The Better Player: Ravi Ashwin vs. Shaun Pollock

[Slifer]

They are nowhere near as good as those mentioned in these conditions. Especially the lack of world class spinners is important.

Here's the thing, even if Donald and co ran riot through this Indian team, what do you think will happen when south Africa's much vaunted batting (sarcasm) had to face Ashwin, Jadeja, Shami and Bumrah as opposed to the scrubs they faced. Like seriously.

 

[subshakerz]

I said it. Ok let me correct my self. It's unlikely that any team in history (outside of maybe atg XIs) would beat this team at home. I dont see what the big deal is. It's unlikely any team would beat Oz '95 to '07 or the WI of the 80s at their respective homes either. And India's home record has been just as dominant (more so). As a matter of facgiven their recent away record, India can probably call themselves a great team or just a smidgen below that level. They've beaten Oz twice away, England away (yeah I know controversial), lost badly in Nz, and we'll see what happens in RSA.

I dunno. Depends how we classify great.

Great teams like 80s WI, 2000s Aus and perhaps 2010s SA had away records that lasted for a significant period.

Kohlis team is in a hot streak away no doubt but will need it to last a few more years to cement their reputation. Even in this time, they lost in SA, England and were whitewashed in NZ and lost the WTC so its a mixed bag.

 

[subshakerz]

Herath and Lyon are as good as Saqlain and Swann . However no one is Warne/Murali level because they were the greatest spin bowlers ever.

I don't think so but we can agree to disagree. But India 2000s faced Murali and Warne too.

 

[_00_deathscar]

I am talking about current Indias batting. No doubt their bowling is better than their 2000s counterparts. But their batting to me is a level below.

Yes, and bowling wins games. I don't even remember how often we've crossed 400 in the last couple of years with our batting being absolute **** at the moment. Answer: it's not very often. We somehow manage to scrape to a 200-300-odd score, and then beat the other team.

Our batting in this current form is much worse than our GOAT batting line up (and it's not a huge downgrade, if at all, if we go back more than 2 years or so and Kohli and co are racking up the runs). And we win more games than we ever did - including at home, where we were good before anyway, and in the 90s etc. But this is unlike anything we've seen - we just completely dominate at home.

 

[sunilz]

No point in winning overseas if you can't win at home. SA 2010 side couldn't beat ENG 2009/10, IND 2010/11 and AUS 2011 at home. This is very poor record for a ATG side.

 

[subshakerz]

Here's the thing, even if Donald and co ran riot through this Indian team, what do you think will happen when south Africa's much vaunted batting (sarcasm) had to face Ashwin, Jadeja, Shami and Bumrah as opposed to the scrubs they faced. Like seriously.

Sure which is why I think that SA team would lose a series against Kohli's India. But 2000s Australia would win IMO.

My point was to show how much more superior that 2000s Indian batting was to this version based partly on who they faced which I think is being downplayed somewhat.

 

[_00_deathscar]

The invincibles 1948 would most likely beat all teams you mentioned at their respective home.
Morris
Barnes
Bradman(c)
Hassett
Harvey
Brown/loxton
Miller
Lindwall
Tallon(wk)
Ian Johnston/mccool
Bill Johnston

Oh shut up you bore.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes, and bowling wins games. I don't even remember how often we've crossed 400 in the last couple of years with our batting being absolute **** at the moment. Answer: it's not very often. We somehow manage to scrape to a 200-300-odd score, and then beat the other team.

Our batting in this current form is much worse than our GOAT batting line up (and it's not a huge downgrade, if at all, if we go back more than 2 years or so and Kohli and co are racking up the runs). And we win more games than we ever did - including at home, where we were good before anyway, and in the 90s etc. But this is unlike anything we've seen - we just completely dominate at home.

Right and if this side faced ATG level bowlers, they could be at risk for being occasionally skittled out too.

 

[subshakerz]

No point in winning overseas if you can't win at home. SA 2010 side couldn't beat ENG 2009/10, IND 2010/11 and AUS 2011 at home. This is very poor record for a ATG side.

Yeah. SA only became really superior at home from 2012 - 2014 when Philander joined and before Kallis left.

 

[sunilz]

SA 2007-14 W/L ratio 2.6
IND 2015-21 W/L ratio 2.8

SA were better overseas but much weaker at home.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Right and if this side faced ATG level bowlers, they could be at risk for being occasionally skittled out too.

Yea we got skittled out for 36 (for 9) not long ago - at least one ATG-level bowler in that attack, and a couple of the others aren't bad either.
And then fought back and won the series.

 

[sunilz]

Yeah. SA only became really superior at home from 2012 - 2014 when Philander joined and before Kallis left.

Didn't that 2014 side lose at home to AUS.

 

[subshakerz]

Didn't that 2014 side lose at home to AUS.

Kallis their MVP had left by then.

 

[Calm_profit]

I think India in 90's at home were also dominant not as much as the current one but they were definitely better than 2000's India at home conditions since 2000's India had drawn a couple of test series against South Africa,Pakistan and England.
A batting line up of Sidhu, Tendulkar and Azharuddin with the bowling line up of Kumble and Srinath had troubled a lot of teams.
So I think 90's India and the current India at home will be much better contest.

 

[subshakerz]

Yea we got skittled out for 36 (for 9) not long ago - at least one ATG-level bowler in that attack, and a couple of the others aren't bad either.
And then fought back and won the series.

Sure and credit a bit to Rahane for that triumph. But it was a David vs Goliath type victory which made it so special.

 

[sunilz]

Kallis their MVP had left by then.

IIRC , Johnson had Kallis number even before that series(2009). So, I doubt he would have made much difference .

 

[subshakerz]

SA 2007-14 W/L ratio 2.6
IND 2015-21 W/L ratio 2.8

SA were better overseas but much weaker at home.

SA went 9 years unbeaten away from.home which even mighty Aus didn't manage.

 

[Nikhil99.94]

The sky sports did run a virtual game between the best teams to decide the best team ever.The final was between invincibles 1948 and aus 2002.The aus 2002 won the competition.

 

[subshakerz]

IIRC , Johnson had Kallis number even before that series(2009). So, I doubt he would have made much difference .

Not sure. He was so important to the balance of that SA side and had retired just before. Graeme Smith was on his last legs, Steyn wasn't fully fit. But Johnson was on fire so it may not have mattered, at least in that first test. Even without Kallis they nearly drew the series.

 

[srbhkshk]

The sky sports run a virtual game between the best teams to decide the best team ever.The final was between invincibles 1948 and aus 2002.The aus 2002 won the competition.

Conclusively proving that Bhajji >> Invincibles.