My latest in this series goes over some ground I’ve already trod, when writing about the 1984-85 summer. Yet I wanted to revisit it because the Australian 1984 tour of the West Indies deserves its own article.
It was a fascinating series, that one. Taking on the world’s best side in their own backyard, the first Australian tour in years without Greg Chappell, Rod Marsh or Dennis Lillee.
It resulted in a famous 3-0 drubbing yet there were great moments for the Aussie cricket fan: Allan Border’s inspirational stand with Terry Alderman at Port of Spain (on top of his 521 runs for the series); Rodney Hogg taking a swing at Kim Hughes during a game; Hughes and Wayne Phillips causing an international incident by batting slow in protest during a tour game; Phillips scoring 120 at Bridgetown.
Was a defeat inevitable?
Honestly, probably yes.
But is there anything Australia could have done to minimise it?
Let’s look back.
(Credit: Ben Radford/Allsport via Getty Images)
The summer of 1983-84 had been a good one for Australia, comfortably beating Pakistan 2-0 in the Test series.
There was apprehension about the retirements of Marsh, Lillee and Chappell, but causes for optimism: Geoff Lawson stepped up as pace spearhead, with players like Rodney Hogg and Carl Rackemann offering support, and Terry Alderman coming back from injury; batsmen Hughes, Border, Phillips, Kepler Wessels and especially Graham Yallop had marvellous summers.
It wasn’t a green team: Hughes, Yallop and Hookes had all toured the West Indies before. And maybe, just maybe, Kim Hughes would flower as captain in the absence of Chappell, Lillee and Marsh.
The squad selected was as follows:
Batsmen
1. Kim Hughes (captain)
2. Allan Border (vice-captain)
3. Kepler Wessels
4. Wayne Phillips
5. Graham Yallop
6. Steve Smith
7. Greg Ritchie
8. David Hookes
Fast bowlers
9. Geoff Lawson
10. Terry Alderman
11. Rodney Hogg
12. Carl Rackemann
13. John Maguire
Spinners
14. Tom Hogan
15. Greg Matthews
Wicketkeepers
16. Roger Woolley
(Photo by Murrell/Allsport/Getty Images)
I can’t knock the selection of the batsmen or the fast bowlers – all were very good and in form.
The choice of spinners and wicketkeepers was less clear cut. I don’t think Woolley was as good a gloveman as Steve Rixon who should have gotten the job (and had toured the West Indies before).
Still, Woolley had done well for Tasmania, was a better batsman than Rixon, and had already played a Test against Sri Lanka. No one talks about Roger Woolley these days but for a while there he was meant to be Rod Marsh’s heir.
The first-class stats for the leading Australian spinners that summer: Tom Hogan took 26 wickets at 33, Bob Holland 24 at 30, Matthews 22 at 37, Peter Sleep 24 at 46, Murray Bennett 20 at 37, Ray Bright 20 at 54.
Matthews and Hogan had played against Pakistan, and Bennett had been in the squad. The better bowler than any of them was Bob Holland. He was the most experienced and the most consistent – but he was also the eldest. And his batting wasn’t as good as Hogan’s or Matthews’.
I think Hogan’s selection was entirely justified. No one talks about Tom Hogan much these days but he was a good player – a solid spinner, fighting batsman, all that stuff (a sort of Ray Bright mark 2).
But Holland should have gone with him instead of Matthews – Holland had a better chance of getting teams out, and that wins you more games than containment and fighting tail-end knocks.
Of course the biggest mistake was that Rod Marsh had not been appointed captain of Australia earlier (there had been several chances to do it: the 1981 Ashes, 1982 Pakistan tour, 1983 World Cup and 1983-84 home summer).
If that was the case he would have stuck around and could have led Australia. That wasn’t the selectors’ fault, though.
(Photo by S&G/PA Images via Getty Images)
Another mistake came when Yallop was ruled out of the tour with injury. Instead of replacing an experienced batsman with another experienced batsman they picked Dean Jones.
Now, Jones became an absolute champion and was clearly a player for the future, but they already had that in Smith and Ritchie; in a side that had lost Chappell they needed someone who had been around the block such as Wood. In the end it didn’t matter that much because Wood would fly out to replace Kepler Wessels. And Jones did fine.
Early tour form was encouraging, especially from Steve Smith. So good in fact the selectors decided to drop Wayne Phillips for the first Test, despite Phillips’ excellent work over the 83-84 Pakistan series.
The original Australian XI chosen for the first Test was:
1. Smith
2. Wessels
3. Ritchie
4. Hughes
5. Border
6. Hookes
7. Woolley (wicketkeeper)
8. Hogan
9. Lawson
10. Hogg
11. Rackemann
Then Woolley broke his finger before the game and Phillips was press ganged into being keeper. Phillips shouldn’t have been dropped in the first place – Smith or Wessells could have played at three over Ritchie, or they could have cooled their jets over Smith (just because a young bloke is in form in tour games doesn’t mean you have to rush them into the Test side. Cricketers aren’t cheese that’s about to expire.) Phillips had barely kept at first-class level.
This was the one Test in the series Australia looked (for a time) as though it might win, helped by a last-wicket partnership between Hogg and Hogan for 97 runs plus the Australian bowlers dismissing the West Indies for 230 in the first innings.
However this was to be the one time they’d get the West Indies for less than 300 the whole series (indeed, the Windies would go through the five Tests without losing a single second-innings wicket).
Australia’s batsmen couldn’t ram home the advantage in the second innings (though Phillips made 76) and the firm of Gordon Greenidge and Desmond Haynes brought the West Indies close to victory before the game ended in a draw.
For the second Test an injured Smith was replaced by Dean Jones, with Phillips opening and keeping. Australia struggled to dismiss the West Indies but Border and Alderman held on for another draw.
So far not terrible. But Australia had escaped a 2-0 deficient only via some weather, a lucky break (Hogg-Hogan partnership) and a miracle effort of batsmanship (Border).
Could their luck hold?
Well, yes… or so it seemed on the fourth day of the third Test with the West Indies still chasing down Australia’s big first-innings total. (Wood replaced injured Wessels; Phillips had scored 120).
Then Clive Lloyd counter-attacked to give the West Indies a lead, Australia’s batsmen collapsed in their second dig, and the West Indies romped home.
For the fourth Test, Woolley was in as keeper, allowing Phillips to play as a specialist batsman. Rackeman and Maguire came in for Hogg and Alderman. Jones came in for an injured Wood; Smith was also out. The West Indies won by an innings and 36 runs.
For the last Test, Woolley was out for Smith, and Jones was replaced by Greg Matthews to give the bowling extra strength. Australia lost by ten wickets.
What a terrible tour for Australia.
It must be said that that West Indies side was incredible.
(S&G/PA Images via Getty Images)
I think they would’ve beaten Australia, even with Rod Marsh as captain. I think they would’ve won even had Greg Chappell and Dennis Lillee still been playing.
The batsmen and bowlers simply struggled too much. That’s not the fault of the selectors. More Tests might’ve been given to John Maguire, whose disciplined line and length gave him Australia’s best figures on the tour, but I get why the selectors didn’t pick him.
Anyway this is the squad they should’ve taken
1. Rod Marsh (captain) or Steve Rixon
2. Kim Hughes (vice-captain) or (captain) if no Marsh
3. Allan Border
4. Wayne Phillips
5. Kepler Wessels and then when he got injured Jones or Greg Shipperd
6. Graham Yallop and then when he was injured Graeme Wood
7. David Hookes (he didn’t do well but I would’ve taken him)
8. Steve Smith (didn’t do well in the Tests but deserved his chance)
9. Greg Ritchie
10. Geoff Lawson
11. Rodney Hogg
12. Carl Rackemann
13. Terry Alderman
14. John Maguire
15. Tom Hogan
16. Bob Holland
I think the selectors did on the whole a fair job. Their big mistake was picking Phillips as wicketkeeper, and even then that wasn’t the plan it just happened that way. They also needed a match-winning spinner and Holland was a better option than Matthews.
A side that would’ve done better against the West Indies:
1. Phillips
2. Wessels then, after his injury, Smith
3. Yallop then, after his injury, Wood
4. Hughes
5. Border
6. Hookes
7. Marsh (captain)
8. Lawson
9. Hogg
10. Maguire
11. Holland
Winning in the West Indies around this time was hard. But it could be done. The 1978-79 Australian WSC XI for instance held the West Indies to a 1-1 draw, and that wasn’t a fantastic team, it just had some amazing players (Greg Chappell making 620 runs, Lillee took 23 wickets).
With a stronger keeper, better captain and more varied attack, who knows how the 1983-84 might have fared.
Australia wouldn’t win in the West Indies for another ten years. They had a good chance in 1990-91 – a very settled side, the West Indies in decline – but managed to blow it, in part via some dodgy selections (Steve Waugh as the fourth bowler?).
In 1994-95 it all came good. But the nightmare of 1983-84 remains.
Ron
Guest
Seriously good analysis … this Windies squad was too good for most teams from anywhere- in any era. The Aussies were flattered in the domestic season of ‘84 … the Pakistanis were ageing and without Imran, who himself, had yet to discover Wasim Akram. Also, The Windies were undefeated in the ODI series in ‘84 apart from a dead rubber in Perth which became the subject of a Legal Investigation. The reality is that no one would have really made a difference and Without Alan Robert Border it would’ve been 5-0
Mitchell Hall
Roar Rookie
Classic what if’s. Hookes had a belter of an 82/83 season. Then goes to the World Cup and has a poor series. He bags Kim Hughes on a radio program and Yallop takes his place for the 83/84 home series against a Pakistan side that has a no bowling Imran Khan and an Abdul Qadir who struggles for wickets. All the batsmen feasted on runs including G.Yallop. If Hookes plays that series who knows where his career would of gone? His issue was that he had too many “get out” shots and really struggled with off spin bowling.
Clear as mud
Guest
Yeah sorta. But technically Hookes was in the team at end 82-3 and went to Sri Lanka and smashed a ton. Yallop came in for the absent Hughes. Both are left handed. Definitely he got disciplined. Deserved to, as well. But it wasn’t form related. (Wood was dropped like a hot potato the previous home summer. But as befits the no logic of the time, found his was back into the team for the Sri Lanka test. Made 74 against the tourists the week before the test. Phillips made 75 in the corresponding game. There was only one shield round / Wood faced the might of NSW at the WACA. Phillips feasted on Tassie mediums on an Adelaide road. They picked him on that one dig. It came off sorta. Although he only got to 50 once after the debut ton and only then 54, in a run heavy series. Wood’s Shield tons to no avail.)
Stephen Vagg
Roar Guru
Wood was always an average-around-30 type opener - he tended to get centuries or nothing from memory. Good player but I got the sense they always wanted someone better. I don't think Wood was injured, they just felt Phillips would do better... just like when Wessels came available for selection I don't think they disliked Laird or whoever he replaced they just thought Wessels would do better. Also for 83-84 Australian selectors were worried about Qadir and Phillips was a left hander and they thought left handers negated him so they stacked the team with left handers. Hookes was unlucky after a great 82-83 but Yallop was in the form of his life (Yallop was super unlucky to miss out in the 82-83 Ashes) - hard for Hookes to dislodge Yallop, Border, Hughes and Chappell. Hookes wondered if it was his criticism of Hughes' captaincy in 83 World Cup which hurt him but I honestly think they picked the best batsmen. I'd never thought of what would've happened had Chappell retired in 83 though... You're right, Hookes would've had a home series to bed himself in. Mind you Hookes did get a few chances and he never seemed to be able to quite grab them. If he'd been in the side in 84/85 they would've picked him as captain over Border for sure.
Clear as mud
Guest
He certainly seemed to bat well with Wood. Wood got 20 tests in a row or something and suddenly Phillips was an opener. Was Woody injured on 83-4? (Hooked getting black banned while in the best form of his life. Crazy stupid times). Meanwhile if GSC doesn’t have his farewell tour of the country we get 5 home and winning tests into a young player, say Boon. Or we just pick Hookes and have the obvious Hughes Border Hookes Yallop combo, noting there was no obvious 4 between them. Maybe they Fab 4 played a test in Pakistan in 70? They should have been the solid core of Australia for years IMHO. Instead cameos by selection again and again
Stephen Vagg
Roar Guru
He would've been terrific in the West Indies. Laird is an interesting case. Many players who went on the 77 and 81 Ashes tours say him not being picked was a key reason why we did badly on those tours. I think the selectors were very much looking towards the future with Smith and Phillips as openers to partner Wessels but then Wessels was injured, Smith was mostly injured then lost form and Phillips became keeper, so I guess the moral of the story is: you just never know. If he'd stuck around another season he could have well gotten back in the side after the Sth African bannings happened.
Clear as mud
Guest
Presumably because he didn’t get picked after scoring 8 50s, with Chappell and Marsh retiring and yalllop then Wessels injured. Pretty he sure he would have batted on for a while. He was only 33.
Stephen Vagg
Roar Guru
I know Hogan was a better batter but think Holland simply had a stronger chance of dismissing teams. The only test Australia won in 1985 Ashes for instance, was when he took a five-for at Lords. For instance a more potent bowling attack and Australia's first innings of 429 in the third test could've won them the game. But like I say, I would've picked Hogan in my squad over Matthews, not Hogan, and the tour games would've given some indication of Holland's effectiveness. Laird was a fantastic player but from memory he retired at end of the 83-84 season.
Brainstrust
Roar Rookie
Lets get this straight, Australia lost 3-0 and were very close to losing the other 2 matches, and you weaken the batting. Holland was one of the biggest bunnies not just a worse batsman than Hogan a real no 11 , and Hogan scored crucial runs in the two draws. The result would have been a 5-0 whitewash, that they would have taken more second innings wickets is not going make the performance better. They should have taken Laird a good backfoot player and did well against the West Indies.
Stephen Vagg
Roar Guru
True. He may have done terribly. But Holland had a better record as a match winner. I also think his stats would've been better had he bowled to a specialist keeper who would've taken every knick and stumping chance and had a captain sympathetic to spin bowling.
Stephen Vagg
Roar Guru
I have read that was Jim Maxwell's first tour for the ABC I think.
Clear as mud
Guest
Bruce Laird. 700 runs with 8 50's in the Shield. He could have opened and batted and batted and batted. Agree re Dutchy though. In 73 we took THREE leggies even though we had Chappelli and Stacky in the team as better than handy part timers. Classic Hughes era selection fail.
Renato CARINI
Roar Rookie
"Even at ages 36-38? Would Chappell in 86-87 have been any more useful than Ponting in 2012-13?" No one can know for sure. Some players decline after 35 and some don't. Gooch and Hobbs didn't Ponting and Sehwag did Still, in an inexperienced side, Chappell and Marsh would have been a handy options.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Even at ages 36-38? Would Chappell in 86-87 have been any more useful than Ponting in 2012-13? Alderman would have made a huge difference in England in 1985 while in the following two home summers a fully fit Lawson plus Hogg and Rackemann. Even had India and NZ come in 84-85, with the Windies pushed back to 85-86, we would have had all those bowlers. However, the Windies were super popular with fans at the time so the ACB wanted to get them here as often as possible. By the end of 84-85 summer they realised they had gone into overkill.
Renato CARINI
Roar Rookie
Just on your last point Josie. The big three would have made a huge difference in the following series: 85 ashes 85-86 86-87 If any had played that long.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Greg Chappell would not have made a shred of difference. At 35, the Windies quicks would have sorted him out, as they did out here in 1981-82. 364 runs at 72.8 in the preceding Pakistan tour sounds great, but in amongst 150 not out and 182, he made scores of only 17, 6, 4 and 5. He would not have got anywhere near 150 in any innings had he played that series. Lillee was also 34 and may well have broken down. He may well have not been super effective in the West Indies, even in his prime, but we will never know that one way or another. Marsh was pretty redundant as a batsman not too far beyond WSC so that would have meant a very long tail, not that Woolley or Rixon were anything special as batsmen. The idea that we missed the big 3 assumes them still to be at their mid to late 70s peaks which simply is not reality.
johnb
Guest
You're quite right that into the 80s spinners did ok - but they tended to be taking that 10-15 wickets per series, good back-up figures, rather than 20-25 which might be winning you a series. Stuart MacGill (of leggies) probably had the best series there in 2003 with 20 wickets at about 31. But that was 2003 and MacGill was a very, very good bowler who was very unfortunate to get the timing of his birth wrong. It's tempting to look at Bob Holland's figures against the Windies - 3 tests, 14 wickets at 29 and wonder what might have been. Alternatively, you can discount his performance on an 80s Sydney turner and see 2 tests, 4 wickets at 65 on other pitches and wonder whether those figures or the overall figures are more representative. But still when the front-line spinner (Tom Hogan) who was tried took 8 wickets at 60 across 5 tests (4 of them in the first innings of the series) what have you got to lose?
Stephen Vagg
Roar Guru
You're right. You have to be careful picking a bowler or keeper because of the batting. It's a consideration but it shouldn't be the main thing. I wish there were stats for catches missed by keepers.
Mitchell Hall
Roar Rookie
Another great article and thoroughly enjoyed it. If the Death Star of cricket had any weakness it was leg spin. Holland should of gone and Marsh as Captain with David Hookes as his vice.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
ABC Radio. In the days when the ABC would actually send commentators to the West Indies for weeks on end. In bed as a youngster listening into the small hours.