Best team since Waugh/ Ponting’s Australia?

[sunilz]

They do get marked down, but IMO India still have gaps in their away record, which is why SA is still ahead. But that can change if India win in SA and England this year.

Which is fair enough imo. If IND lose either series then SA is also superior imo.

 

[subshakerz]

Which is fair enough imo. If IND lose either series then SA is also superior imo.

We agree! That was fun then.

 

[Slifer]

Neutral here and I gave the vote to Kohli's India and here's why. In a hypothetical match-up of the teams home and away assuming both teams have their first choice players and are they're in reasonable form imo, this is how it would go over two 5 test series home and way:

In India I'd say India wins by at least 2 clear tests, something like 3-1

In RSA it'll be closer but edge to RSA. They have a much better batting lineup than the current team and ditto the bowling 2-1 or so to RSA.
So 4-3 overall to India imo.

 

[Xix2565]

They do get marked down, but IMO India still have gaps in their away record, which is why SA is still ahead. But that can change if India win in SA and England this year.

This is still subjective stuff that boils down to away performance better due to personal preference.

 

[sunilz]

This is still subjective stuff that boils down to away performance better due to personal preference.

Away performance should be definitely given more weightage imo. Otherwise there would no difference between Sehwag/Hayden and Viv Richards. However home performance shouldn't also be neglected.

 

[Xix2565]

Away performance should be definitely given more weightage imo. Otherwise there would no difference between Sehwag/Hayden and Viv Richards. However home performance shouldn't also be neglected.

I don't buy that it matters that much when their rate of success overall is similar.

 

[Kirkut]

The mark of a better team is being tougher to beat in all conditions. That's a big reason why the WI, who didnt lose a series in 15 years, were the greatest of all-time.

Yes, West Indies had a nearly perfect resume but they weren't tested against high quality spin. The batting was not as solid as compared to Australia, India and England at their primes if we remove Greenidge and Viv. No cricket team is perfect!

But I agree they were the greatest test team of all time.

 

[subshakerz]

Neutral here and I gave the vote to Kohli's India and here's why. In a hypothetical match-up of the teams home and away assuming both teams have their first choice players and are they're in reasonable form imo, this is how it would go over two 5 test series home and way:

In India I'd say India wins by at least 2 clear tests, something like 3-1

In RSA it'll be closer but edge to RSA. They have a much better batting lineup than the current team and ditto the bowling 2-1 or so to RSA.
So 4-3 overall to India imo.

No offense, but that isnt a good way to tell which team is better, it just proves that both teams will win in their own conditions, but India would win in a more dominant fashion, which we all agree with. Teams are judged across a set of conditions.

 

[subshakerz]

This is still subjective stuff that boils down to away performance better due to personal preference.

Yes performances in SL/WI/Aus/Eng/SA/NZ/BD collectively count more than just one country, India.

 

[Teja.]

To boil it down

SA's nine-year unbeaten away record > India's complete dominance at home from 2015-now

as far as a cricket achievement is concerned and as a gauge of the team quality.

You can choose to disagree, but IMO its a reasonable position.

Fair enough and I broadly agree that SA was better than this Indian team but I think you are grossly overrating the quality of that team. It just drew a lot of series (against much weaker teams) home and away which is a very relevant criteria which you are not acknowledging.

 

[Slifer]

No offense, but that isnt a good way to tell which team is better, it just proves that both teams will win in their own conditions, but India would win in a more dominant fashion, which we all agree with. Teams are judged across a set of conditions.

I know. I just wanted to put that out there....

 

[subshakerz]

Yes, West Indies had a nearly perfect resume but they weren't tested against high quality spin. The batting was not as solid as compared to Australia, India and England at their primes if we remove Greenidge and Viv. No cricket team is perfect!

But I agree they were the greatest test team of all time.

WI 80's peak had Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Richardson, LLoyd and Gomes. That top six is comparable to anyone, Aus possibly being a bit better.

 

[Kirkut]

WI 80's peak had Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Richardson, LLoyd and Gomes. That top six is comparable to anyone, Aus possibly being a bit better.

Yes, I forgot to consider Lloyd and Haynes here, but I would fancy the Indian batting from 2009-2010 period and the English batting from 2010-2011 to notch up more 650+ scores on good batting wickets. West Indians had aggressive batsmen but they would barely accumulate runs.

 

[subshakerz]

Fair enough and I broadly agree that SA was better than this Indian team but I think you are grossly overrating the quality of that team. It just drew a lot of series (against much weaker teams) home and away which is a very relevant criteria which you are not acknowledging.

I dont think I am overrating the quality of the SA side. They were certainly a league below 80s WI. I acknowledge that they didnt have a quality spinner which cost them and were not dominant as they should have been as home. I just weigh that to the gaps in India's away record which to me are more important.

As for draws away, I actually consider their draws away to be reasonably good achievements as India and Pakistan (in UAE) were strong teams at home. Especially as Eng and Aus were getting whitewashed in the UAE around the same time, and India was in its golden run from 2007-2011 when SA toured. Obviously, a win would have better better, but draws in those places are respectable IMO. They won everywhere else I think.

If India had managed to draw in SA and Eng in 2018, I would have given them props too.

 

[honestbharani]

No , it isn't irrelevant.

Every Indian win is irrelevant. Everything else is relevant, esp. same Indian team's losses. Have you not got saltshakerz' memo yet?

 

[honestbharani]

I am not downplaying their home record

It is literally the only thing you have been consistently doing in this thread.

And LMAO at needing like 7 bullet points to showcase the "Kohli team supporters' strategy". I needed like one line in my earlier post to showcase your salt filled "strategy" here.

 

[honestbharani]

Fair enough and I broadly agree that SA was better than this Indian team but I think you are grossly overrating the quality of that team. It just drew a lot of series (against much weaker teams) home and away which is a very relevant criteria which you are not acknowledging.

Also the simple fact that CEO era pitches always enabled the draw as a possibility compared to the relatively extreme home conditions most sides have dished out post 2015. Also, I think this is the first generation of batsmen who are emerging who have had to look at T20 success even growing up and as such the defences are just a touch looser as well, that plays a part too.

 

[Slifer]

No offense, but that isnt a good way to tell which team is better, it just proves that both teams will win in their own conditions, but India would win in a more dominant fashion, which we all agree with. Teams are judged across a set of conditions.

I know. I just wanted to throw that out there.

 

[Slifer]

Yes, West Indies had a nearly perfect resume but they weren't tested against high quality spin. The batting was not as solid as compared to Australia, India and England at their primes if we remove Greenidge and Viv. No cricket team is perfect!

But I agree they were the greatest test team of all time.

I respectfully disagree. In the 1980 test series in Pakistan that wi edged, wi faced up to Qasim and Qadir. And while Qadir was horrible away, he was outstanding at home. Then in England in the 70s, the likes of Viv and Lloyd would've faced up to deadly aka Derek Underwood and vs India the likes of Prasana, Chandra and Bedi etc. None of these bowlers were probably as good as Ashwin but to say WI were never tested vs spin is false. That's akin to saying India didn't face quality pace because no bowling attack is as good as 80s wi. That's untrue because although they're not quite at that level, NZ, Oz, and RSA have quality pace attacks. And England are very very good maybe great at home and WI are very good at home as well.

 

[PaulLennon]

Yes performances in SL/WI/Aus/Eng/SA/NZ/BD collectively count more than just one country, India.

You are talking as if this Indian team are scrubs away. Their records in SL/WI/Aus are as good if not better than that SA team.

Ind's record in SL - 2-1, 3-0
WI - 2-0, 2-0
Aus - 2-1, 2-1