Best team since Waugh/ Ponting’s Australia?

[Xix2565]

Those "new players who are good" are the only reason this discussion is happening in the first place as far as I'm concerned.

Then I'd say they're close to Strauss's England if you discount a decent chunk of Kohli's India.

 

[Spark]

Then I'd say they're close to Strauss's England if you discount a decent chunk of Kohli's India.

I'd rate them clearly above that. I saw what Ajmal did to Strauss's England while it was still very much supposed to be at its peak.

 

[Xix2565]

Bit rich to say Indian extremists when most naysayers aren't exactly being honest debaters either.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'd rate them clearly above that. I saw what Ajmal did to Strauss's England while it was still very much supposed to be at its peak.

Pretty big asterisk right there tbf

 

[Teja.]

Those "new players who are good" are the only reason this discussion is happening in the first place as far as I'm concerned.

I had the 2 collapses India triggered in England to win in mind, particularly the time Siraj took 4 wickets in a spell to bowl out England for 120 on the dying embers of Day 5 at Lords.

Ishant might have averaged 20 and Siraj 30 in England but I find the idea that Ishant's contribution in the 18/19 series to be anywhere close to Siraj's contribution in 2021 laughable.

 

[Xix2565]

I'd rate them clearly above that. I saw what Ajmal did to Strauss's England while it was still very much supposed to be at its peak.

Does chucking count? Otherwise I don't really have hard feelings placing them above or below Strauss's group, since I don't really find comparing smaller timeframes to larger ones to be a fair exercise.

 

[centurymaker]

Because Bumrah and Siraj are the main reasons India is having the consistent success away from home that it is. Otherwise we're talking about the India team in England in 2018: competitive, but outmatched in the bowling department, and in no sense an ATG team.

That was Bumrah's first year of Test Cricket! By the end of it, he took 21 wickets @ 17 in Australia to help India win first series in Australia. Thats where it all began and largely thanks to Bumrah, I agree.

I do agree that Bumrah in particular and also Siraj have been the reason for India's away form.

That goes to show 1-2 bowlers can have MUCH more of an impact on a team than a bunch of batsmen can. Thats why despite middle order below par, India is still winning games by comfortable margins. Also why despite Indian teams of before filled with great batsmen would still struggle against the current side because bowlers win games and have much more impact on games.

 

[Kilowatt]

I disagree pretty strongly. The bowling attack which we had in 2021 in England is stronger than what we had in 18/19. I'd in fact take the 2021 side as well over the 18/19 one despite the poor from of 3-5.

Bumrah of 2018 is >= current post-injury Bumrah.
Ishant of 2018 >> Ishant of 2021 / Siraj at any point in his life.
Shami = Shami
Hardik < Shardul
Ashwin / Jadeja = Ashwin / Jadeja

Even if you could somehow argue that India's bowling line-up is better now, its not massively so, so as to make your point that we need to slice our current bowling with our previous batting (which wouldn't include our OP openers) to make this a good side.

 

[Xix2565]

I had the 2 collapses India triggered in England to win in mind, particularly the time Siraj took 4 wickets in a spell to bowl out England for 120 on the dying embers of Day 5.

That was 2 separate spells tbh by Siraj. One to break apart Moeen/Buttler and the other to finish them off.

 

[Teja.]

Bumrah of 2018 is >= current post-injury Bumrah.
Ishant of 2018 >> Ishant of 2021 / Siraj at any point in his life.
Shami = Shami
Hardik < Shardul
Ashwin / Jadeja = Ashwin / Jadeja

Even if you could somehow argue that India's bowling line-up is better now, its not massively so, so as to make your point that we need to slice our current bowling with our previous batting (which wouldn't include our OP openers) to make this a good side.

Do you honestly think the India side which toured and lost in England in 18/19 is better than the 2021 touring side?

 

[Xix2565]

Bumrah of 2018 is >= current post-injury Bumrah.
Ishant of 2018 >> Ishant of 2021 / Siraj at any point in his life.
Shami = Shami
Hardik < Shardul
Ashwin / Jadeja = Ashwin / Jadeja

Even if you could somehow argue that India's bowling line-up is better now, its not massively so, so as to make your point that we need to slice our current bowling with our previous batting (which wouldn't include our OP openers) to make this a good side.

We also forgot Bhuvneshwar Kumar existed after 2018 SA tbf, and afterwards he also fell apart due to injures sadly.

 

[centurymaker]

Bumrah of 2018 is >= current post-injury Bumrah.
Ishant of 2018 >> Ishant of 2021 / Siraj at any point in his life.
Shami = Shami
Hardik < Shardul
Ashwin / Jadeja = Ashwin / Jadeja

Even if you could somehow argue that India's bowling line-up is better now, its not massively so, so as to make your point that we need to slice our current bowling with our previous batting (which wouldn't include our OP openers) to make this a good side.

The bowlers are vastly more experienced now!!! so clearly are better than before.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Why people's are judging teams based on how many player's are ATG in the team or how bad they are performing rather than team success. Fact is Virat team won more than Smith team ,this is what matters at the end .

I think ultimately this is where I'm at. Even the 2007-11 Indian team functioned about as effectively as Smith's SA did. SA-Ind series both home and away were dead even despite SA on paper having much better bowlers. SA were great but certainly not as dominant as they should have been considering the names on paper. India are winning quite consistently despite an underperforming lineup.

The hypothetical head to head matchup where Steyn-Philander bowl this lineup out of sub 50 (which actually might be likely) is less important than the real achievements of these teams, and I reckon the current India team might shade it. The two back to back wins in Australia were massive, especially the circumstances of the second.

 

[Shri]

England collapsing heavily for 178

*england returning to normal with 178

 

[GIMH]

Smith was captain for ages, what period are we talking?

Same for Kohli and to a lesser extent Strauss really.

The England side of 2011 would beat this current India side. Even our current rabble managed an innings win over them ffs and they had to cry off to try and hold onto a series win.

Over a period of a few series there have been sides that looked like they might go onto dominate but in reality the question is a bit moot as there has been nobody on the level of 00s Aus for any sustained period.

 

[Xix2565]

Do you honestly think the India side which toured England in 18/19 is better than the 2021 touring side?

2021 had better openers and lower order for a worse middle order in terms of batting. Bowling wise, I'd give it to 2021 by a bit, since Ashwin did get injured during the series when he really should have been rested while here we didn't really make major mistakes apart from making Ashwin our Waldo.

 

[Teja.]

I think ultimately this is where I'm at. Even the 2007-11 Indian team functioned about as effectively as Smith's SA did. SA-Ind series both home and away were dead even despite SA on paper having much better bowlers. SA were great but certainly not as dominant as they should have been considering the names on paper. India are winning quite consistently despite an underperforming lineup.

The hypothetical head to head matchup where Steyn-Philander bowl this lineup out of sub 50 (which actually might be likely) is less important than the real achievements of these teams, and I reckon the current India team might shade it. The two back to back wins in Australia were massive, especially the circumstances of the second.

I agree with your conclusion about the current side but are you including the two whitewashes which basically happened at the same time in your assessment of the 2007-11 Indian side? Because with those not excluded, I feel SA was comfortably better than India of that period

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think ultimately this is where I'm at. Even the 2007-11 Indian team functioned about as effectively as Smith's SA did. SA-Ind series both home and away were dead even despite SA on paper having much better bowlers. SA were great but certainly not as dominant as they should have been considering the names on paper. India are winning quite consistently despite an underperforming lineup.

The hypothetical head to head matchup where Steyn-Philander bowl this lineup out of sub 50 (which actually might be likely) is less important than the real achievements of these teams, and I reckon the current India team might shade it. The two back to back wins in Australia were massive, especially the circumstances of the second.

Yeah while I do think they still should probably take out this comparison, as good as that SA side was, they underperformed massively as far as results go

 

[Xix2565]

*england returning to normal with 178

Might as well discount that Test then tbh since home records don't matter anymore despite the fact that teams play at home the most.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Over a period of a few series there have been sides that looked like they might go onto dominate but in reality the question is a bit moot as there has been nobody on the level of 00s Aus for any sustained period.

Yeah I think there are 7-8 different teams that could lay claim for the 3rd best team ever. But its pretty obvious whoever is third is like 2-3 laps behind Aus/WI, not breathing down their necks just because theyre technically one spot behind.