• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Kohli's India vs Ganguly's India

Which team wins in India?

  • Kohli's team

    Votes: 10 71.4%

  • Ganguly's team

    Votes: 4 28.6%
  • Total voters
    14
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Hall of Fame Member
Thala_0710 said:
Our batsmen hate SA, our pacers love it. It is what it is. But still none of them are Bumrah level. I reckon we take the 2010-11 series with Bumrah. Even without him, we came damn close. (Likewise in Aus in 03-04).
Click to expand...
Tbf if McWarne was there, we would be obliterated in Australia. We should really had won it though, had perfect conditions to; their best 2 players out, our batsmen all turning up atleast once and even the best bowler between the two teams bowling at an ATG level!!
 
Thala_0710

Thala_0710

International Regular
subshakerz said:
They also won in WI and Pakistan.
Click to expand...
It's quite understated.
I too believe that ATG bowlers do have more of an affect in winning series, but we didn't have that in the 2000s. And still we won in Eng, NZ, Pak and WI. Came quite close in Sa and Aus too. With our best pacer being Zaheer Khan. So batting too matters quite a lot which ppl underestimate imo.
 
Thala_0710

Thala_0710

International Regular
The 2004 series was an interesting one.
In the first test at Bangalore, Aus bat first, Clarke piles a massive ton and we get Mcgrathed (Gillespie and Kasprowicz gave good support as well).
The second test at Chennai we should have won. Kumble bowled brilliantly but time didn't permit the result.
Bcci panics and we rush an injured Tendulkar back for the third test at Nagpur which is a disasterclass. Gillespie produces his career's best performance and we basically get thumped.
The fourth is the rank turner at Mumbai (the infamous Clarke 6/9). Very very low scoring game, but Laxman and an injured Sachin somehow manage to eke out what turned to be match winning fifties, coupled with ofc the trio of Karthik, Kumble and Bhajji bowling really well.

So us winning at Chennai would have levelled it at 2-2, but overall Australia were definitely the better team. Probably the only series at home where Sachin was injured, and the rest somehow failed simultaneously.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Hall of Fame Member
Thala_0710 said:
The 2004 series was an interesting one.
In the first test at Bangalore, Aus bat first, Clarke piles a massive ton and we get Mcgrathed (Gillespie and Kasprowicz gave good support as well).
The second test at Chennai we should have won. Kumble bowled brilliantly but time didn't permit the result.
Bcci panics and we rush an injured Tendulkar back for the third test at Nagpur which is a disasterclass. Gillespie produces his career's best performance and we basically get thumped.
The fourth is the rank turner at Mumbai (the infamous Clarke 6/9). Very very low scoring game, but Laxman and an injured Sachin somehow manage to eke out what turned to be match winning fifties, coupled with ofc the trio of Karthik, Kumble and Bhajji bowling really well.

So us winning at Chennai would have levelled it at 2-2, but overall Australia were definitely the better team. Probably the only series at home where Sachin was injured, and the rest somehow failed simultaneously.
Click to expand...
Also to note, Australia won that series by batting. Ofcourse it was career best for Gillespie, McGrath was Great and Warne didn't suck; but Indian bowling overall matches them. Our batting, which in Indian conditions was definitely better at 100%, let us down.
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Thala_0710 said:
It's quite understated.
I too believe that ATG bowlers do have more of an affect in winning series, but we didn't have that in the 2000s. And still we won in Eng, NZ, Pak and WI. Came quite close in Sa and Aus too. With our best pacer being Zaheer Khan. So batting too matters quite a lot which ppl underestimate imo.
Click to expand...
I rate Zaheer better than Shami but that's just me.
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Thala_0710 said:
The 2004 series was an interesting one.
In the first test at Bangalore, Aus bat first, Clarke piles a massive ton and we get Mcgrathed (Gillespie and Kasprowicz gave good support as well).
The second test at Chennai we should have won. Kumble bowled brilliantly but time didn't permit the result.
Bcci panics and we rush an injured Tendulkar back for the third test at Nagpur which is a disasterclass. Gillespie produces his career's best performance and we basically get thumped.
The fourth is the rank turner at Mumbai (the infamous Clarke 6/9). Very very low scoring game, but Laxman and an injured Sachin somehow manage to eke out what turned to be match winning fifties, coupled with ofc the trio of Karthik, Kumble and Bhajji bowling really well.

So us winning at Chennai would have levelled it at 2-2, but overall Australia were definitely the better team. Probably the only series at home where Sachin was injured, and the rest somehow failed simultaneously.
Click to expand...
India by no means were firm favorites to win in Chennai. In all likelihood, if Sehwag got out earlier, they would have collapsed out of pressure.

Anyways, that series showed that Australia were the type to do their homework and they learned from 2001. So even if folks believe they lose to Kohlis team, they will win a repeat encounter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top