Best team since Waugh/ Ponting’s Australia?

[Test fan]

Did Australia ever have so many udnerperforming batsmen together in the team? I'm guessing no. They had the occasional Blewett I suppose. But Kohli-Rahane-Pujara are the supposedly undroppable core of the batting lineup. And they all suck.

If this is how you compare than do you even know how so called ATG team of Australia won a test series in india ? Which players were not played or injured ? These are all excuse to undermine any team .

 

[centurymaker]

Current Indian team has had more success and results than the former South African team but 'on paper' that SA side was a bit stronger I would say, though it didn't have same level of success overall.

 

[Flem274*]

this thread is rolling along. 6 pages since my last visit. time to read it backwards.

 

[Spark]

Current Indian team has had more success and results than the former South African team but 'on paper' that SA side was a bit stronger I would say, though it didn't have same level of success overall.

I do think the difference in quality of opposition counts though. There's no way the England side that India beat last year are getting within the same timezone as taking a series off the SA sides that they did in the early 2010s.

 

[anil1405]

It's actually weird for me to reconcile that I think the current Indian team is massively overrated by Indian fans but also think it may be one of the best teams since Australia. They're definitely good but there's a reason so many indian fans gambhir so hard. They know deep down the team has significant issues.

It's a weird feeling that comes with this side. For decades Indian middle order plus spinners (in Asian countries) have been the core to the team's success.

And here we have openers, Pant and pace bowlers not only carrying this fickle middle order but finding success the way India never did abroad.

 

[Spark]

01/02 had both Waugh brothers look clearly past it, but one was dropped soon enough and the other had a recovery (admittedly against awful attacks) before retiring.

Other than that.....the only time that really applied was the 05 Ashes?

I think when talking about the great Australian teams you're really talking about three or four different sides at least, all of which had in common the McGrath-Warne axis as the core of the attack. I personally consider the 2003-4 sides the best of the lot, but it's very much a subjective call.

It's a weird feeling that comes with this side. For decades Indian middle order plus spinners (in Asian countries) have been the core to the team's success.

And here we have openers, Pant and pace bowlers not only carrying this fickle middle order but finding success the way India never did abroad.

It's an extremely similar side to some of the competitive teams Aus put out under Clarke in terms of how it plays in pace-friendly conditions IMO (complete with similar flaws). Just, you know, also winning in the subcontinent too.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I think the main thing that separates those two teams from the chasing pack is that they didn't have to "show great fight" and come back from behind to close out otherwise tightly contested series that could have gone either way at a few critical moments.

They just demolished sides, with only a few exceptions. Australia under Waugh didn't have many of the stirring, thrilling wins that India has had in the last year because they were so rarely behind in the game in the first place.

Good indication is how many dead rubber games were played in series involving Australia. They just killed series halfway through and on occasion took the foot off the gas because it was done.

 

[Flem274*]

I mean if you look at the Australian side at what I guess most people would consider at its absolute peak, it was this:

AUS vs NZ Cricket Scorecard, 1st Test at Brisbane, November 18 - 21, 2004

Get cricket scorecard of 1st Test, AUS vs NZ, New Zealand tour of Australia 2004/05 at Brisbane Cricket Ground, Woolloongabba, Brisbane dated November 18 - 21, 2004.

www.espncricinfo.com

Obviously, Clarke was not yet the batsman he would become. But, even accounting for form, that top seven is leagues ahead of everyone in world cricket right now. Had some very decent batsmen waiting in the wings too.



Yeah ATVG is about where I'd put them. They'd trouble everyone, but ultimately I feel they're still a bit too, well, beatable, and obviously haven't done it for anyone near as long to be classed in the true top tier.

man i wish that oram knock was still on youtube. so many younger kiwis remember the 101 and his old man years of being a medium pacer who batted #8 in odis and think that was it. the guy was a serious cricketer from 2002 - 2008 or so. so many good knocks against world class attacks.

also goes to show how spooked the current lot are when australia are in the room.

 

[morgieb]

I do think the difference in quality of opposition counts though. There's no way the England side that India beat last year are getting within the same timezone as taking a series off the SA sides that they did in the early 2010s.

IIRC that 09/10 series was a draw and one which could easily have been a 3-1 win for SA (England were 9 down in two of the draws). 08 and 2012 were both South African wins. Which series are you referring to?

 

[Spark]

IIRC that 09/10 series was a draw and one which could easily have been a 3-1 win for SA (England were 9 down in two of the draws). 08 and 2012 were both South African wins. Which series are you referring to?

The 2009/10 series, which SA really, really should have won. This current England side doesn't even take those games particularly deep IMO. The Aus series that SA lost I think were mostly just Mitch Johnson who happened to be in absolute peak form both times, which was pretty unlucky from a timing point of view. He'd do that to just about everyone on pitches with any pace in them, SA just happened to be in the way. In the 2009 series in particular it really felt much more like a plucky underdog win built on the individual brilliance of two or three players at critical moments rather than a demonstration of actual superiority.

 

[Flem274*]

In b4 flem says lol Kohli’s India aren’t even the best side in the world atm

hmm, they might be, just, but some Indian posters in CC can sit down and settle down until India beat the boss fight McCullum/KW NZ away from Dravid ordered Mumbai decks before even thinking of graduating to Smith's SA. Endgame Australia?WI is a long way away.

 

[Test fan]

ATG Australia side can't even chased 107 runs against India in india. Lol

 

[TheJediBrah]

Good indication is how many dead rubber games were played in series involving Australia. They just killed series halfway through and on occasion took the foot off the gas because it was done.

They also won 16 Tests in a row twice. Pretty remarkable

 

[Spark]

hmm, they might be, just, but some Indian posters in CC can sit down and settle down until India beat the boss fight McCullum/KW NZ away from Dravid ordered Mumbai decks before even thinking of graduating to Smith's SA. Endgame Australia?WI is a long way away.

I mean they're clearly the best side in the world right now, memes or not, and by a margin too. The only way that changes in the next year is if Cummins' Aus somehow, freakishly, manages to roll the subcontinent tours and then backs it up at home against non-minnow-tier batting (I don't even know who we play next summer)

 

[Salamuddin]

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.

Maybe in England but definitely not in a India.
And on the whole kohlis team has a better win loss ratio than England in the 2009-13 period.

 

[Spark]

They also won 16 Tests in a row twice. Pretty remarkable

I'd consider that completely different teams which did that (which if anything is even more remarkable)

 

[centurymaker]

I do think the difference in quality of opposition counts though. There's no way the England side that India beat last year are getting within the same timezone as taking a series off the SA sides that they did in the early 2010s.

Cricket has changed too! T20 by now has forever altered the batting techniques, etc.

We will likely not get even half the no. of world class batsmen that were around 2000-2015, in any era of cricket again!

So we can't compare these things across eras because cricket and batting has changed and there's even a pink ball now which behaves differently, so it has further altered modern test cricket. So Kohli's team is great for the current times where batsmen are not at the same level as before in general.

 

[Flem274*]

I mean they're clearly the best side in the world right now, memes or not, and by a margin too. The only way that changes in the next year is if Cummins' Aus somehow, freakishly, manages to roll the subcontinent tours and then backs it up at home against non-minnow-tier batting (I don't even know who we play next summer)

towelling australia =/= you are best in the world.

calling them the best in the world is fair. by a margin? nah, they're exceptionally beatable.

 

[OverratedSanity]

They also won 16 Tests in a row twice. Pretty remarkable

Oh I remember both of those streaks with real fondness.

 

[Spark]

towelling australia =/= you are best in the world.

calling them the best in the world is fair. by a margin? nah, they're exceptionally beatable.

I don't think these two things are mutually exclusive.

Cricket has changed too! T20 by now has forever altered the batting techniques, etc.

We will likely not get even half the no. of world class batsmen that were around 2000-2015, in any era of cricket again!

So we can't compare these things across eras because cricket and batting has changed and there's even a pink ball now which behaves differently, so it has further altered modern test cricket.

I agree but this England team is, like. Bad. Real bad. No amount of changes in batting techniques/developments in old-ball bowling techniques excuses Extras being your third top run scorer for the year.