Video: West Indies v Australia, Third Test, 1999

Quotehanger

"Looks go after certain age. Besides, I am no Brad Pitt who wants an Angelina Jolie."
Harbhajan Singh is more for substance than style when it comes to a partner

Oct 6, 2008

The headlines

The news

TWC

Related pieces

Search

Eat your feeds

Posts

Comments

Who will win the series?
- India
- Australia
- Drawn (0-0)
- Drawn (2-2)
- Abandoned due to poor behaviour
View Results
Loading ...

Polls Archive

Sponsors ?

Cricinfo blogs

Cricinfo articles

Scorecards

No Match in progress..

Video: West Indies v Australia, Third Test, 1999

By Will 2 years ago, at the end of March Leave a comment on this post

I watched this video (14 mins) the other day of the West Indies against Australia, in the third Test at Bridgetown in 1999. For various reasons, that particular year was a total bloody washout for me, and I missed a lot of the cricket that went on. So it’s great to see a video of such a tense Test, and doubly great to see messyrs Ambrose and Walsh. However, what struck me most was…

How roly-poly Shane Warne was back then
How superb Austalia were under Steve Waugh
Jason Gillespie used to bowl quickly
Jason Gillespie swung it and moved it off the seam at will
Glenn McGrath used to bowl quickly
Glenn McGrath swung it and moved it off the seam at will
Glenn McGrath was an angry, bitter, and quite remarkably aggressive competitor
Australia must miss having Mark Waugh in the slips

Rightly or wrongly, Australia of 2005 are nothing compared to the 1999 model. The old model had bite, power and uncompromising aggression. The new model seems a bit lost; their warhorses and spearheads are, to be blunt, blunter than they once were. Watch the video and see if you’re as surprised as I am at their slick, machine-like qualities.

As a sidenote, what a knock by Lara!

Tags: australia, brian-lara, courtney-walsh, cricket-videos, curtly-ambrose, glenn-mcgrath, google-video, jason-gillespie, shane-warne, steve-waugh, video, west-indies |

Comments to “Video: West Indies v Australia, Third Test, 1999” Chris wrote:
March 26th, 2006 at 9.49 pm

I don’t disagree that Australia today look less imposing than they did under Waugh but Australia lost this game don’t forget.

Whether it’s a Freudian slip or intentional, you compare Australia of ‘99 with ‘05 (not ‘06) i.e. the Ashes losing Australia.

I think it maybe part of our psyche that we can’t quite believe we won the Ashes against a ‘full strength’ Australia. That they somehow, must have been better then.

Yes, Gillespie was a better bowler in 1999, but McGrath? I still saw that angry snarly man muttering away under his breath at the SCG in January.

And Ponting vs Waugh as a captain, well you’ll get no arguments from me there from a tactical perspective, but as a *batsmen* captain, Ponting wins all day long. His form of late (averaging over 70 last 20 tests) is hardly a sign of a team in decline.

Will wrote:
March 26th, 2006 at 10.57 pm

Valid points Chris. I don’t think I got my point across very clearly (common problem!). There was an edge to Australia back in 1999 which, I feel, isn’t present in the current squad. Purely hypothetically, I feel that if Australia of 1999 could play Australia of 2005 (or 2006, as you point out), the 1999 model would win hands down. That was my point, and my surprise, that they were that sharp and clinical. Is that any clearer?

Chris wrote:
March 26th, 2006 at 11.51 pm

Yep, and I agree that ‘99 team would kick arse. Although it would be funny to watch Glenn McGrath bowling to himself!

andrew schulz wrote:
March 27th, 2006 at 4.14 am

Quite wrong, mate. The fast bowling may have been slightly better back then, though McGrath hasn’t lost much. Certainly Waugh’s captaincy was substantially better than Ponting’s, even in his first series. But in 1999, Warne was not bowling well. The side contained Elliott, a very soft batsman, Slater an absolute fruitcake, Langer was nowhere near what he is now, and the following year, the side picked up Hayden, Gilchrist, and Lee. In 1999 England were just over 100 runs away from squaring the series. Something they won’t get close to later this year. This side’s batting is much tougher and much more settled. Also much more attuned to winning around the world, something England have a long way to go to achieve, and probably never will. It is also much more consistent, having not lost a live game by more than 4 wickets since Calcutta 2001. You won’t pick that up by watching a 14-minute video. You’re out of line.
Respectfully, Andrew Schulz, Sydney.

SpryCorpse wrote:
March 27th, 2006 at 11.05 pm

Very interesting comparison and comments. The loss of the Waugh twins was always going to be important. Australia’s middle order has never recovered it’s solidity. Gilchrist’s heroics over the years has covered that and now Hussey is helping.
The bowling will (is?) undergo a similar upheaval when McGrath and Warne hang up their boots. Will’s observations on the sharpness of Gillespie and McGrath in ‘99 were interesting.
Having said all that, the Aussies maintain an enormously high standard that it takes a sustained effort from a very talented bunch of cricketers to get on top of them.

Chris wrote:
March 27th, 2006 at 11.35 pm

Andrew;

Michael Slater fruitcake? he averaged 45 with the bat in 1999, 3 runs better than his career tally of 42! Give me some of them sultanas

Justin Langer better now? he posted 7 of his 22 Test tons between 1998/9 and 1999/0 seasons. Thatâ€™s almost a third of his centuries in 2 seasons in a career spanning 13 years. Sound a bit like a peak to me!

And poor old Shane Warne. He played 3 tests in 1999 (Sri Lanka) and picked up 8 wickets at 14.37 a piece. Very bad year for Shane.

You might not be able to analyse a team from a 14 minute video, but 3 minutes of research to back up your argument wouldn’t have gone amiss.

Chris

Will wrote:
March 27th, 2006 at 11.53 pm

I disagree, Andrew, that the fast bowling in 1999 was only slightly better. McGrath and Gillespie were in their peak back then. I’ll concede McGrath is still a major force - although it remains to be seen whether he returns in light of his wife’s illness - but Gillespie is a shadow of his former self. He was astonishingly good in his prime - very quick, and could cut it both ways, on most pitches. Very rare talent - and he could swing it.

I’m less convinced about the current crop. After the Ashes, Brett Lee rose massively in my estimations and he continues to. He’s got immense strength, and his five wickets yesterday to blitz South Africa were awesome (I should’ve made more of this in my Verdict at Cricinfo…apologies). Kasprowicz is always useful to have, but he’s not going to decimate sides any longer. And Stuart Clark, as marvellous a debut he had, is not a long-term prospect.

Gone off my original point, but anyway.

How and why (out of interest) are you so sure England won’t retain the Ashes this year? What is it, do you think, that Australia have which will prevent England? (for what it’s worth, I think Ponting and Warne are the biggest obstacles for England. But I still expect it to be an incredibly tight series…assuming England can field a first choice XI! (mind you, their second XI has done absolutely fine in India!)

SpryCorpse wrote:
March 28th, 2006 at 12.02 am

On a side-side-note there was a note in The Age here the other day saying that the British bookmakers have Australia as favourites to win back the Ashes. Perhaps we should ask them what their reasoning is since they have more to gain/lose than the rest of us.

Chris wrote:
March 28th, 2006 at 12.11 am

Couple of things there, the odds will fluctuate as the Ashes draws nearer and injuries/availability etc become more relevant.

If the bookies are tipping towards Australia right now, it would likley boil down to home advantage. The teams are that close in ability and (arguably) form, that not much else could separate them.

William Hill have England as 3-1 outsiders to Australia at 1.66 favourites.

SpryCorpse wrote:
March 28th, 2006 at 12.16 am

Perhaps, Will, you should just give in and have one giant post entitled Ashes 2006/07. All of the comments are heading that way anyway…

Alexander Morrison wrote:
March 28th, 2006 at 12.51 am

I’m not sure I care that much about the Aussies here - what about the Windies? Where’s the pride, the talent, the will to succeed against what looked like hopeless odds? Where, less sentimentally, are the successors to Ambrose and Walsh? As an Englishman, I’d be happy to see the Windies whitewash us 4-0 or 5-0 at home, if it meant that they returned to form as a major force in world cricket. We’ve really lost something here, and Steve Waugh’s side, whilst dominating cricket in a similar way, never inspired the affection that the Windies did in their prime.

Christopher wrote:
March 28th, 2006 at 10.15 am

I think Will is right. McGrath and Gillespie looked QUICK back then, and could move the ball all over the place. Thank God they weren’t doing thaat last summer. Mind you, in nine months time it will be fun to watch the Aussies having to deal with fast swing bowling at home and being skittled by England in front of their own fans.

andrew schulz wrote:
March 29th, 2006 at 12.02 pm

Just want to thank Chris was his extensive research. Really put me in my place. Also for his advice for me to research. Sadly no amount of research would get me to where you are at buddy. Are you telling me Warne only played against Sri Lanka in 1999? Without opening a book, I would have thought he also played tests against England, West Indies (the very series in question-he was actually dropped for the final test), Zimbabwe, India, and Pakistan. And did not have a very good year recovering from a shoulder injury. The one-day world cup actually put him back on track.

Slater’s figures for 1999 are flattering (we’re not actually talking about a calendar year here anyway). He scored centuries at the start and finish. The fact is though, he was very ordinary after returning to the Test side for the Indian tour of 1997/98 except for one magnificent home series against England. Hayden @2006 is a 20-run-per-innings better bat than Slater @ 1999, plus much better value in the field, between wickets, and as a team player.

As for Langer, your argument is self-defeating. He did not arrive as a Test player until his effort in the run-chase in Hobart against Pakistan in 1999. Prior to that, he was tentative and not worthy of his place. If you don’t think he is a much better bat now than on that WI tour, then your stats won’t help you.

The point is though, guys, we are talking about a side that could not beat the West Indies, as opposed to a side that has won everywhere, in every place at last visit, with one very, very high profile exception. It’s all hypothetical, but the batting is significantly stronger now.

Just a question for you. Why, when Australia lost in Sri Lanka in 1999, and in India in 2001, were they still considered number 1 by a mile, yet when they lose to England in 2005, and have a much better record around the world, they are on the verge of losing that ranking, and in the eyes of many, have indeed lost it?

And Chris give us some stats to back up your point that Australia and England are close in form. Since the Ashes, England have won 1 of 6 Tests, Australia 8 of 9. Perhaps you’ve lost some Tests, like you did with Warne in 1999.
Don’t forget, guys, it’s a long long time since we’ve seen a pathetic capitulation from Australia like we did from England at Mohali and Lahore.

SpryCorpse wrote:
March 29th, 2006 at 12.44 pm

I love it, Andrew!

[Here a bouncer, there a yorker,
Every sentence a real corker.
Andrew Schulz had a ball,
ee-i ee-i-o.....
Get him up here, I wanna boof him!]

Now, who is gonna moon for the rebuttal?

Chris wrote:
March 29th, 2006 at 11.04 pm

Andrew,

Perhaps in your part of the world 3 minutes is an extensive amount of time. We should poll the fairer species and find out. However, my research was never offered as â€˜extensiveâ€™ merely proffered to poke even more holes in the sponge that was your initial argument.

You offer up two pieces of evidence in your last comment that evoke the very spirit of a self defeating argument.

Firstly the inability to beat the West Indies.

In no way, would any rational observer of cricket, with the ability to muster even a smidgeon of impartiality, mention the West Indian side of 1999 with such flippant disregard for the significance of a series draw to them, as you have done.

As much as we may argue about the differences between Australia of 1999 and now, these are insignificant when compared to the chasm that separated the West Indian side of the two periods. There are three irrefutable reasons why this is so. Curtly Ambrose, Courtenay Walsh and Home Soil.

Certainly the 1999 WI team was weaker than in the earlier part of the decade, but in no way was it comparable to the shambolic WI team of today, and you refer to it as if it were.

Secondly, the one high profile loss

My dear friend, it is high profile because of the enormity of losing the Ashes. An occurrence that the 1999 team would not only have not let happen, but would not have let the possibility enter their consciousness for a solitary moment, such was the superiority of that bygone team.

The swagger, the dominance, the outright obnoxious arrogance that permeated their presence on the field, was what set them apart, and whilst diluted within the present line up, still clearly exists in a concentrated form among their followers.

My case, your honour, rests.

Chris

andrew schulz wrote:
March 30th, 2006 at 2.04 am

ouch put me in my place again.
I would have thought obnoxious and arrogant would have described your effort in countering my point about Warne. Also the proposition put implicitly by you and explicitly by others of higher profile that only Tests against England matter.

Surely lara might have been included in your three irrefutable points. Might be worth pointing out too that today’s shambolic team actually play on home soil sometimes, so that can’t actually be used in comparing the chasm between the teams.

Respectfully,
Andrew.

andrew schulz wrote:
December 16th, 2006 at 9.32 am

how’s it looking now guys? When does that being skittled start, Christopher?

Mark Moran wrote:
August 30th, 2008 at 2.53 am

Hey, does anyone know where I could find videos on the rest of this tour, and perhaps the 1995 Australian tour of the West Indies?
Thanks

Comments

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

« South Africa vs Australia again | Main | Street cricket in Kerala »

The Corridor (a cricket blog)

"Peering down the corridor of uncertainty. It’s about cricket, sport and journalism"

Quotehanger

Recent Posts

The headlines

The news

TWC

Related pieces

Search

Eat your feeds

Tags

Tag Cloud

Polls

Sponsors ?

Cricinfo blogs

Cricinfo articles

Scorecards

Video: West Indies v Australia, Third Test, 1999