>Well.... no. The Australian attack would have been something like
>Lillee/Thomson/Walker/Mallett with Walters as a back up. I'm actually
>English, and the only times we have played four ***s (except
>somewhere like Headingley - i.e. seaming pitches) we've been slaughtered.
>It didn't work in 32/3 either.
Does it matter the actual makeup of the Aus attack ? The fact
is...Lille and Thompson blasted most of the opposition bats away. Not
done with any aesthetic that was any different from the WI. And if you
chose too, there was alot to admire about the actual difference
between the quartet of WI bowlers. But as they say the antelope sees
the meal with the lion from a particularly painful point of view.
>>Hell...all sides that have
>>a homogeneous attack that works..can be boringly efficient. Guess
>>what...even in this era of faked entertainment based on the value
>>system that says 90 overs being bowled means that it HAS to be better
>>cricket that WI side would thrash anyone, as would that mid 70`s Aus
>>I have seen alot of cricket, and I can honestly say that the
>>standards...and the entertainment level have not improved one iota
>>because of the bouncer rule, and over limits. This WI team right now
>>would lose with both of these in place, because they would play badly.
>Well maybe its a good thing then. If all they can do is bowl bouncers
>and slow the game down as a tactic, we're better off without them.
Well that argument is spurious. It is following that Nazi style edict
passed down by the former editor of Wisden David frith that the WI
team of the 80`s were ONLY good at that. It is also the biggest case
of sour grapes I have ever heard. Fact is that team were great however
they decided to take wickets or make runs, and it is misleading and
dishonest to suggest that is all they were about. Now tell me that you
actually think that they werent actually better than the other teams
of that era.
England regularly played with ***spinner at that time....Emburey.
They did not deserve to win because they bowled more overs quicker, or
because they had an offie playing, they simply played worse than WI.
Same with Aus or any other team. And this WI team is losing...because
it has played crap...even if they played two right arm quicks a leftie
and a leggie which they could do. I can hear the purists purring as
they whistled through their overs and showed the full gamut of
cricketing combinations. Duh...
>I'm fascinated that you think the WI attack was entertaining. It was
>as boring as hell.
>It isn't sour grapes about losing. We get regularly stuffed by the
>Aussies, but I could watch Shane Warne bowl all day just for
>pleasure (sadly, with the current batting line up this doesn't often
I`m afraid I find this an equally amusing argument. Warne wasnt and
isnt there in the Aus lineup because of some demand to provide balance
and variety in the act. He is there because he is a great bowler. Now
Wi during that era had two or three spinners of note. Rangy Nanan,
Clyde Butts and Roger Harper, with Javan Ettiene featuring for one
season or so in the late 80`s. None of these were comparable to the
fast bowling alternative.
The fact that Warne is good to watch is a bonus, but that is not some
desired outcome of selecting him for Australia. And whether England
play Salisbury, or NZ play Brooke Walker, or India play Joshi is a
case of whether they are good enough and it is patently obvious...in
the case of Salisbury for example...that they arent. And Salisbury
bowls crap...legspin and all.
I really hate this argument. Another Frith and that old English prat
Robin Marlars favourite hobby horse. If in the new millenium Aus
decide Brett Lee, Gillespie, Mcgrath and Fleming is their best bet to
continuing their domination, do you think people will argue over the
aesthetic of their victories ? Would people miss Warne ? Of course
they would, but they would miss him more if they lost than for variety
for variety`s sake.
For what its worth...the English team of the mid 80`s was stronger and
more entertaining than this crop...and so were the WI....by a long
way. And anyone who tells me that the two teams on top of world
cricket right now, Aus and SA are not ruthlessly efficient rather than
flamboyant batting or bowling sides is well...thats your opinion. One
great legspinner does not change that.
I know where that mentality stems from, and I tell you I saw so much
of this hypocrisy in the 80`s and in the early 90`s but it actually
takes someone like Trueman usually by accident to reveal the reasoning
that one method applied by himself and others with ruthless precision
(and hell some aesthetic....Truemans runup...Tysons et al were
worshipped as art forms in themselves) seemingly becomes a blunt and
crude weapon in the hands of others.
We differ...and always will