Best team since Waugh/ Ponting’s Australia?

[PaulLennon]

Touring India was just a different experience as well.
Expect it to be much easier now for the better sides although I’m still looking forward to the hypothetical 30 v 30 match

Thats what a series is (15 vs 15). And performance across time is very much a 30 vs 30 thing. Think about somehting like an NBA season or an EPL season. Squad depth matters. Not just about starting 5 or 11.

 

[sunilz]

4-1.

Marshall will do well. Richards averaged 45 in India against a much much weaker lineup.

As much as Richards is mythologized (partly due to performance in England and it's the English media who hypes stuff up - like Strauss's England being the best side ever etc and because they are the old tastemakers everyone goes along with the narrative), thing is Richards as a test batsmen basically has the record of Kohli.

And while people might be like Richards did it against tougher attacks than Kohli etc he didn't. He averaged 43 against Hadlee's NZ and 42 against Imran's Pak. 21 of his 24 centuries are against England/India/Australia.

Players raise their performance when pushed against wall. If WI are in trouble expect VIV to play very matured innings. Don't underestimate him.

 

[PaulLennon]

Players raise their performance when pushed against wall. If WI are in trouble expect VIV to play very matured innings. Don't underestimate him.

And you are expecting the Indian team which has come back from behind 4 times to win a series not to raise their performance? 2020-21 BGT was the dictionary definition of raising performance when pushed against the wall.

 

[sunilz]

And you are expecting the Indian team which has come back from behind 4 times to win a series not to raise their performance. 2020-21 BGT was the dictionary definition of raising performance when pushed against the wall.

This is why I said earlier IND may win 3-2 . But it will be a very closely fought series.

 

[GotSpin]

Thats what a series is (15 vs 15). And performance across time is very much a 30 vs 30 thing. Think about somehting like an NBA season or an EPL season. Squad depth matters. Not just about starting 5 or 11.

You don’t use 30 players in a series. What are you on about

trying to suggest that Indias current bench strength is somehow unique to them is equally preposterous

 

[Chrish]

i didn’t expect this to turn into current India vs previous aus/ Wi discussion. Those two teams were better.. If India wants to compete with those two, then they need to keep winning away games and maintain that dominance for close to a decade. As of right now, we need to first win the series in SA and NZ. NZ has always been a difficult proposition for India especially now since it’s their best side ever. Without beating them, we can’t discuss our status as an ATG side..

 

[Shri]

Were either of those series in the 80s vs peak WI? And did you even bother to note that in the 78 series WI first XI was away playing Packer cricket?? I'll just assume that you are trolling.

trolling? ?

me? : ?

never! ?

 

[ma1978]

You don’t use 30 players in a series. What are you on about

trying to suggest that Indias current bench strength is somehow unique to them is equally preposterous

I think it’s fair to say India’s bench strength now is unique amongst world teams. Australia has got a lot better recently but there is still a major drop off after the top bats.

it’s not unprecedented - very good players like D Hussey, Divenuto, Love and Hodge would have been top bats anywhere else and couldn’t find a place

same with the Windies at their peak

I’d argue bench strength is the single biggest sign of a top team

 

[honestbharani]

To be fair, I think covid and various other factors have kind of necessitated most teams trying out their bench strength far more in recent years. At the moment, I think NZ and Aus both have very good bench strength and England have explored theirs to great detail as well. India seems to be better but it is as much a product of our times as anything else.

 

[_00_deathscar]

I think India currently does have a certain je ne sais quoi that makes them quite a bit greater than the sum of their parts, though. On paper they should have been blown away by Australia last year too, and they honestly should probably have lost in England. But they find a way to win, somehow, and that's an intangible quality that "on paper" lineups can't quite capture.

I will make it clear again though: that's principally because of Bumrah in particular and Siraj more recently, and so the analysis from 2015 posted a few posts ago is entirely irrelevant in my eyes. As far as I'm concerned, this current Indian team was born in 2018 when Bumrah became a permanent fixture of the team.

If there is a criticism of the SA side of that era, it's that they were the opposite: they were sometimes less than the some of their parts and the otherwise stellar batting often creaked when put under real pressure; it lacked firefighters and lower-order tenacity to dig them out of holes. Which is why Australia were consistently able to take games off them at home when really SA looked the much better team on paper. That was the era when "downhill skiier" was applied to Kallis and ABdV a lot.

I seem to have sparked quite the debate with that comment.

Spark sort of has it right here.

I’m not saying current India will dominate or even win vs Windies/Aussie ATG teams. I’m saying out of all the teams since then, I give this current lot - despite any weaknesses - the best chance of pulling something off vs those teams - ie they’re the best since then.

And this is something I’ve commented on with regards to bowling too - the same theme continues.
Our bowling unit is ridiculously well rounded (especially once you consider Ashwin and Jadeja - and specifically Jadeja’s role abroad). The pace attack individually isn’t the greatest in the world - the names aren’t guys who are ATG/ATVG. Apart from the promising Bumrah, they’re not even close (maybe Siraj can be one, too early to call). But they function really, really well as a team. That’s borne out by the number of times they bowl the opposition out, and often times under 200.

The SA team man for man is better than the Indian one, I don’t think anyone doubts that.
The Indian one gets results.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

England won that 1 test cause half the bowling attack was injured in Australia (Jadeja, Shami, Umesh who all average 20 in India). Even when Aus last time toured Ind, Ind was missing Shami who averages 21 in Ind and Axar hadn't even debuted.

I am assuming we are going to be having these hypothetical series with fully fit XIs. If you are comparing a hypothetical fully fit Australian/WI all time XI all in form then it has to be with a hypothetical Kohli XI all in form and fully fit.

India getting blanked in NZ has nothing to do with winning in India.

Rohit
Rahul/Vijay
Pujara
Kohli
Rahane
Pant
Ashwin (avg 20 in India)
Jadeja (avg 20 in India)
Axar (avg 10 in India)
Shami (avg 20 in India)
Umesh (avg 20 in India)

all fully fit all in form would smash any XI you make out of the great Aus/WI teams.

WI have collapsed to Hirwani and Aus have collapsed to Harbhajan with no supporting spinners or pacers. Against this spin troika with the pacers - good luck. As long as the batsmen make 250 (which far inferior Indian batting lineups have against the all time Aus/WI teams at home) Ind will win each match by a margin of 150 runs/8 wickets or more.

So you think that team you've named would smash?

Greenidge
Hayden
Richards
Lara
Martyn
S Waugh
Gilchrist
Marshall
Ambrose
Garner
McGrath

This team would destroy India in India.
Ponting and Warne struggled in India so wouldn't be picked.

 

[_00_deathscar]

I'll preface this by saying that SA is probably the correct answer to this thread even though I think it was a highly underwhelming team compared to true ATG sides and did not achieve any degree of dominance in order to be called an ATG side. It was just a consistently good unit and on the same level of the other teams mentioned here.

Having said the above, the point though is that on paper, that SA side was filled with ATGs and world class players from top to bottom and were extremely well rounded yet they they routinely drew against teams nowhere close to that quality on paper and dropped series at home to teams which again on paper were worse. One of the worst Indian bowling line ups of modern history (thanks to Zaheer's injury) matched them comfortably in SA in 10/11.

You are trying to assess the quality of a side based on the quality of a players. That makes sense when you are trying to predict a future event. However, when analysing the quality of sides of the past, quality of individual players matters very little and the actual data/results is what we should go by.

You are basically doing equity analysis when you should be doing data analysis.

Separate/similar point but it’s also why the only answer to “which 2 spinners would you pick in an Indian XI at home” should be Ashwin and Jadeja. They’ve absolutely decimated everyone, and done it together.

 

[Chrish]

So you think that team you've named would smash?

Greenidge
Hayden
Richards
Lara
Martyn
S Waugh
Gilchrist
Marshall
Ambrose
Garner
McGrath

This team would destroy India in India.
Ponting and Warne struggled in India so wouldn't be picked.

Not sure about “destroying” India in India tbh.. And Lara was pretty mediocre there..

 

[Arachnodouche]

Did Ambrose and Garner even play Tests in India? I mean, you'd include Walsh in there if you wanted to assemble a crack side to have a chance in India. Just random bull**** flying all over.

 

[Chrish]

On a reflection Gilchrist also has less than mediocre record in India.

Look current Indian side has an amazing bowling attack at home., It’s like they have seamlessly adapted to home conditions. Despite our shortcoming of middle order, I would put them against any all time Xi at home..

 

[Chrish]

Did Ambrose and Garner even play Tests in India? I mean if you'd include Walsh in there if you wanted to assemble a crack side to have a chance in India. Just random bull**** flying all over.

Yeah it was a garbage post.. let’s not talk about Xi based on a potential.. Let’s judge them based on how actual players did.

 

[akilana]

I think India currently does have a certain je ne sais quoi that makes them quite a bit greater than the sum of their parts, though. On paper they should have been blown away by Australia last year too, and they honestly should probably have lost in England. But they find a way to win, somehow, and that's an intangible quality that "on paper" lineups can't quite capture.

I will make it clear again though: that's principally because of Bumrah in particular and Siraj more recently, and so the analysis from 2015 posted a few posts ago is entirely irrelevant in my eyes. As far as I'm concerned, this current Indian team was born in 2018 when Bumrah became a permanent fixture of the team.

If there is a criticism of the SA side of that era, it's that they were the opposite: they were sometimes less than the some of their parts and the otherwise stellar batting often creaked when put under real pressure; it lacked firefighters and lower-order tenacity to dig them out of holes. Which is why Australia were consistently able to take games off them at home when really SA looked the much better team on paper. That was the era when "downhill skiier" was applied to Kallis and ABdV a lot.

I don't think that's true about SA. That wasn't the criticism levelled at SA. The main criticism is that they didn't win more than they should have because they had a few ATGs. I remember at the time people always gave credit to SA for refusing to die and lose a test series. They often made comebacks to win a series or draw from difficult positions. The main reason they didn't win as many is simple. As someone mentioned before, the SA's squad wasn't the strongest. Smith, Kallis, AB, Amla, Steyn, Morkel and Philander were quality. Philander only debuted in 2011. Before that they only had Morkel and Steyn and two other passengers in the attack. Smith lacked a quality partner at the top. SA's lower middle order was pretty weak starting with Duminy at 6 and some random at no 7. It wasn't a well rounded side. England was the most well rounded side. Quality openers, and solid middle order. A solid wicker keeper batsman. A good bowling attack that included a a fine spin bowler. They were poor man's Australia.

As for Kohli's India. They're a fine side and have a good record but they aren't beating 2010-2013 SA/Eng.

 

[akilana]

So you think that team you've named would smash?

Greenidge
Hayden
Richards
Lara
Martyn
S Waugh
Gilchrist
Marshall
Ambrose
Garner
McGrath

This team would destroy India in India.
Ponting and Warne struggled in India so wouldn't be picked.

This side will beat the current Indian side but not the 2010 side.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Not sure about “destroying” India in India tbh.. And Lara was pretty mediocre there..

Clive Lloyd averaged 75.5 in India (4 100s in 14 tests) and Jimmy Adams 173, so they could be brought in.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

On a reflection Gilchrist also has less than mediocre record in India.

Look current Indian side has an amazing bowling attack at home., It’s like they have seamlessly adapted to home conditions. Despite our shortcoming of middle order, I would put them against any all time Xi at home..

1930s Australia

Bradman would score truckloads of runs while O'Reilly and Grimmett would be destructive with the ball.