER had to carry an attack all by himself, Holding & Roberts had to for a period in the early-mid 70s

Roberts debuted in '74, Holding in '75 and Garner in '76. What kind of hogwash are you trying to pass here. When were they carrying the attack all by themself? Please explain.

Clearly then, you arnt familiar with Joel Garner. Sorry but its a very very close call in terms of their effectiveness.

Garner was a superb bowler and the last thing I want to do is attack his ability or achievements but comparing him to Warne is bordering on delusional. Warne is among the two best spinners to play the game, Garner would struggle to enter the top ten pacer list.

Right after you do the numbers for Hayden & Gavaskar and conclude that Gavaskar was inferior.

Make up your mind. Was the batting inferior in the 70s-80s or the bowling? Hayden has clearly made a lot of runs on flat wickets and declined attacks, but on the same flat wickets McGrath-Warne-Gillespie-Lee/Kappa have consistently dismissed sides twice in a test match to the extent of winning 16 matches in a row once and then 12 and counting again. WI never came close.

I don't think you realize how much better the WI attack in those days were - one doesnt go undefeated in a series for 15 years (their entire playing careers and more!) without a jaw-dropping bowling attack. If you take the WI four-prong, the second best attack is about 60% as good. THAT is how huge the gap is !

Top two winning streaks of 16 and 12(and counting) test matches. Enough said. WI of the 80s both in batting and bowling were a great team, but the Aussies of the last decade are better in batting AND bowling AND as a team.

[CC1981]

The pitches are covered, the boundaries are shortened, limit on bouncers are imposed, fielding restrictions are imposed but still these guys can't get runs consistently. Speak of improvement in batting.

Yes, it pisses me off too. Which is why i drew a line at 2000/01 time-frame. That is the time when this sh!t started to happen. But none of the above (except covered pitches) is applicable to the 50s-2000 era. And really, as i said, i too have batted on uncovered pitches in local cricket- i'd rather face unprofessional guys who'd get kicked out if they bowled too fast or at my head or york me ( i consider myself a #7 batsman,so i am a tailender) on a waterlogged uncovered pitch than face Colin Croft on a road. Sorry but the latter is gonna try to kill me. That changes everything!

[CC1981]

Just because you say so? How is a lineup of Gavaskar, Amarnath, Viswanath better than Tendulkar, Dravid, Sehwag, and Laxman? The comparison does not even start.

Umm..sorry swets but read my comment properly. I said India apart...

How are bowling attacks in the supertests relevant to bowling attacks fielded in test matches? Please explain.

How would Gillespie's career be if two-three years of his top cricket was removed from the test records ?!? This is the relevance! You asked why Holding/Roberts have similar figures to the much inferior Dizzy. That is one of the most obvious reasons !

The 4th cog ie. Croft/Daniel vs. Lee/Kappa were pretty much at par.

if you think this, then you categorically have not watched Croft or Daniel bowl. They are better than Gillespie, not on par with Lee/Kaspa! Kaspa's equivalent would be Baptiste.

Warne and Gillespie combined would be better than Holding and Garner

Thats like saying Murali + Vaas > Holding + Garner. Sorry but Holding + Garner are equivalent of two McGraths.

Warne and McGrath lay claim to being among the 4 best bowlers of all time. Only Marshall from the WI attack can lay that claim.

There is *nothing* to choose from (except # of matches) between Marshall, Garner,Holding & McGrath. Nothing! I dunno which planet you reside in but Holding cannot lay claim to be as good a bowler as McGrath ? Please!! Too much short-term memory talking there !

Roberts debuted in '74, Holding in '75 and Garner in '76. What kind of hogwash are you trying to pass here. When were they carrying the attack all by themself? Please explain.

Go look up how many matches Roberts/Holding played as lone 'great' bowler.

Garner was a superb bowler and the last thing I want to do is attack his ability or achievements but comparing him to Warne is bordering on delusional. Warne is among the two best spinners to play the game, Garner would struggle to enter the top ten pacer list.

First off, anyone who thinks Garner would struggle to enter top 10 pacer list is delusional. He *IS* there. Secondly, that still doesnt mean squat- its common knowledge that there have been many many more great/world class fast bowlers than spinners. So this is a bit like 'andhey me kaanha raaja' for Warne.

Was the batting inferior in the 70s-80s or the bowling?

neither. And that is the point you are not getting !

WI never came close.

Err..the WI team was unbeaten in their LIFETIME ! That is the greatest accomplishment of all and Aussies (or any other team) have not even come close!

WI of the 80s both in batting and bowling were a great team, but the Aussies of the last decade are better in batting AND bowling AND as a team.

Joke of the year that OZ bowling was better than WI's. Its not even comprable, thats how much better WI bowling was. As i said, the second best Aussie pacer of the last 15 years would struggle to make the FC Barbados XI, nevermind WI XI in the 70s/80s. Thats how much better the WI pace bowling depth was. I am sorry but the fact that WI pace bowling attack of the 70s-early 90s was the best damn bowling attack to've ever taken the field is not disputed by *anybody* who knows their cricket. Compare their batting if you like (especially with the Gilly factor) but bowling, OZ would get owned 10 times out of 10 on every surface conceivable. You had guys like Clarke, someone who dominated a batting lineup having Rice, Richards & Pollock in their own home turf playing less than 20 matches in total! thats how deep the WI bowling lineup was. If you want a better analogy with batsman, think of WI bowling lineup of the period as a team that had Lara, Tendulkar, Andy Flower, Gavaskar in their lineup and the likes of Laxman/Martyn/Mark Waugh were bench-warmers. That my friend, was the depth of WI bowling from late 70s to early-mid 90s.

[The Outsider]

Umm..sorry swets but read my comment properly. I said India apart...

Pakistan and England were better then. NZ and India are better lately. Australia then was better than WI lately. Plus there are two new factors in Sri Lanka and South Africa now, who have had some really classy batsmen the Aussies have bowled to. I don't know how you are claiming there were better batsmen then.

How would Gillespie's career be if two-three years of his top cricket was removed from the test records ?!? This is the relevance! You asked why Holding/Roberts have similar figures to the much inferior Dizzy. That is one of the most obvious reasons

No its not relevant. We are comparing Gillespie/Holding/Roberts for what their records are when they played test cricket. If Holding and Roberts played WSC then they did not bowl in test matches. We are comparing ONLY test attacks that entered the ground and not how Holding/Roberts careers would have panned out if they did not play WSC.

Sorry but Holding + Garner are equivalent of two McGraths.

:cantstop::cantstop:

There is *nothing* to choose from (except # of matches) between Marshall, Garner,Holding & McGrath. Nothing!

Only Marshall and McGrath have a record without blemish. Garner averaged 40+ against India and Holding averaged 50 in NZ.

I dunno which planet you reside in but Holding cannot lay claim to be as good a bowler as McGrath

McGrath outperforms Holding against EVERY opponent and in EVERY country including WI on flatter tracks with batsmen having more protective gear. Holding did not play a SINGLE test against one of the better sides of his times ie. Pakistan. Its delusional to mention the two in the same breath.

Go look up how many matches Roberts/Holding played as lone 'great' bowler.

You tell me. You made the claim.

First off, anyone who thinks Garner would struggle to enter top 10 pacer list is delusional

Alright then, lets have your top 10 list.

Err..the WI team was unbeaten in their LIFETIME ! That is the greatest accomplishment of all and Aussies (or any other team) have not even come close!

Never beaten in a series, fine. If their attack was so much better why did they not set up test match winning streaks like Australia and take 20 wickets to win more matches. PS : I have never claimed Gillespie as a better head to head bowler than Holding. The debate is of the entire attack and how the different guys fit in, but the way you guys are pitting him against Jamaican XI and second string WI attack is laughable.

[CC1981]

NZ and India are better lately.

India perhaps. NZ ? No way. Turner + Crowe + hadlee + Wight etc = easily (easily i say again) better than Flemmo-Astle-nobody-nobody.

Plus there are two new factors in Sri Lanka and South Africa now, who have had some really classy batsmen the Aussies have bowled to. I don't know how you are claiming there were better batsmen then.

Overall quality of the batting lineups they faced was superior.

We are comparing Gillespie/Holding/Roberts for what their records are when they played test cricket.

Pretty dumb excuse to discard WSC games just because ICC was too ticked off at Packer to grant it test status. When the best 2-3 years of your performance are dropped, your 'stats' will obviously suffer.

:cantstop::cantstop:

Funny to you perhaps but true nonetheless. There is hardly any difference between Holding,Garner & McGrath except for the fact that McGrath got to play a lot more tests in his 12 year career than Holding/Garner.

Only Marshall and McGrath have a record without blemish. Garner averaged 40+ against India and Holding averaged 50 in NZ.

Blind stats only go so far without knowledge. I hope you realize that the series in NZ where Holding had such bad figures, the kiwi umpires openly colluded against the WI to MAKE them lose. Even Wight was embarassed about that series- noball called after stumps shatter, wide called depite nick, etc etc. Again, watch tht series before just simply playing the numbers game. Number-wise, Hayden is a better bat than Lara. But anyone with an iota of cricketing knowledge knows how ridiculous that sounds.

McGrath outperforms Holding against EVERY opponent and in EVERY country including WI on flatter tracks with batsmen having more protective gear. Holding did not play a SINGLE test against one of the better sides of his times ie. Pakistan. Its delusional to mention the two in the same breath.

I am sure then you have not watched Holding bowl or his one-man demolition job on one of the flattest wickets ever taking 15 in the test. Sorry but almost every team Holding bowled to, barring India, had way better batting lineup than McGrath bowled to. PAK were one of the better sides but that was down to their bowlin, not their batting. I'd grant that McGrath is better than Holding but they are very very close. Hell, everyone in the top 10 pacer's list is very close to each other. If Marshall were to be given a 99, then the #10 is sitting at 90+ zone too. And Holding most definitely is one of the ten greatest pacers ever. It is mindless number-crunching without any understanding of the game or watching the game that can lead to such ludicrous conclusions as McGrath is way better than Holding.

You tell me. You made the claim.

Quite a few.

Alright then, lets have your top 10 list.

In no particular order : Marshall, Holding, Garner, Ambrose, McGrath, Imran,Wasim, Trueman, Lillee, Davidson Note: I consider the gap between #1 and #10 to be no more than 5% at best.

If their attack was so much better why did they not set up test match winning streaks like Australia and take 20 wickets to win more matches.

a) Scheduling was quite awry back then. MANY more tests lost to rain-affected delays due to poor planning b) No 'minimum overs' or over-rate stuff. WI lost out a LOT of times when the opposition bowled like six seven overs per hr for the last session's play.

[CC1981]

I have never claimed Gillespie as a better head to head bowler than Holding. The debate is of the entire attack and how the different guys fit in, but the way you guys are pitting him against Jamaican XI and second string WI attack is laughable.

never said jamaica XI- i said Barbados XI. And no, its not laughable - Barbados XI had Marshall, Garner, Clarke & Daniel as their regular four bowlers. Since Gillespie is about Daniel's level in skill, he'd very much struggle to break into the Barbados XI, nevermind WI XI. As per the 'fitting in' aspect goes, its all fine and dandy when you compare comparable bowlers. A wasim for a holding because he fits in better or a Hadlee for a McGrath makes sense. Gillespie is not a better choice under any condition than Holding because it'll be like saying you wanna exchange Tendulkar for Hayden in the ODIs. Sorry but to think that anyone would even consider Gillespie comparable to any of : Holding, Garner, Marshall, Roberts, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop (pre-injury) & Croft is just as silly as thinking that Vaas is a comparable bowler to McGrath. If you want to compare Gillespie, look no further than Vaas/Gough/Fraser/deVilliers/Rodney Hogg/McDermott etc. Anyways, i see where it is going - you are the 'stats' man who thinks stats determines who is a better player. Sorry but that is simply not true & i dont wish to debate further with a person who thinks Gillespie + Warne = Garner + Holding. That is so laughable !

[Ram]

I honestly feel the hype about the W.Indian attack of the 70's/80's is as much a myth as it is a reality. I may not have seen those guys in action , but i have seen enough cricket to know that it doesnt get too better than Mcgrath+Warne+Gillespie. CC probably has seen the WI bowlers in action and maybe that is the reason he backs them so much , but i cant imagine a better cricketing team ever , compared to the present Aussie team..

[The Outsider]

India perhaps. NZ ? No way. Turner + Crowe + hadlee + Wight etc = easily (easily i say again) better than Flemmo-Astle-nobody-nobody.

Don't agree. But let's move on.

Overall quality of the batting lineups they faced was superior.

How so? The South African batting lineup was certainly better than Pakistan's of that time and the Sri Lankan one was pretty handy as well specially in Sri Lanka.

Pretty dumb excuse to discard WSC games just because ICC was too ticked off at Packer to grant it test status. When the best 2-3 years of your performance are dropped, your 'stats' will obviously suffer.

Even if you count those 2-3 years they will only count on the bowler's personal stats not as part of particular attacks we are talking about. Irrelevant.

Blind stats only go so far without knowledge. I hope you realize that the series in NZ where Holding had such bad figures, the kiwi umpires openly colluded against the WI to MAKE them lose. Even Wight was embarassed about that series- noball called after stumps shatter, wide called depite nick, etc etc.

Yes, the umpiring in that series was p!ss poor, but the WI umpires were no saints. Don't you remember the barrage of beamers aimed at the Indian batsmen allowed to go without rebuke after India had chased down 400+ and were 200/1 in the next test?

Number-wise, Hayden is a better bat than Lara. But anyone with an iota of cricketing knowledge knows how ridiculous that sounds.

I am not talking purely numbers, in case you failed to notice. You are the one who is giving something as fundamental as average zero regard because of romanticism for the WI pace quartet.

I am sure then you have not watched Holding bowl or his one-man demolition job on one of the flattest wickets ever taking 15 in the test.

And did you watch the 281 Laxman made in an innings of the century. Surely, that one innings makes him comparable to Lara?

Quite a few.

Some ballpark figure?

Marshall, Holding, Garner, Ambrose, McGrath, Imran,Wasim, Trueman, Lillee, Davidson

:cantstop::cantstop: No Hadlee, Pollock, and Donald!!!!

a) Scheduling was quite awry back then. MANY more tests lost to rain-affected delays due to poor planning

Not true. Tests were played in the same cricket seasons of all countries.

b) No 'minimum overs' or over-rate stuff. WI lost out a LOT of times when the opposition bowled like six seven overs per hr for the last session's play.

:cantstop::cantstop: Alibagh ka samjha hai kya? The WI quartet over rate was the most pathetic EVER witnessed in the history of cricket. Seldom did they bowl more than 70 overs thereby killing their own team's chances of a win. That is where someone like Warne would pull the Aussie attack above WI. Here is another interesting stat : In the last 10 years, with McGrath-Warne-Gillespie featuring 450+ scores have been made against Australia on 6 occasions in 126 test matches. From 1980-1990, a similar 10 year period 450+ was made on 7 occasions against WI featuring 3 out of 4 of Marshall-Holding-Garner-Roberts in 82 tests. Does the above tell you something?

[The Outsider]

CC probably has seen the WI bowlers in action and maybe that is the reason he backs them so much

I have seen more of the WI quartet than CC. They were superb, fierce, awesome but when it comes to effectiveness and taking wickets McGrath-Warne-Gillespie take the honours.

[CC1981]

I honestly feel the hype about the W.Indian attack of the 70's/80's is as much a myth as it is a reality

Two words: Watch them. if you watch even one full sessions of four-prong bowling, comparisons with ANY other bowling attack will seem ridiculous- even if you pick WI vs India in India.

but i have seen enough cricket to know that it doesnt get too better than Mcgrath+Warne+Gillespie.

In the last 10 years, yes you are correct. But lets just say, i am really not kidding when i say Gillespie would have to fight for a spot in Barbados XI, nevermind WI XI. Barbados already had Garner & Marshall - both a country mile better than Gillespie. Then there is Clarke, who i rate as better than any pacer today with McGrath's retirement. Hell, even if i were to pick on basis of last 5 years, i'd still say Sylvester Clarke was good enough to be top 3 pacers in the last 5 years. Yet this guy played less than 15 matches. THAT is how deep the WI bowling lineup was. Wayne Daniel, Winston Davis etc. were about even-keel with Gillespie. Oh and do not forget Bishop - before he literally broke his back (not stress fracture, he had complete fracturing of the spine!) he was a better bowler than Ambrose was. Don't believe me ? Watch Bishop bowl pre 1992. He was a carbon copy of Ambrose except he bowled at a faster speed & his balls swung a long way. People think Waqar pre-injury was special, well Bishop was almost as good as Waqar pre-injury before he too got injured.