Unfortunately under Kohli the tendency has been for the team to buckle under pressure at key moments in away tours and ICC tournaments.
Again, this is about great bowling attacks, not great bowlers. Shami and Ishant don't have to be ATGs to be part of one of the current best bowling attacks in the world, and the best one in India by far. Also pretty clear you didn't watch Indian pacers bowl or you wouldn't be saying this considering how crucial they've been in taking early wickets to put enormous pressure on the opposition to survive both them and the spinners.
You are not disputing what I said. I said the pace attack bowled well but played a support role for the spinners rather than a decisive role in winning series. That is pretty much unarguable.
Yeah it's nice that you can keep saying things without actually backing it up, but it won't fly with me. Really impressive to keep it up even though it's ultimately useless in debating.
I mentioned superior records (except for Dhoni, each of the 2000s ones averages significantly more than their current counterparts) and gave examples of quality spinners that they faced. What do you want, a thesis? Do you really need a lot of evidence to convince you that Sehwag and Dravid are better than Sharma and Pujara? Maybe you didn't watch their careers.
And you've ignored the differences in eras regarding pitch quality and batting average inflation/deflation, as well as how the quality of bowlers involved is spread out and you can't make value judgements just by saying they faced Great X, Y and Z while completely omitting that X, Y and Z played for different teams and often had worse bowlers around them to make their attacks overall not as good or consistent as the best bowlers pace or spin.
Please give those numbers and figures showing that all adjusted, Sharma and Pujara are roughly as good as Sehwag and Dravid. I am assuming you must have done it before because you are demanding such a spreadsheet breakdown from me. Otherwise you are just giving statements and ridiculous assumptions yourself.
You are strawmanning. I didn't call the noobs, I literally said the pace bowlers bowled well and that Kohli's team has a pace advantage. But that their role was more support and not series-defining. Why? Because freakin Ashwin/Jadeja were taking 30-50 wickets plus on average per series between themselves, while a pacer would rarely break 10 wickets in a series at home!
No need to shift goalposts to avoid proving your points here. Especially when it's not something I'm debating in the first place. Maybe learn to stick to what I'm asking for and answer that rather than running away.
Look at all my posts this page. All I was debating is 2000s Indian batting vs current batting and whether Kohli's pacers would win them a series against 2000s India. I will take your response as basically a fold.
And you did nothing beyond say 2000s batting good, current batting bad and pace quality difference is irrelevant. Nice to know you can't back anything up when asked for it, thanks for the concession.
Then just lock it? Since no one else cares beyond repeating old posts or starting new debates that are tangents off this one.
. Already hearing that silent cry..Pakpassion? The bumping would have been done by the Kohli team fanboys if the result went the other way, no doubt.No it will ruin the sole purpose of subshakerz’s being on this forum: pakpassion style opportunistic bumping..
He is already eagerly hoping for Australian series win in India. And it would make it that much sweeter when it won’t happen
None of regular posters are “fanboys”. Not talking about new accounts that pop up once in a while for trolling purpose.