Aus 70's vs WI 80's vs Aus 90's

Aus 70's vs WI 80's vs Aus 90's

Post by Arshad Sye » Mon, 07 Feb 2000 04:00:00


I think WI would top the list considering they had a batting lineup
consisting of Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Lloyd and their bowling -
Roberts, Holding, Garner, Croft, Marshall was simply the best. Second would
be the Aussie team of the 70's ..... quite a difficult pick between Thomson,
Lillee, Pascoe and McGarth, Gillespie, Warne. The current batting however,
would be much more solid than the 70's team with only the Chappell's who
could be termed world-class..

Any opinions?

Regards,
Arshad

 
 
 

Aus 70's vs WI 80's vs Aus 90's

Post by Ashe » Mon, 07 Feb 2000 04:00:00

On Sun, 6 Feb 2000 11:04:54 -0500, "Arshad Syed"

Quote:

>I think WI would top the list considering they had a batting lineup
>consisting of Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Lloyd and their bowling -
>Roberts, Holding, Garner, Croft, Marshall was simply the best. Second would
>be the Aussie team of the 70's ..... quite a difficult pick between Thomson,
>Lillee, Pascoe and McGarth, Gillespie, Warne. The current batting however,
>would be much more solid than the 70's team with only the Chappell's who
>could be termed world-class..

>Any opinions?

Some of the rules have changed.
Back then you could bowl 3 bouncers a over or sometimes more
if you were lucky as in the miracle match.

Take our team back in time and play in the 70's
against the WI team and the then Aus team and you would see
I think S Waugh's team getting beaten in test matches and maybe
odi's as bouncers were allowed back then and a few in our current
odi side would be in a spot of bother.

The WI and Aus at that time were both very strong.
It was the best cricket years as both teams had lethal bowling attacks
and both had great batsman in there line up to cope with the
great pace attacks.

In the miracle match in Perth at the WACA where WA was rolled for 77
then Qld was bowled out for just 62. Lillee bowled no less than 5
bouncers in the one over and at that time Viv Richards was opening the
batting for Qld. Back then it was a 8 ball over but to bowl 5 bouncers
in the one over is unheard of these days. Viv was bowled
in the over after the 5 bouncers. Just a example of what you could
get away with back then.

 
 
 

Aus 70's vs WI 80's vs Aus 90's

Post by Mang » Mon, 07 Feb 2000 04:00:00

The West Indies sides of the 80's defeated all comers on all wickets and
are easily the best of the three sides.  Neither Australian team acheived
this.  I would rate the current Australian side stronger than the 1970's
side as I believe they have a stronger batting lineup and a more balanced
bowling attack.  Only in out and out pace would the 70's team have an edge.



Quote:
> I think WI would top the list considering they had a batting lineup
> consisting of Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Lloyd and their bowling -
> Roberts, Holding, Garner, Croft, Marshall was simply the best. Second
would
> be the Aussie team of the 70's ..... quite a difficult pick between
Thomson,
> Lillee, Pascoe and McGarth, Gillespie, Warne. The current batting
however,
> would be much more solid than the 70's team with only the Chappell's who
> could be termed world-class..

> Any opinions?

> Regards,
> Arshad


 
 
 

Aus 70's vs WI 80's vs Aus 90's

Post by Kenny Gree » Mon, 07 Feb 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

> Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
> Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2000 16:53:01 GMT
> Subject: Re: Aus 70's vs WI 80's vs Aus 90's

> On Sun, 6 Feb 2000 11:04:54 -0500, "Arshad Syed"

>> I think WI would top the list considering they had a batting lineup
>> consisting of Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Lloyd and their bowling -
>> Roberts, Holding, Garner, Croft, Marshall was simply the best. Second would
>> be the Aussie team of the 70's ..... quite a difficult pick between Thomson,
>> Lillee, Pascoe and McGarth, Gillespie, Warne. The current batting however,
>> would be much more solid than the 70's team with only the Chappell's who
>> could be termed world-class..

>> Any opinions?

> Some of the rules have changed.
> Back then you could bowl 3 bouncers a over or sometimes more
> if you were lucky as in the miracle match.

yes...those rules suddenly gave these guys extra talent and actually meant
they couldnt get 3 or 4 of those very same balls on the stumps. Yup...

Quote:
> Take our team back in time and play in the 70's
> against the WI team and the then Aus team and you would see
> I think S Waugh's team getting beaten in test matches and maybe
> odi's as bouncers were allowed back then and a few in our current
> odi side would be in a spot of bother.

I think most experts would argue that if you took the 80's team and plonked
them in this era againt the 90's Aussies...that they'd whack em. Examples of
Australia drawing 2-2 against a weak WI, losing to Ind in india and SL in SL
pretty much damn this Aus team, as *** as they are in this era.

Quote:
> The WI and Aus at that time were both very strong.
> It was the best cricket years as both teams had lethal bowling attacks
> and both had great batsman in there line up to cope with the
> great pace attacks.

The WI team never played Aus at their best during that era. Aus whacked WI
in the 70's andWI whacked Aus during the 80's.

Quote:
> In the miracle match in Perth at the WACA where WA was rolled for 77
> then Qld was bowled out for just 62. Lillee bowled no less than 5
> bouncers in the one over and at that time Viv Richards was opening the
> batting for Qld. Back then it was a 8 ball over but to bowl 5 bouncers
> in the one over is unheard of these days. Viv was bowled
> in the over after the 5 bouncers. Just a example of what you could
> get away with back then.

Lillee could outfox most bats in world cricket. He had the tools to do so.
But if the law allowed him to bowl 5 bouncers when someone like Viv is
batting...then of course why not use it. it doesnt make him any less
great...or skilled at his art.
 
 
 

Aus 70's vs WI 80's vs Aus 90's

Post by Colin Mcleo » Mon, 07 Feb 2000 04:00:00


Quote:


> > Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
> > Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2000 16:53:01 GMT
> > Subject: Re: Aus 70's vs WI 80's vs Aus 90's

> > On Sun, 6 Feb 2000 11:04:54 -0500, "Arshad Syed"

> >> I think WI would top the list considering they had a batting lineup
> >> consisting of Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Lloyd and their bowling -
> >> Roberts, Holding, Garner, Croft, Marshall was simply the best. Second
would
> >> be the Aussie team of the 70's ..... quite a difficult pick between
Thomson,
> >> Lillee, Pascoe and McGarth, Gillespie, Warne. The current batting
however,
> >> would be much more solid than the 70's team with only the Chappell's
who
> >> could be termed world-class..

> >> Any opinions?

> > Some of the rules have changed.
> > Back then you could bowl 3 bouncers a over or sometimes more
> > if you were lucky as in the miracle match.

> yes...those rules suddenly gave these guys extra talent and actually meant
> they couldnt get 3 or 4 of those very same balls on the stumps. Yup...

> > Take our team back in time and play in the 70's
> > against the WI team and the then Aus team and you would see
> > I think S Waugh's team getting beaten in test matches and maybe
> > odi's as bouncers were allowed back then and a few in our current
> > odi side would be in a spot of bother.

> I think most experts would argue that if you took the 80's team and
plonked
> them in this era againt the 90's Aussies...that they'd whack em. Examples
of
> Australia drawing 2-2 against a weak WI, losing to Ind in india and SL in
SL
> pretty much damn this Aus team, as *** as they are in this era.

For what it is worth and I am only stating my opinion  I think that the aust
team  at the moment is only in the building stage, i.e. it is still getting
better. Just how good it will get I dont know. Then again I could have it
all wrong

Regards
           Colin Mcleod

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> > The WI and Aus at that time were both very strong.
> > It was the best cricket years as both teams had lethal bowling attacks
> > and both had great batsman in there line up to cope with the
> > great pace attacks.

> The WI team never played Aus at their best during that era. Aus whacked WI
> in the 70's andWI whacked Aus during the 80's.

> > In the miracle match in Perth at the WACA where WA was rolled for 77
> > then Qld was bowled out for just 62. Lillee bowled no less than 5
> > bouncers in the one over and at that time Viv Richards was opening the
> > batting for Qld. Back then it was a 8 ball over but to bowl 5 bouncers
> > in the one over is unheard of these days. Viv was bowled
> > in the over after the 5 bouncers. Just a example of what you could
> > get away with back then.

> Lillee could outfox most bats in world cricket. He had the tools to do so.
> But if the law allowed him to bowl 5 bouncers when someone like Viv is
> batting...then of course why not use it. it doesnt make him any less
> great...or skilled at his art.

 
 
 

Aus 70's vs WI 80's vs Aus 90's

Post by Mad Hami » Mon, 07 Feb 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

>I think WI would top the list considering they had a batting lineup
>consisting of Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Lloyd and their bowling -
>Roberts, Holding, Garner, Croft, Marshall was simply the best. Second would
>be the Aussie team of the 70's ..... quite a difficult pick between Thomson,
>Lillee, Pascoe and McGarth, Gillespie, Warne. The current batting however,
>would be much more solid than the 70's team with only the Chappell's who
>could be termed world-class..

Here's where it comes down to opinion.

IMO the current Australian team would lose to the 80s Windies team.

My reasoning
Slater and Blewett aren't the openers I want facing the Windies opening attack.
(I'm not sure who the openers I _do_ want facing the 80s attack are, but it
isn't Slater and Blewett)

Slater averages 29.71 against the 90s model Windies team and, while Ambrose is a
great bowler I'm not certain that he's better than Garner, the rest is no
comparison.

Blewett averages 32.94 against the current Windies lineup but a) I suspect it to
go down if he plays them again and b) somehow I fancy that Holding, Marshall &
Garner would work him out pretty quickly.

Langer I'm unsure about. I would expect him to do reasonably against the 80s
Windies but I admit that I could be wrong. Certainly Marshall and Holding would
pick up the early innings shuffle and be firing the ball in for an lbw decision.
I suspect he might go the Wessels approach of 84-85 and look to hit anything
just slightly offline or length.

Mark Waugh - the _current_ Mark Waugh  would make Kim Hughes' 84-85 effort look
good. Mark at his best would probably be similar to Gower. Play a few great
innings - sometimes under massive pressure - but overall be down on their best.

Steve Waugh - I don't think that he'd do as well against them as he has the
current Windies lineup but I would be extremely surprised if he didn't average
45 or higher. Note that he did play the 88-89 Windies which had Marshall,
Ambrose, Walsh & Patterson. He averaged 41.38 with 3 50s from 9 innings.
Against that his current play well back method leaves him vulnerable to a full
ball early and Holding & Marshall can exploit that. Of course Laird used a
similar approach and he did well against the Windies so...

One problem he might have is that the 80s Windies attack is going to roll the
tail quicker than most modern teams. He might have to attack more at the end.

Ponting - I don't really know how he'd go. I know what he'd _try_ and do but
taking the Windies on with the hook isn't the easiest thing to do. Maybe he's
good enough to do it but I'm not confident.

Gilchrist - time will tell more about his batting than we know now. He's batted
very well in the tests he's played so far but hasn't faced anything like the 80s
Windies attack. Considering the strength of the 80s Windies batting he could be
keeping for a couple of days before he gets a go at the crease, that has to
reduce his effectiveness with the bat but I haven't seen enough of his batting
in tests to give a fair assesment of his chances. I _do_ know that if he and
Ponting got going agains the 80s Windies it'd be a contest worth watching <g>

I doubt that the tail would be anything like as effective as they have been in
recent series.

Australian bowling.
McGrath - I expect him to be the main threat of the quicks. Again he wouldn't be
as effective as he is against most current teams but he will be a credible
performer. I'd pick him to average around 4 wickets per test at somewhere
between 24 & 28. Gut feeling around 26-27.

Fleming - Again, I'd pick him to be down slightly on effectiveness put still
useful. 31/2 wickets per test at 28-32. Probably 28-30 range.

Gillespie - I'd see him as less effective than the above two. Any team which
practices against Marshall et al and has domestic teams with 3 or 4 test Windies
bowlers will be useful against pace and somewhat resistant to intimidation.
Similar for Lee.

Warne - again, hard to be sure. On paper you'd expect him to do extremely well
against any team which Bob Holland managed to roll in 84-85. In practice Haynes,
Greenidge, Richards and Lloyd might be able to rattle him. It also comes down to
exactly how well he's actually bowling now which isn't easy to tell. Is the
match in Sydney?

I see our opening partnership and Mark Waugh being fatal flaws in our batting.
Without a solid start (which I don't see Blewett and Slater providing) we'll
find it extremely hard to pressure the Windies. Haynes and Greenidge are much
more likely to provide a good basis for the rest of the team to put on a massive
score.

The 70s Australia vs the 80s Windies is a hard call. Again I suspect that the
70s Australian openers would struggle and, while Ian Chappell was an extremely
good #3 he and Greg might be expose too early to succeed consistently. Doug
Walter's periscope shot would probably cost him a bit, unless he could get a
helmet.

The 70s Australian bowling versus the Windies would be a show to watch though.

70s Australia versus 90s Australia.

Tough call.
Partly it depends on exactly when in the 70s. If Thommo and Lillee were at their
absolute peaks with Walker and Mallett as backup then I think the 70s pace
attack might have a slight edge. Warne would be a better attacking bowler than
Mallett was actually used for at that stage (Mallett could attack but was used
to keep an end tight while Lillee and Thommo were there)

The batting is a tough comparison. neither side's openers strike me as
particularly likely to do great. I probably lean _marginally_ towards the 70s
openers versus the 90s attack compared to the 90s openers versus the 70s attack,
largely because of Blewett.

Langer, again I expect him to do reasonably well but not dominate. average
around 40.

Similar for Ian Chappell, although I _also_ have to say that he is capable of
getting right up McGrath's nose and putting him right off his game. Probably
average just a touch over Langer for performance.

Again, based on recent performance I don't expect Mark to do well. Of course he
could get after Mailey and cause some headaches but I would expect Lillee &
Thommo to sort him out, especially with the problems he's had against the short
ball since he stopped hooking.

Greg Chappell. I had thought that he had problems against consistent strong pace
attacks until people pointed out his performance in WSC to me. I'd expect him to
be in the top couple of batsmen in either side. Him and Steve duking it out for
#1.

I can't think who the typicaly 70s #5 would be. I think Redpath would be a
chance. I would expect him to be a 35 average. Could be in trouble during a
collapse but capable of counterattacking.

Steve Waugh will do extremely well. It'd suprise me if he didn't average 45+ and
50+ would be possible.

Ponting - again I'm unsure. I would expect Lillee and Walker to try and get him
falling across the full ball around off stump. If he's not in top form he'd
struggle.

Walters - again the short ball could find him out. Of course if helmets were in
he'd do better and I really don't want to think about Mark Waugh facing either
the 70s Aus or 80s Windies teams without a helmet.

Marsh - the best keeper of the 3 in contention. Also useful with the bat during
the 70s. Might average around 30.

****************************************************************************
The Politician's Slogan
'You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all
of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Fortunately only a simple majority is required.'
****************************************************************************

Mad Hamish

Hamish Laws


 
 
 

Aus 70's vs WI 80's vs Aus 90's

Post by Mad Hami » Tue, 08 Feb 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

>On Sun, 6 Feb 2000 11:04:54 -0500, "Arshad Syed"

>>I think WI would top the list considering they had a batting lineup
>>consisting of Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Lloyd and their bowling -
>>Roberts, Holding, Garner, Croft, Marshall was simply the best. Second would
>>be the Aussie team of the 70's ..... quite a difficult pick between Thomson,
>>Lillee, Pascoe and McGarth, Gillespie, Warne. The current batting however,
>>would be much more solid than the 70's team with only the Chappell's who
>>could be termed world-class..

>>Any opinions?

>Some of the rules have changed.
>Back then you could bowl 3 bouncers a over or sometimes more

Considering Alan Border's comment when the current rule was brought in that it
wouldn't affect the Windies because what they did was a ball at chest height
most of the time...

Quote:
>if you were lucky as in the miracle match.

>Take our team back in time and play in the 70's
>against the WI team and the then Aus team and you would see
>I think S Waugh's team getting beaten in test matches and maybe
>odi's as bouncers were allowed back then and a few in our current
>odi side would be in a spot of bother.

You'd find that bouncers in ODI's were ruled out pretty quickly.

What might make it more of a problem is the lack of helmets for the Australian
batsmen.

In all honesty I think that under _any_ conditions the 80s Windies team would
beat the 90s Australian team, except maybe in Sydney.
Even there our lack of 2 quality openers would probably count against us.

Quote:

>The WI and Aus at that time were both very strong.
>It was the best cricket years as both teams had lethal bowling attacks
>and both had great batsman in there line up to cope with the
>great pace attacks.

Care to name the great batsmen in the current Aussie lineup?
Remember, that's _plural_.

Quote:

>In the miracle match in Perth at the WACA where WA was rolled for 77
>then Qld was bowled out for just 62. Lillee bowled no less than 5
>bouncers in the one over and at that time Viv Richards was opening the
>batting for Qld. Back then it was a 8 ball over but to bowl 5 bouncers
>in the one over is unheard of these days.

Um, hardly. What was unusual was anyone to do it to Richards and not be put away
a few times.

Quote:
> Viv was bowled
>in the over after the 5 bouncers. Just a example of what you could
>get away with back then.

****************************************************************************
The Politician's Slogan
'You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all
of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Fortunately only a simple majority is required.'
****************************************************************************

Mad Hamish

Hamish Laws


 
 
 

Aus 70's vs WI 80's vs Aus 90's

Post by Mad Hami » Tue, 08 Feb 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

>For what it is worth and I am only stating my opinion  I think that the aust
>team  at the moment is only in the building stage, i.e. it is still getting
>better. Just how good it will get I dont know. Then again I could have it
>all wrong

Dunno, it's _possible_. But I'm not sure it's likely.

I see our opening partnership changing fairly quickly and Hayden has been tried
before without setting the world on fire. Hussey is good but untested. They're
the two main options unless we go back to Elliott - which appears a) a mistake
and b) unlikely.

Langer and Ponting look a good base for the future batting.

Against that Steve Waugh and Mark Waugh don't have too much time left. At most a
couple of years would be my expectation. Steve will be nearly impossible to
replace with someone as good.

Gilchrist won't be able to keep his batting record up to the standard it is
currently at. Whether it'll end up 40, 35 or 30 only time will tell, and at
least some of that will come down to how badly he wrecks his fingers as a
keeper.

McGrath is unlikely to improve further as a 30 year old.
Fleming again strikes me as unlikely to improve much.
Lee is still an unknown quantity and Gillespie's comeback seems to be well
behind schedule so he might never be back.

Warne still has some points to prove about his comeback and MacGill will have to
perform against Sri Lanka and/or India to convince people about his spin.

I'm not saying that they won't improve, just that it either needs a replacement
player to set the world alight or improvement in players who seem to be at their
best now.

****************************************************************************
The Politician's Slogan
'You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all
of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Fortunately only a simple majority is required.'
****************************************************************************

Mad Hamish

Hamish Laws


 
 
 

Aus 70's vs WI 80's vs Aus 90's

Post by Mad Hami » Tue, 08 Feb 2000 04:00:00

Quote:


>> On Sun, 6 Feb 2000 11:04:54 -0500, "Arshad Syed"

>yes...those rules suddenly gave these guys extra talent and actually meant
>they couldnt get 3 or 4 of those very same balls on the stumps. Yup...

Well I imagine that Colin Croft wouldn't have been happy about it <g>

Quote:

>> Take our team back in time and play in the 70's
>> against the WI team and the then Aus team and you would see
>> I think S Waugh's team getting beaten in test matches and maybe
>> odi's as bouncers were allowed back then and a few in our current
>> odi side would be in a spot of bother.

>I think most experts would argue that if you took the 80's team and plonked
>them in this era againt the 90's Aussies...that they'd whack em.

I know who I'd expect to win, and it ain't Australia.

Quote:
>Examples of
>Australia drawing 2-2 against a weak WI, losing to Ind in india and SL in SL
>pretty much damn this Aus team, as *** as they are in this era.

I think our lack of quality openers counts against us pretty heavily.

Quote:

>> The WI and Aus at that time were both very strong.
>> It was the best cricket years as both teams had lethal bowling attacks
>> and both had great batsman in there line up to cope with the
>> great pace attacks.

>The WI team never played Aus at their best during that era. Aus whacked WI
>in the 70's andWI whacked Aus during the 80's.

I think we played a series right at the end of the 70s with the WSC players back
for Australia. We got done.

Quote:

>> In the miracle match in Perth at the WACA where WA was rolled for 77
>> then Qld was bowled out for just 62. Lillee bowled no less than 5
>> bouncers in the one over and at that time Viv Richards was opening the
>> batting for Qld. Back then it was a 8 ball over but to bowl 5 bouncers
>> in the one over is unheard of these days. Viv was bowled
>> in the over after the 5 bouncers. Just a example of what you could
>> get away with back then.

>Lillee could outfox most bats in world cricket. He had the tools to do so.
>But if the law allowed him to bowl 5 bouncers when someone like Viv is
>batting...then of course why not use it. it doesnt make him any less
>great...or skilled at his art.

Added to which what are the odds that they were _all_ over shoulder height?

****************************************************************************
The Politician's Slogan
'You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all
of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Fortunately only a simple majority is required.'
****************************************************************************

Mad Hamish

Hamish Laws


 
 
 

Aus 70's vs WI 80's vs Aus 90's

Post by Ian Galbrai » Tue, 08 Feb 2000 04:00:00

[snip]

:In all honesty I think that under _any_ conditions the 80s Windies team would
:beat the 90s Australian team, except maybe in Sydney.
:Even there our lack of 2 quality openers would probably count against us.

Lack of 2 quality openers?? You're being a bit harsh on Slater. I would
certainly put Slater on the same level as either Haynes or Greenidge.

[snip]

--
Ian Galbraith

"To say that these men paid their shillings to watch twenty-two hirelings
kick a ball is merely to say that a violin is wood and catgut, that
Hamlet is so much paper and ink. For a shilling the Bruddersford United
AFC offered you conflict and art." - J.B. Priestley

 
 
 

Aus 70's vs WI 80's vs Aus 90's

Post by Colin Mcleo » Tue, 08 Feb 2000 04:00:00


Quote:

> >For what it is worth and I am only stating my opinion  I think that the
aust
> >team  at the moment is only in the building stage, i.e. it is still
getting
> >better. Just how good it will get I dont know. Then again I could have it
> >all wrong

> Dunno, it's _possible_. But I'm not sure it's likely.

> I see our opening partnership changing fairly quickly and Hayden has been
tried
> before without setting the world on fire. Hussey is good but untested.
They're
> the two main options unless we go back to Elliott - which appears a) a
mistake
> and b) unlikely.

I tend to agree with the above, given Haydens recent form  worth another
chance

Quote:
> Langer and Ponting look a good base for the future batting.

Agreed the above

Quote:
> Against that Steve Waugh and Mark Waugh don't have too much time left. At
most a
> couple of years would be my expectation. Steve will be nearly impossible
to
> replace with someone as good.

Yes their time is drawing to a close. Katich would seem to be in the wings
.( Dons themal jacket.) Martyn
would seem to be starting to show more of the potential that had him hailed
as  a boy genius. Symmonds is also
starting to gather momentum after  not really doing his ability justice
Some of the Academy team that toured England
seem to have made encouraging starts as well. in the PMC . There is no
shortage of competition..

Quote:
> Gilchrist won't be able to keep his batting record up to the standard it
is
> currently at. Whether it'll end up 40, 35 or 30 only time will tell, and
at
> least some of that will come down to how badly he wrecks his fingers as a
> keeper.

Only time will tell how he goes, very hard to say.

Quote:
> McGrath is unlikely to improve further as a 30 year old.
> Fleming again strikes me as unlikely to improve much.
> Lee is still an unknown quantity and Gillespie's comeback seems to be well
> behind schedule so he might never be back.

McGrath is extremely good  and has the odd grey cell or two, who knows what
is possible
spitting the dummy a bit less might be useful
Fleming seems to be bowling better than I remember with more control, still
has a tendency to
spray the odd one down the legside though
Lee could be anything. it is up to him and he seems to listen and learn
according to fot
Gillespie, the last info that I got  was that he was going to play as a
batsman only in S.A grade
I hope he can come back  I think we have not seen the best of Gillespie yet.

 Warne still has some points to prove about his comeback and MacGill will
have to

Quote:
> perform against Sri Lanka and/or India to convince people about his spin.

Warne is still a fine bowler and deseves his place. MacGill would have to be
the unluckiest
player around, for any other country (imo) he would be a walkup start.

Quote:
> I'm not saying that they won't improve, just that it either needs a
replacement
> player to set the world alight or improvement in players who seem to be at
their
> best now.

I think a lot of results (imo) come from belief, talent at this level is a
given.. You have
to look at the history. In the mid 80s the team could not win a raffle if
they bought all the tickets
Captain Grumpy  was thrown in the deep end  and the rebuilding started.
Taylor was handed a
very good team and he led it well and was instrumental in improving it with
the help of Marsh.
Marsh  stated straight after the world cup win that it was time to start
rebuilding. Waugh has started
that process and the belief remains (imo) I doubt if Border will fall for
the pitfall as a selector that
befell us  when G. Chappell , FOT and Rod Marsh retired at the same time.
A good team is greater than the sum of the parts and I believe that is what
we have got now. I think
that they can improve (imho) and incorporate the replacements painlessly
and continue to improve.
Of course only time will tell, which is why NZ should be interesting to say
the least.

Regards
           Colin Mcleod

****************************************************************************

Quote:
> The Politician's Slogan
> 'You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people
all
> of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
> Fortunately only a simple majority is required.'

****************************************************************************

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> Mad Hamish

> Hamish Laws



 
 
 

Aus 70's vs WI 80's vs Aus 90's

Post by Autism » Tue, 08 Feb 2000 04:00:00


Quote:

>I think WI would top the list considering they had a batting lineup
>consisting of Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Lloyd and their bowling -
>Roberts, Holding, Garner, Croft, Marshall was simply the best. Second would
>be the Aussie team of the 70's ..... quite a difficult pick between Thomson,
>Lillee, Pascoe and McGarth, Gillespie, Warne. The current batting however,
>would be much more solid than the 70's team with only the Chappell's who
>could be termed world-class..

West Indies 1980 ; the bowling attack under the then rules made it almost
impossible to win unless you played on a "lottery pitch".

As for Aussies, it depends on the pitch ; Lillee/Thommo is better than
McGrath/Gillespie but Mallett isn't half the bowler Warne was.

 
 
 

Aus 70's vs WI 80's vs Aus 90's

Post by Mark » Wed, 09 Feb 2000 04:00:00



<snip>

Quote:
>Gillespie, the last info that I got  was that he was going to play as a
>batsman only in S.A grade
>I hope he can come back  I think we have not seen the best of Gillespie yet.

the last I heard (on the weekend I think) was that Gillespie was
bowling again in grade cricket. He'd started out bowling off a short
run up but in his most recent game he was coming in off the long run
up.

<snip>

Mark

 
 
 

Aus 70's vs WI 80's vs Aus 90's

Post by Mad Hami » Wed, 09 Feb 2000 04:00:00



Quote:

>[snip]

>:In all honesty I think that under _any_ conditions the 80s Windies team would
>:beat the 90s Australian team, except maybe in Sydney.
>:Even there our lack of 2 quality openers would probably count against us.

>Lack of 2 quality openers?? You're being a bit harsh on Slater. I would
>certainly put Slater on the same level as either Haynes or Greenidge.

when I wrote "lack of 2 quality openers" I meant that we don't have _2_ quality
openers.

I'm not absolutely convinced about Slater against the 80s Windies, he's failed
against the modern windies after all, but I would regard him as a quality
opener. Not the best Australia has had over the past 20 years but in the top
few.

****************************************************************************
The Politician's Slogan
'You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all
of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Fortunately only a simple majority is required.'
****************************************************************************

Mad Hamish

Hamish Laws