Paying tribute to great teams of WI and Australia

[putrevus]

The recent debacles of two former no1 teams England and India have shown how hard it is to remain on mountain top. The constant grind and skills required to face new challenges and not to be satisfied by just attaining no1 ranking.The ruthlessness needed by the captains to motivate their teams. Captains like Clive Lloyd and Steve Waugh deserve lot of credit for creating that winning atmosphere and pushing their teams greater heights.Those teams were almost robotic in their execution.They both lead their teams with performances on the field unlike some captains. For Indian team, they reached their pinnacle by winning world cup in April last year then some seniors who had worked so hard all their life should have walked away.It would have infused new talent and hunger in the team but that did not happen now it is full scale rebuilding process.

[ravishingravi]

I still think India was a better team than England as No.1 Yes, I know it is shocking statement considering I never bought into the tenability of India's No.1 ranking when everyone was going gaga here. But I genuinely do believe that if Indian cricket team and board had its priorities right after the WC, the story would have been quite different. England is really losing to very sub standard test teams.

[putrevus]

I still think India was a better team than England as No.1 Yes, I know it is shocking statement considering I never bought into the tenability of India's No.1 ranking when everyone was going gaga here. But I genuinely do believe that if Indian cricket team and board had its priorities right after the WC, the story would have been quite different. England is really losing to very sub standard test teams.

I agree England is far worse no1 team than India.The big difference between England and Indian team is age Indian team was aging fast when it reached that status unless the youth which Indians tried to infuse in spurts came good right away it was tough to maintain it. Indian cricketers to some extent are overworked with this IPL nonsense and non stop cricket without giving them proper rest to recuperate. England team has no such excuse their team is not that old nor is over worked.

[akshayxyz]

In other words, its an indicator that the scenario is much more competitive now.

[Sid]

In other words' date=' its an indicator that the scenario is much more competitive now.[/quote'] No,it only shows every team is a home bully now and pu$$ies away.

[vvvslaxman]

In other words' date=' its an indicator that the scenario is much more competitive now.[/quote'] ONly because lot of teams are in transition phase now. England just cashed it on. India had a solid side in the 2000s. South Africa also had very good side with Donald/Pollock playing.

[saneindian]

Were WI of the 80s really as great in the sub continent? Yes, they did not lose a series here for 15-16 years, but all they did was win one series in India in 1983. Barring that they drew in 87 and '94, could not beat Pakistan in Pakistan in two attempts, did not play SL in the 80s but when they did in early 90s, could not beat them either. And they did not win an away series in NZ either.

[putrevus]

South Africa always had very good sides .Their only problem was they lacked mental edge which Aussies had and they were/are big time chokers in big spots.

[Cricket Tragic]

Would anyone like to name the tests where SA have "choked"? Australia have choked many more times in tests.

[saneindian]

Would anyone like to name the tests where SA have "choked"? Australia have choked many more times in tests.

That Kanpur test in 2008. They cried about the pitch but the fact is they won the toss, were on 150 for 1 on day 1 looking very comfortable having thumped us in the previous test by an innings. Should really have seized it from there, but crumbledto 265 all out. When we batted we were 100 for 4 or 5 down, our tail wagged , gave us a lead of 50-60 runs (last wicket added 45 of those). Should ideally have won that test and the series, we were without Sachin, Kumble and Zaheer. Yet SA let us win that test. The Eden test of 2010 series would also be quite similar. Thrashed us at Nagpur by an innings, won the toss at Eden, were 200-1 on day 1, crumbled to 290 and then lost the test from there on.

[singhprakash72]

Were WI of the 80s really as great in the sub continent? Yes, they did not lose a series here for 15-16 years, but all they did was win one series in India in 1983. Barring that they drew in 87 and '94, could not beat Pakistan in Pakistan in two attempts, did not play SL in the 80s but when they did in early 90s, could not beat them either. And they did not win an away series in NZ either.

I think WI did win a series in Pak around early 80s but yes they failed to win in NZ throughout 80s. But the point is they were never blanked by opposition 4-0 or 3-0 after reaching # 1 status...they were quite formidable in SC as well as Aus-Eng. The other thing in 80s was I think Pakistan was the only strong side they faced the rest Aus,Eng,Ind,NZ were not a their best besides SA still not playing Test cricket.

[akshayxyz]

No' date='it only shows [b']every team is a home bully now and pu$ away.

That is what. Being able to make best use of home conditions is the first step towards competitive stage.

[saneindian]

I think WI did win a series in Pak around early 80s but yes they failed to win in NZ throughout 80s. But the point is they were never blanked by opposition 4-0 or 3-0 after reaching # 1 status...they were quite formidable in SC as well as Aus-Eng. The other thing in 80s was I think Pakistan was the only strong side they faced the rest Aus' date=Eng,Ind,NZ were not a their best besides SA still not playing Test cricket.

That not the debate. I have always read how the WI dominated everywhere in the 80s when they did not win in Pakistan, SL or in NZ.

[The Outsider]

The general standard of test cricket has gone down, which makes the dominance of West Indies and Australia even more commendable. Currently, there is just one bowler - Steyn - playing the game who would be a certainty in an all time great list of bowlers. During the period of dominance of Australia and West Indies at least half the teams could boast of one if not two all time great bowlers. Similar is the case with batting. The last group of batsmen who would be in the running for an all time great position debuted a good 10 years back. Yeah, they are still around but since then there is not a single batsman who is that special player. There are some very good players like DeVilliers, Amla, Clarke but they've played enough so we can be sure that they are not going to be someone in the league of Gavaskar, Richards, Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting etc.

[putrevus]

That not the debate. I have always read how the WI dominated everywhere in the 80s when they did not win in Pakistan' date=' SL or in NZ.[/quote'] They normally never toured sub continent with full teams those days as they got more money playing country cricket or in Australia .In 1975 they were rebuilding and yet beat India 3-2 and in 1978 that was second string team as main players were playing with Kerry Packer in Australia. The only time they toured India with full squad under Clive Lloyd was in 1983 and they thumped India and They beat Pakistan also in Pakistan.New Zealand is one place they never won under Lloyd. Srlianka was a minnow when WI was power house I don't think they ever played a test there under Lloyd or Richards. Winning in NZ and Pakistan was always hard in those days due to home umpiring.There were no 90 over/day regulations then other wise they could have won lot more matches. They were not just winning matches but they were so intimidating also.Aussies and Pommies who were ruling ICC then came up with bouncer rules and prepared spinning tracks just to escape wrath of their fast bowlers couple of matches in series. Guys like Wayne Daniel or Colin Craft who did not find constant spots in playing 11 would comfortably be best fast bowlers today on any team.It was like giant fast bowling factory then for them one after another they found lethal bowlers who never had many chances of playing for WI most of them are legends in county cricket.

[jairamesh]

Let's not get overboard, I rate WIndies side of 1980 highly but nothing special. They were basically best of very small bunch of average teams (England & Australia). India were hopeless abroad, Pakis cheated, NZ was same as NZ today, SL were a newbie, South Africa was banned. The Aussie side of 00s was the best to date, miles ahead of the WIndies 1980s.

[GautiMaan]

Were WI of the 80s really as great in the sub continent? Yes, they did not lose a series here for 15-16 years, but all they did was win one series in India in 1983. Barring that they drew in 87 and '94, could not beat Pakistan in Pakistan in two attempts, did not play SL in the 80s but when they did in early 90s, could not beat them either. And they did not win an away series in NZ either.

I found this article on cricinfo,that might clear a few things up http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/538627.html

[singhprakash72]

I think Aus and WI were definitely both dominating sides of their times ...the question is how much and against what kind of opposition. Aussies seem to be more methodical and operated like a well oiled machine annihilating any opposition home or away. In terms of their opposition only SA was worthwhile. For West Indies it was ruthless unrelenting pace attack and aggressive batting line which was quite intimidating to opposition. The opposition in 80s to WI were non except Pakistan that had a decent attack and good batting lineup. If you go purely by numbers/stats then Aussies will definitely show up higher due to 3 WCs, Victories in SC, SA and Eng..they were virtually unstoppable !!!

[jairamesh]

I think Aus and WI were definitely both dominating sides of their times ...the question is how much and against what kind of opposition. Aussies seem to be more methodical and operated like a well oiled machine annihilating any opposition home or away. In terms of their opposition only SA was worthwhile. For West Indies it was ruthless unrelenting pace attack and aggressive batting line which was quite intimidating to opposition. The opposition in 80s to WI were non except Pakistan that had a decent attack and good batting lineup. If you go purely by numbers/stats then Aussies will definitely show up higher due to 3 WCs' date= Victories in SC, SA and Eng..they were virtually unstoppable !!!

You having a laff!, :hysterical: The Aussies owned the Saffers through 1996 to 2008. Saffers wilted like hob-nobs dipped in a cup of tea every-time they faced Australia.

[Chalks]

Australia had a bit of X-factor - the likes of the Waughs, Warne, McGrath and Gilchrist - and almost always played to win. Safrica were more a grinding, clinical, mechanical, "by numbers" team. This approach worked against lesser teams, but always brought them unstuck against Oz. India did better against Oz relatively (until the recently completed series) because we had a few genuine game-breakers. If SRT didn't get 'em, somebody else (usually VVS) would. Oz won in India in 04 because they did their homework on us, and figured out a way to neutralise our strengths. Oz were flexible - they could demolish the opposition, or they could grind out results Safrica style (like in India in 04) when they had to.