Best team since Waugh/ Ponting’s Australia?

[PaulLennon]

Kohli's India better than Smith's.

Strauss's England not even close - That's comparable to the 07-11 India.

Let me compare the 4 sides within time periods extremely favorable to them all. I will choose the starting and ending periods to be as generous as possible (but will have to encompass whole series).

You cannot use the 0-8 against India 2007-11 if you are not using the 0-1 in WI and 0-5 in Aus for the 09-13 Eng side (same personnel). Similarly SA's 2006 losses to Sri Lanka and Aus or on the other end the 0-3 in Ind 2015 will also be omitted even though a lot of their main personnel was common (Amla, Steyn, Morkel, ABDV, Faf, Philander etc). India's current team coincides nicely with Kohli taking over as full time captain.

England 2009-13 -
Starting point - 09 home series against West Indies won 2-0
End point - 13 home Ashes won 3-0

W/L ratio - 2.727
Home W/L ratio - 5.250
Away W/L ratio - 1.285

Home series won - 9 (WI X 2, Aus X 2, Ind, NZ, Pak, SL, Bang)
Home series lost - 1 (SA)

Away series won - 3 (Bang, Aus, Ind)
Away series drawn - 3 (SL, SA, NZ)
Away series lost - 1 (Pak)

Ind 2007-11 -
Starting point - 07 away series against Bang won 1-0
End point - 11 away series against WI won 1-0

W/L ratio - 2.625
Home W/L ratio - 5.500
Away W/L ratio - 1.666

Home series won - 5 (Australia X 2, England, SL, Nz)
Home series drawn - 2 (SA X 2)

Away series won - 5 (Bang X 2, Eng, NZ, WI)
Away series drawn - 2 (SL, SA)
Away series lost - 2 (Aus, SL)

So right away we can see that 09-13 England is overrated by most English fans (like they do to everything). They were a good side with a 4 year peak who collapsed pretty badly right after similar to the 07-11 Ind side. 07-11 Ind had a better home and away W/L ratio. Overall is lesser because England played more at home while India played more away. Definitely not in the contention of being in the "best since Waugh's Australia".

SA 2006-14 -
Starting point - 06 home series win against Ind 2-1
End point - 14 home series win against WI 2-0

Rather than 08-14 (Smith retirement) extending both ways to capture their win in Pak and SL plus some home wins.

W/L ratio - 2.687
Home W/L ratio - 2.272
Away W/L ratio - 3.6

Home series won - 10 (Ind X 2, Pak X 2, WI X 2, NZ X 2, SL, Bang)
Home series drawn - 3 (Ind, Aus, Eng)
Home series lost - 2 (Aus)

Away series won - 10 (Aus X 2, Eng X 2, NZ, Pak, SL, WI, Bang, Zim)
Away series drawn - 4 (Ind X 2, Pak X 2)

Ind 2015-present -
Starting point - 15 away series win against SL 2-1
End point - ongoing

W/L ratio - 2.933
Home W/L ratio - 13
Away W/L ratio - 1.384

Home series won - 12 (Eng X 2, NZ X 2, SA X 2, Bang X 2, SL, WI, Afg, Aus)

Away series won - 6 (Aus X 2, SL X2, WI X 2)
Away series lost - 3 (SA, Eng, NZ)
Away series either won/drawn - 1 (Eng)

That SA team had an 8 year period. This Indian team is currently a bit above 6 and a half years. Right now I think they are relatively equal depending on preference. SA were really good away with the highest away W/L ratio of the four teams but had a very poor home W/L ratio (less than half of that England side who is next). Current Ind are good away (better than the England side) but the best home side ever in history (0 series drawn/lost).

Considering that Ind have home fixtures in the next few years and "easier" away fixtures I expect both the home and away W/L ratios to grow further. If Ind win both the SA series and Eng series I would place them over SA. Really good away record plus the best home record in history. Also it will be a similar timeframe to the SA side (8ish years).

Also England belongs nowhere in the conversation. They were (slightly) inferior to 07-11 India (1 test mace to 2 for that Indian team) and nowhere as good as the SA or current Ind teams.

 

[Xix2565]

India has a lot more players than those 12 though? Some of whom have come into the side in that timeframe.

 

[PaulLennon]

Being a home bully doesn't make you a better side. The real question is: which is the better all-round side? And the clear answer is Smith's SA. Their only weakness was lacking a high quality spinner.

India, on the other hand, have a massive moon-sized weakness when it comes to their middle order fragility in swinging conditions which has been exploited time and again. India's batting is why they lost series in SA and England and why they were whitewashed in NZ and lost the WTC.

You guys are seriously underrating how good Smith, Amla, ABD and Kallis were in that period to think this Indian batting lineup even merits comparison to them. These guys could and did score runs everywhere in the world, and as a unit.

You play 50% of your matches at home. So I think being a home bully is important.

 

[honestbharani]

In today's hot takes by saltshakerz - winning cricket games doesn't make you a better cricket side.

 

[subshakerz]

Nah , they were clearly better overseas.
But they were also clearly inferior at home.
So it all depends on which parameter you give more weightage.

SA were by no means poor at home. They only lost two series at home in the 9 years when they were unbeaten away. They just werent dominant like India. But to me, the fact that they were so hard to beat away is a more significant achievement than just being ruthless at home. It means they were adaptable, tenacious and mentally tough. Unlike India who have crumbled.

SA were never whitewashed away in their peak or lost 4-1 to anybody.

 

[Xix2565]

It means they were adaptable, tenacious and mentally tough. Unlike India who have crumbled.

Conveniently forgetting a few Tests here and there to peddle this nonsense.

 

[ma1978]

that’s just theoretical analysis. All I know is that the Indian side wins more, and wins more in all conditions.

and that is not really disputable

Please look at the sides below. Are you honestly trying to tell me that you would pick India as a better all-round side?

SA (2012 - 2014)
Graeme Smith
Dean Elgar
Hashim Amla
ABD
Kallis
Du Plessis
Duminy
Philander
Steyn
Morkel
Tahir or Harris

India (2019 - Current)
KL Rahul
Rohit Sharma
Kohli
Pujara
Rahane
Pant
Ashwin
Jadeja/Siraj
Bumrah
Shami
Ishant

 

[Spark]

I think the fundamental reason I dislike the W/L analysis stuff is it completely erases, you know, the actual games of cricket that were played and reduces everything to basically nametags. But India didn't beat "AUS", the disembodied nametag, they beat a cricket team, and the actual quality of the cricket team that was beaten and the actual quality of the cricketers involved does actually matter some. That's why everyone here agrees that 2020-21 was a more satisfying series win than 2018-19; the former was a far more impressive achievement because the opposition was stronger. Something raw W/L completely ignores.

 

[subshakerz]

In today's hot takes by saltshakerz - winning cricket games doesn't make you a better cricket side.

Sorry, never time I will write my points a bit simpler for you to understand.

Unbeaten away record > dominant home record

 

[PaulLennon]

Please look at the sides below. Are you honestly trying to tell me that you would pick India as a better all-round side?

SA (2012 - 2014)
Graeme Smith
Dean Elgar
Hashim Amla
ABD
Kallis
Du Plessis
Duminy
Philander
Steyn
Morkel
Tahir or Harris

India (2019 - Current)
KL Rahul
Rohit Sharma
Kohli
Pujara
Rahane
Pant
Ashwin
Jadeja/Siraj
Bumrah
Shami
Ishant

That 12-14 team was given a tough fight by a rookie India playing their first series away from home. Also lost to an Aus team at home which was whitewashed in Ind a year prior.

 

[PaulLennon]

Sorry, never time I will write my points a bit simpler for you to understand.

Unbeaten away record > dominant home record

India's record isn't just "dominant" though.

It's perfect (win everything).

Considering 50% of matches are home matches, that matters.

 

[subshakerz]

that’s just theoretical analysis. All I know is that the Indian side wins more, and wins more in all conditions.

and that is not really disputable

Except you are using that point to argue team B is definitively better than team A, whereas the difference in quality of players in staring you in the face.

 

[sunilz]

SA were by no means poor at home. They only lost two series at home in the 9 years when they were unbeaten away. They just werent dominant like India. But to me, the fact that they were so hard to beat away is a more significant achievement than just being ruthless at home. It means they were adaptable, tenacious and mentally tough. Unlike India who have crumbled.

SA were never whitewashed away in their peak or lost 4-1 to anybody.

When you play 2 Test series overseas how are you going to lose 4-1 ?

SA 2010 side couldn't win 1 test against full strength IND 2010 side.
In the 2 Test they won , Laxman didn't play the 1st one (IND), Zaheer didn't play the 2nd one(SA)

 

[PaulLennon]

SA were by no means poor at home. They only lost two series at home in the 9 years when they were unbeaten away. They just werent dominant like India. But to me, the fact that they were so hard to beat away is a more significant achievement than just being ruthless at home. It means they were adaptable, tenacious and mentally tough. Unlike India who have crumbled.

SA were never whitewashed away in their peak or lost 4-1 to anybody.

They LOST home series.

Aus 99-07 and WI in the 80s didnt lose home series.
Pak 10-16 didn't lose home series. Ind in the 90s didn't lose home series.

Losing home series isn't the hallmark of a great team.

 

[subshakerz]

India's record isn't just "dominant" though.

It's perfect (win everything).

Considering 50% of matches are home matches, that matters.

Again, that home records doesnt cover up their weaknesses as a team, especially as a batting lineup. Can we talk about that please?

 

[honestbharani]

Sorry, never time I will write my points a bit simpler for you to understand.

Unbeaten away record > dominant home record

Beautiful... Winning less games of cricket makes you a better side.

 

[PaulLennon]

India has a lot more players than those 12 though? Some of whom have come into the side in that timeframe.

Yup. SA's third seamer at a point was Tsotsobe. India is just deep. I mean we beat NZ, who were the no 1 team with 4-5 of our main XI not playing pretty convincingly.

 

[honestbharani]

I think the fundamental reason I dislike the W/L analysis stuff is it completely erases, you know, the actual games of cricket that were played and reduces everything to basically nametags. But India didn't beat "AUS", the disembodied nametag, they beat a cricket team, and the actual quality of the cricket team that was beaten and the actual quality of the cricketers involved does actually matter some. That's why everyone here agrees that 2020-21 was a more satisfying series win than 2018-19; the former was a far more impressive achievement because the opposition was stronger. Something raw W/L completely ignores.

I dunno... If u wanna dive down that rabbithole, then Aussies did not really win the 2007/08 BG series either. A certain level of objectivity actually helps in these discussions.

 

[subshakerz]

They LOST home series.

Aus 99-07 and WI in the 80s didnt lose home series.
Pak 10-16 didn't lose home series. Ind in the 90s didn't lose home series.

Losing home series isn't the hallmark of a great team.

Except you have to offset that by the fact that they had an unbeaten 9-year away streak, which is something even the great Australian side didnt accomplish. You are not giving it its dues.

 

[PaulLennon]

Again, that home records doesnt cover up their weaknesses as a team, especially as a batting lineup. Can we talk about that please?

If we are talking 15 onwards, that batting lineup is insane.