Best team since Waugh/ Ponting’s Australia?

[PaulLennon]

I think India currently does have a certain je ne sais quoi that makes them quite a bit greater than the sum of their parts, though. On paper they should have been blown away by Australia last year too, and they honestly should probably have lost in England. But they find a way to win, somehow, and that's an intangible quality that "on paper" lineups can't quite capture.

I will make it clear again though: that's principally because of Bumrah in particular and Siraj more recently, and so the analysis from 2015 posted a few posts ago is entirely irrelevant in my eyes. As far as I'm concerned, this current Indian team was born in 2018 when Bumrah became a permanent fixture of the team.

If there is a criticism of the SA side of that era, it's that they were the opposite: they were sometimes less than the some of their parts and the otherwise stellar batting often creaked when put under real pressure; it lacked firefighters and lower-order tenacity to dig them out of holes. Which is why Australia were consistently able to take games off them at home when really SA looked the much better team on paper. That was the era when "downhill skiier" was applied to Kallis and ABdV a lot.

Can't discount 2015 onwards. That would discount Ind's win coming from behind in 2015 SL and most importantly the 17 BGT where India showed the same come from behind qualities in all 3 matches - Winning Bangalore after conceding a huge 1st innings lead, overcoming a 400+ first innings score in Ranchi and then outbowling Australian pace bowlers on a pitch with pace and bounce in Dharamsala.

Even in the 16 WI series or 16 Eng series or 16 NZ series Ind were in trouble at various points but came through.

 

[honestbharani]

Bumrah was the final big piece, like Philander was for SA in 2011 but India were well on their way before that imo.

To be completely honest, I feel it is more like how when Marshall emerged for the Windies. Lets see how it goes over the next 4 years.

 

[subshakerz]

The simplest reason is they did it longer and also because, as a rule, I dont rate in progress careers. And this team's career is still very much in progress. For all we know, they could end up at the level of the Windies 80s and Aussies 00s. But at this point, you are comparing a 9 year period with a 6 year period and I give the edge to the side who are done and have done it for longer at this point.

Also, there are always teams that meet their bogey teams. So I wont hold India V NZ against this Indian side and I wont hold RSA V Aus against that RSA side.

All fair points I agree with, except I dont see this Indian team ending up 80s WI level

 

[honestbharani]

All fair points I agree with, except I dont see this Indian team ending up 80s WI level

You dont have to see it but it would be silly to rule it out completely AFAIC.

 

[GIMH]

SA weren't some infallible batting Gods at home. As has been pointed out, they were rolled over at home by the might of Sreesanth, Dartbhajan, Andrew McDonald/Siddle, Onions, Herath etc to lose multiple Tests in their golden era.

Was mainly Broad and Swann that did the damage in the Test we won that series, I think. Onions played his part with the bat though in a couple of late match survivals

 

[OverratedSanity]

then outbowling Australian pace bowlers on a pitch with pace and bounce in Dharamsala.

Yup precisely. This is the one that really stood out to me when I said it began before Burmah. That was a track that suited Australia's pacers hugely and was their best chance to pull off a win in India. Yadav and Bhuvi triggering that collapse in the second innings was huge.

 

[subshakerz]

Ok, so why only batting? SA failed to take 20 wickets in Asia several times in that era because of how flat some of those decks were. Would you say this was a weakness that they failed to take 20 wickets on mutliple occasions in UAE in 2010/2013 and in India 2010/SL 2006 where they got smashed for 700? They were good in Asia but hardly some unstoppable force let's be honest.

I think that is a fair point and I acknowledge not having a quality spinner in those conditions did cost them potential victories and was a weakness of that SA side. I think the batting issue for India was a bigger one though as it ruined the good work of their bowlers and cost them matches.

 

[Calm_profit]

i mean india pakistan team of 2006-2007 gave hard time to south africa at home,even though they lost the series.

 

[Kilowatt]

Playing against Kohli's India at its home must evoque a similar sense of dread for other teams as did playing against the Aus/WI teams (H or A). The entire country is a fortress. They have the aura of invincibility that only the greatest of team has been able to conjure. People already abandon all hope even before the coin has been tossed (thank you England 2016).

On the other hand we have Smith's South Africa.

 

[vcs]

Yup precisely. This is the one that really stood out to me when I said it began before Burmah. That was a track that suited Australia's pacers hugely and was their best chance to pull off a win in India. Yadav and Bhuvi triggering that collapse in the second innings was huge.

Something weird is going on. I didn’t write this comment.

 

[honestbharani]

I dont think we have to belittle RSA's achievements under Smith to make the point that India under Kohli have been immense. They had issues playing Australia esp. in RSA and that showed. Still think that insane away run is amazing.

One other point to keep in mind is that the CEO pitches of 2005-2015 made draws a very real possibility when playing away from home for most sides. It has not been the same since 2016, therefore there are far more losses away than that period and far fewer draws.

 

[subshakerz]

On to a related topic: Who would win in a 4 or 5 test match series in Australia: Kohli's India or Smith's SA?

 

[honestbharani]

Something weird is going on. I didn’t write this comment.

Multirated Sanity works in mysterious ways.

 

[OverratedSanity]

On to a related topic: Who would win in a 4 or 5 test match series in Australia: Kohli's India or Smith's SA?

SA would beat India's A team but lose to India C obviously

 

[ma1978]

SA also won twice in Australia, and at that point they hadnt won there since readmission.

I was talking about batting weaknesses, not team records. I am trying to compare the sides in terms of their all-round ability. Do you follow?

the best way you can do that is by looking at the actual records

teams are not just their parts

and even in that argument, the depth factor doesn’t play in your approach

 

[PaulLennon]

On to a related topic: Who would win in a 4 or 5 test match series in Australia: Kohli's India or Smith's SA?

Considering the fact that people will break down over a 5 match series, India have a very good chance and are favourites.

Even in a one off match Ind have at least 50% chance if not more.

In the 2 series that SA played in Aus -
Amla 57.8, Smith 52.81, Kallis 47.81, ABDV 57.66, Faf 146.50, Duminy 61.5
Steyn 28.03, Morkel 34.04, Philander 49.75, Kallis 35.22, Ntini 50, Harris 38.70

Ind's 2 series -
Pujara 52.8, Pant 62.4, Kohli 40, Rahane 34.64, Gill 51.8, Rohi 33.57, Jadeja 43.75
Bumrah 21.25, Ashwin 27.50, Shami 28.75, Jadeja 21.78, Siraj 29.53, Ishant 23.81, Thakur 22.14

SA played against a weaker Aus bowling and on flatter pitches.
Ind played against a weaker Aus batting (at least 2018-19)

Ind still have a few batsmen who averaged 50+ against a much much better attack against whom SA played (I would argue that no one from those bowling attacks would even make it to the current Aus attack).

Bowling wise only Steyn has an average below 30.

You are looking at SA's achievements with rose tinted glasses.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Current WTC champs presumably grouped under Others lolol

 

[PaulLennon]

Current WTC champs presumably grouped under Others lolol

Lol. Using that logic, Ind is the best ODI team of the 80s due to 83 and 85.

They don't even have a perfect home record (SA and Aus) and get thumped in SA, Aus and Ind always. Couldn't win against SL. That WTC is karma for the 19 final. They went into the final with a 1-4 away record with suitable prep and conditions favoring them. And what happens when they dont get these things. 62 ao.

 

[sunilz]

Lol. Using that logic, Ind is the best ODI team of the 80s due to 83 and 85.

They don't even have a perfect home record (SA and Aus) and get thumped in SA, Aus and Ind always. Couldn't win against SL. That WTC is karma for the 19 final. They went into the final with a 1-4 away record with suitable prep and conditions favoring them. And what happens when they dont get these things. 62 ao.

NZ deserve WTC as much as IND deserve 2011 ODI WC, AUS deserve 2015 , ENG deserve 2019 WC. NZ aren't the 1st side to win an ICC trophy in favourable conditions.
The troll posts of @Flem274* shouldn't stop one to appreciate Kiwis achievement. They are doing excellent considering their 5 million population.

 

[Slifer]

There's no need to get hung up on one posters comment about the 'current' Indian team whose 'current' records will conveniently only be extended to the period where they can be shown to be poor.

The OP asked the question about Kohli's India. Kohli's India has been the most dominant home side that has ever played the game. At home they will comfortably smash peak Aus and peak WI. Away they will be competitive. That is not a bad record to have at all.

Comfortably smash? No. Probably edge by one test. Similar to what happened the last time Australia toured India. England lost 3-1 in India recently and neither of WI or Australia are remotely as poor as that team.

And they won't be competitive away. For goodness sake, it wasn't too long ago India got blanked in NZ. I voted for Kohli's India above but please don't get carried away.