Border-Gavaskar Trophy all time XI

[honestbharani]

Never ever seen one bowler dominate a series.

32/50, sure provide examples.

 

[honestbharani]

even though clearly the thread was about all India v Australia games not just those after 1996.

 

[honestbharani]

Either with a rampant Harby is a decent attack. More a challenge in those conditions than what Pant faced on a road in Sydney after Pujara did all the hard work.

at saying Starc, Haze, Lyon and Cummins << Harbhajan + change.

 

[ankitj]

Every time I look at scorecard of 2001 tests and the names of bowlers we played, I really wonder how we won it. Even Harbhajan was a newbie. No one was properly expecting him to do be India's best bowler in the series, let alone play the greatest series by a bowler ever. He had played 8 tests for 21 wickets @38 a piece before that series.

 

[the big bambino]

at saying Starc, Haze, Lyon and Cummins << Harbhajan + change.

I'm not saying that at all. Don't be dishonest. I said the conditions of the pitch then and of the situation of the game in Sydney are more important factors qualifying the respective achievements. Amusing you have to reduce Srinath and Z to change bowlers to big up Pant though.

 

[harsh.ag]

Pitch was easier for batting in Sydney but the bowling attack was much better and, importantly, adept at bowling on those pitches. Many teams have struggled on Aussie roads because the Aussie bowlers really know how to bowl there.

Gilly >> Pant though, just because of keeping skills.

 

[honestbharani]

I'm not saying that at all. Don't be dishonest. I said the conditions of the pitch then and of the situation of the game in Sydney are more important factors qualifying the respective achievements. Amusing you have to reduce Srinath and Z to change bowlers to big up Pant though.

Nah, that is exactly what you said. And downhill skiing against a much better attack at home is still a bigger achievement given Gilly was also working off the hardwork that was already done by Hayden, its not like he came at 39/5.

And yeah, an injured Srinath and a debuting Z were pretty much change bowlers that series. That is just a fact you refuse to acknowledge to big Gilly up. Also the fact that Z did not play the test in question.

 

[the big bambino]

Nah, that is exactly what you said. And downhill skiing against a much better attack at home is still a bigger achievement given Gilly was also working off the hardwork that was already done by Hayden, its not like he came at 39/5.

And yeah, an injured Srinath and a debuting Z were pretty much change bowlers that series. That is just a fact you refuse to acknowledge to big Gilly up. Also the fact that Z did not play the test in question.

You may disagree if you like. Even justify it with a reason. But straight up lying about what someone said is reprehensible. Not to mention stupid when anyone can see the post you're misrepresenting.

 

[Burgey]

600+ wkts with a better average and economy than Lyon.
Also doesn't get hit for six every other over.

That's not a legacy ffs. That's statistics. Frank Worrell left a legacy. WG Grace left a legacy. Clive Lloyd left a legacy. Douglas Jardine too. Anil Kumble most certainly did not.

 

[stephen]

I can't believe people are trying to argue that the 01 India attack was anywhere near the ballpark of the Australian 2018 attack. It's just absurd. Cummins is destined to be an ATG, Hazlewood is in the upper echelon of quicks in the next class down, Starc is a 150kph left arm bowler. In what world is the 2001 India attack anywhere near that? Simply absurd.

Let's face it, Hayden excluded, Australia choked harder in 2001 than a South African in a world cup.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I can't believe people are trying to argue that the 01 India attack was anywhere near the ballpark of the Australian 2018 attack.

No one said that. People are comparing Gilchrist in 2001 v Pant in 2018. I couldn't care less which comes out on top but there's a lot more context than just how good the bowlers were on paper. The term "road" is overused, but 2018 Melbourne and Sydney were genuine roads, and from memory Pant didn't even come in until the bowlers would have pretty tired. 2001 were turning wickets against a bowler having the series of his life and the Aussies were mostly struggling with the bat. Coming in at 5-100 against a rampaging Harbhajan on a nice turning track is not the same ballpark as 5-400 on a day 2 road against exhausted bowlers.

Again, I'm not saying one is better than the other, but at least look at the whole picture

 

[harsh.ag]

It's all well and truly hindsight stuff, though. If Cummins takes a quick 4-fer after the wicket fell, no one would bat an eyelid and there would be no mention of how tired he was etc. Similarly, if Gilly had smacked around Harbhajan for a quick 70, no one would have been surprised.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It's all well and truly hindsight stuff, though. If Cummins takes a quick 4-fer after the wicket fell, no one would bat an eyelid and there would be no mention of how tired he was etc. Similarly, if Gilly had smacked around Harbhajan for a quick 70, no one would have been surprised.

Not really. They are still completely different situations. I know which I'd rather come in to bat in.

 

[Teja.]

Tbh, if I personally were to come in to bat, there's a chance I'd try to smack a harby delivery, fail miserably and get an edged single. I wouldn't be able to get bat on ball and probably be severely injured within 2 overs facing Starc/Cummins.

No way I'd pick the latter.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Tbh, if I personally were to come in to bat, there's a chance I'd try to smack a harby delivery, fail miserably and get an edged single. I'd probably be severely injured within 2 overs facing Starc/Cummins.

No way I'd pick the latter.

lol true. I meant more from an interntaional cricketer's point of view

 

[harsh.ag]

Not really. They are still completely different situations. I know which I'd rather come in to bat in.

No, you don't (from an international batsman's pov)

 

[h_hurricane]

That's not a legacy ffs. That's statistics. Frank Worrell left a legacy. WG Grace left a legacy. Clive Lloyd left a legacy. Douglas Jardine too. Anil Kumble most certainly did not.

When Kumble came to the team in early 90s, India had gone through the previous decade without a world class spinner. He was the one who played a major part in our home dominance through that decade. Probably won more matches than any other Indian cricketer in history.

Overseas, he was mediocre through that decade, but came into his own between 2002 and 2004 when he helped us square series in England and Australia and win that series in Pakistan. Obviously, he wasn't as gifted as Warne, and yet took more than 600 wickets due to his perseverance(a quality demonstrated well when he bowled with a broken jaw to pick up Lara's wicket in 2002 series). Steve Waugh once said that the greatest quality in Kumble is that he almost never gets tired.

Only Warne and Murali have taken more wickets than him in history. Kumble isn't an ATG spinner, but to say that he has no legacy of his own is a really poor opinion.

 

[h_hurricane]

No one said that. People are comparing Gilchrist in 2001 v Pant in 2018. I couldn't care less which comes out on top but there's a lot more context than just how good the bowlers were on paper. The term "road" is overused, but 2018 Melbourne and Sydney were genuine roads, and from memory Pant didn't even come in until the bowlers would have pretty tired. 2001 were turning wickets against a bowler having the series of his life and the Aussies were mostly struggling with the bat. Coming in at 5-100 against a rampaging Harbhajan on a nice turning track is not the same ballpark as 5-400 on a day 2 road against exhausted bowlers.

Again, I'm not saying one is better than the other, but at least look at the whole picture

I don't know if you watched the 2001 series closely. On more occasions than not, Australia had great starts. For instance, at one stage, they were 2 for 214 in the first innings and 1 for 106 in second innings in Kolkata. In Chennai, they were in a dominant position at 3 for 340 in the first innings before Waugh thought he was playing a game of handball. Gilchrist and others around him couldn't capitalize on these starts. Pant did in Sydney 2019.

 

[_00_deathscar]

No one said that. People are comparing Gilchrist in 2001 v Pant in 2018. I couldn't care less which comes out on top but there's a lot more context than just how good the bowlers were on paper. The term "road" is overused, but 2018 Melbourne and Sydney were genuine roads, and from memory Pant didn't even come in until the bowlers would have pretty tired. 2001 were turning wickets against a bowler having the series of his life and the Aussies were mostly struggling with the bat. Coming in at 5-100 against a rampaging Harbhajan on a nice turning track is not the same ballpark as 5-400 on a day 2 road against exhausted bowlers.

Glad you agree because Gilchrist didn't come in at 5/100 in the first innings. Try doubling that score. And that's just the Kolkata test. Treble that for the first innings of the Chennai test.

Gilchrist scored a centruy first test. Came in twice after that in the first innings of the next tests at decent scores, and failed big time.

 

[Teja.]

Would take Gilchrist ftr.