Best against the best

[bagapath]

I'll put it this way: Lara had a better series than Tendulkar ever had against our best in March of 99 yet you want to start counting from December of that same year. If I didn't know you better I'd say you were purposely fixing it so Lara couldn't be ahead of Tendulkar when the difference between their series is 9-10 months apart.

Even then though, Lara averaged 58 against Australia in 2005 with the whole attack present which is higher than any of Tendulkar's series against them. But still, his series in 99 averaging 91 is something else.

No Ikki. In my opinion australia was very good in the period you are talking about. But they were not yet the legendary team worthy of this kind of a thread. They lost to us twice. once to srilanka. And couldn't close windies.

Their claim to greatness began after this phase; with the 16 match run. The second time they won the same number of games was when their reign ended, in 08. They were not a legendary team before this time; and not even good afterwards.

The same holds true for windies before the NZ series in 80 and after the australia series in 94.

In my opinion, windies ruled for 14 years and australia for 9. And in that period gooch and sachin were the best against the best.

Whether or not I consider the WI- Aus series as part of their peak, Lara in that series was super special. Even a notch better than Sachin in the 98 series. While McGrath didn't play in that India series, Sachin's exploits led to a series win which narrows the gap between him and Lara in that 99 series. Still Lara's 153 n.o. puts him ahead if you compare only these two series, I agree.

But Tendulkar's consistency over the next 10 years would give him the top spot in the final analysis anyways. Lara and Laxman will have to slug it out for the second position.

 

[Ikki]

I'm sorry but I can't agree. Nothing happened between March 99 and December 99 that automatically made Australia a better team. Gilchrist came but that's of little value in this discussion. Sure they went on a run but it was essentially the same team with regards to the bowling attack. There is nothing to suggest that what Tendulkar did in the 99/00 series was even remotely better than what Lara did in 99. They're not even on the same plane as far as I am concerned and Tendulkar can't come close to touching it.

In fact, that 2nd unbeaten streak goes long into 2008 which was when we had lost our 2 great bowlers. Tendulkar made merry against that team too but it was clearly inferior to the attack containing McGrath and Warne. It'd be pretty ridiculous to hold, for example, that this attack was better than the 99 one Lara faced merely because they were on a streak.

Also, I have to add: it does matter when McGrath and Warne are playing. That is the whole point of the exercise - the author is looking at these two all-time great teams on the basis of their bowling. It's also the reason why the team are #1 or doing well. If the attack no longer contains them and has their back-ups (for whatever reason) that team is #1 in name only. How Tendulkar did against the likes of Lee, Johnson et al doesn't really begin to compare to what Lara did against Australia. It's akin to Kallis scoring runs against the current Indian attack (which is the #1 side) and inferring it is more impressive than scoring against the S.African attack in the 90s, simply because the latter team wasn't #1.

 

[bagapath]

Disagree. Windies drew 2-2 against mcwarne. We beat the combo 2-1.
But we could only draw 1-1 against gillespie-mcgill. Which one is a better bowling attack, now?

I am not going to follow the best bowling attack argument because it is flawed. All that matters to me is australia's reign at the top. They didn't have the great team's aura before the time I am talking about. They could not beat windies. They could not beat us. They could not beat SL. They were not yet the finished product. they were not the undisputed kings of the world.

India hasn't been beaten in a test series for 3 years. I don't consider them an ATG team. The aussie team you are talking about was less accomplished than the present indian team. They became giants only afterwards.

(4000 posts in 5 years. At this rate I will be 43 when I touch 10000)

 

[honestbharani]

Disagree. Windies drew 2-2 against mcwarne. We beat the combo 2-1.
But we could only draw 1-1 against gillespie-mcgill. Which one is a better bowling attack, now?

I am not going to follow the best bowling attack argument because it is flawed. All that matters to me is australia's reign at the top. They didn't have the great team's aura before the time I am talking about. They could not beat windies. They could not beat us. They could not beat SL. They were not yet the finished product. they were not the undisputed kings of the world.

India hasn't been beaten in a test series for 3 years. I don't consider them an ATG team. The aussie team you are talking about was less accomplished than the present indian team. They became giants only afterwards.

(4000 posts in 5 years. At this rate I will be 43 when I touch 10000)

first of all, congrats..


And secondly, what have you been smoking? I am as big an India fan here as anyone and even I wont say we are better than the preGilly champion Aussie side...

 

[bagapath]

first of all, congrats..


And secondly, what have you been smoking? I am as big an India fan here as anyone and even I wont say we are better than the preGilly champion Aussie side...

Pre gilly aussies had many unfinished agendas. They had lost to india. And srilanka. And had not beaten windies.

We have beaten everyone except SA. And not lost to anyone in 3 years. We don't have a bowling attack worthy of carrying mcwarne's kit. But we have better results.

What australia did afterwards is something this indian team can't even dream of. That is the champion stuff we should be talking about in this thread; it is not about individual bowlers.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Why does every thread become Tendulkar V.S. everyone else.

 

[ankitj]

Why does every thread become Tendulkar V.S. everyone else.

Find the first mention of Tendulkar on this thread, you'd know

 

[Ikki]

Disagree. Windies drew 2-2 against mcwarne. We beat the combo 2-1.
But we could only draw 1-1 against gillespie-mcgill. Which one is a better bowling attack, now?

No one cares what the result was, we only care how the batsmen did. The better bowling attack is the bowling attack with the better bowlers. Citing a series here and there doesn't make Gillespie + Macgill > Warne + McGrath.

I am not going to follow the best bowling attack argument because it is flawed. All that matters to me is australia's reign at the top. They didn't have the great team's aura before the time I am talking about. They could not beat windies. They could not beat us. They could not beat SL. They were not yet the finished product. they were not the undisputed kings of the world.

They had already beat WIndies and SL in 95 and beat better teams than India - like Pakistan and S.Africa. Also, that series loss to SL was in large part due to rain which ruined the last 2 tests after SL won the first.

By 95, Australia were the #1 side after beating the WIndies. By around 97 I'd say it was undisputed. The only team they didn't beat was India away from home. Are you implying that India were our rivals in the 90s for the best team in the world?

More importantly, the chance of the 16 game winning streak happening in the 90s was less probable. There were 4 genuinely good sides (Aus, SA, WI and Pak) and another very good side in home conditions (Ind).

India hasn't been beaten in a test series for 3 years. I don't consider them an ATG team. The aussie team you are talking about was less accomplished than the present indian team. They became giants only afterwards.

No way. The current Indian team is drawing almost as many series as it is winning. That Aussie team won all it's series except for the few mentioned previously (and this over a span of 6 years, not 3).

BTW congrats.

 

[smash84]

I think it would be fair to rate the Aussie team of 95-99 as a better team than the current Indian team. That is my guess. Especially if quality of opposition is taken into account.

 

[Bun]

I think it would be fair to rate the Aussie team of 95-99 as a better team than the current Indian team. That is my guess. Especially if quality of opposition is taken into account.

no doubt on the bowling front.

 

[bagapath]

Teams that lose to srilanka and india (twice) don't deserve to be called the greatest ever. Greatest teams had no final frontiers to cross. The pre 99 australian team's achievements were incomplete without series wins against india and in sri lanka and west indies. And scoring big against them should not carry the same weight as scoring against teams that are capable of winning 16 games on the trot.

A separate discussion about batsmen vs bowlers should not be mixed with this.

Also, a team unbeaten home and away for 3 years is superior to a team that loses three overseas series irrespective of the quality of individual players.

 

[vcs]

first of all, congrats..


And secondly, what have you been smoking? I am as big an India fan here as anyone and even I wont say we are better than the preGilly champion Aussie side...

Yeah, agree. I would say India are at about the level of where England were in 2003 to 2005. The next year will clear up a lot about how good this Indian team is, in the greater scheme of things.

 

[sehwag fan]

No way. The current Indian team is drawing almost as many series as it is winning. That Aussie team won all it's series except for the few mentioned previously (and this over a span of 6 years, not 3).

BTW congrats.

W/L of OZ team from 1995 to when they stated their winning streak
Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

W/L of current Indian team
Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

W/L of OZ against IND in that period
Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo


It is laughable to say that Aus 1995-99 team was better than India. You did not win a series against us in that period. And btw your Mcgrath came in 1996 tour for one test. They lost both the test and ODI series.
Even in 2004 ,series would have been draw if not for rain
2nd Test: India v Australia at Chennai, Oct 14-18, 2004 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
So , OZ winning streak at best started from 2001 and finished in 2005 Ashes.No way comparable to WI side of 1980-94


Australia rating point after Ashes =127
International Cricket Council - Match Zone - Test Ranking

India's rating point now =128.


The current England tour will tell where this Indian side stands.

We have to maintain W/L of just 1 to better OZ side of 1995-99. Will do quite easily.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

You are just trying to be more happy than Smileyshah, and I don't buy it for one second.

 

[sehwag fan]

You are just trying to be more happy than Smileyshah, and I don't buy it for one second.

What is your problem ?

 

[Bun]

Yeah, agree. I would say India are at about the level of where England were in 2003 to 2005. The next year will clear up a lot about how good this Indian team is, in the greater scheme of things.

which is no shame tbh. eng of that period, thx to freddie turning superman, was as good a side as you can get in the last couple of decades. for me, the team was perhaps best in the world, in that brief period, and managed to topple the aussies at their mightiest.

 

[Spark]

Teams that lose to srilanka and india (twice) don't deserve to be called the greatest ever. Greatest teams had no final frontiers to cross. The pre 99 australian team's achievements were incomplete without series wins against india and in sri lanka and west indies. And scoring big against them should not carry the same weight as scoring against teams that are capable of winning 16 games on the trot.

A separate discussion about batsmen vs bowlers should not be mixed with this.

Also, a team unbeaten home and away for 3 years is superior to a team that loses three overseas series irrespective of the quality of individual players.

Not necessarily. Quality of opposition matters. Simple fact is if you put the Aussie team of 99 and the Indian team now in a 5-match series I would back us.

 

[sehwag fan]

And there is a big question mark whether OZ was really the best side in 1995-99 , given that SA had the best W/L ratio in that period
Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

And they won a series in India 2-0 without help of rain and injury. So it looks like it was a myth.

 

[Bun]

Not necessarily. Quality of opposition matters. Simple fact is if you put the Aussie team of 99 and the Indian team now in a 5-match series I would back us.

i'd back the current indian team to thwart the 99 aus team, I wouldn't say they would dominate, but a draw or a narrow win is certainly possible.

 

[Spark]

It's definitely possible, the strength of the Indian batting alone makes sure of that.

I just think that over the course of a 5-match series where there is nowhere to hide, India's bowling will be exposed too often.