Best team since Waugh/ Ponting’s Australia?

[honestbharani]

I didnt.

My bad. You still posted the most though.

 

[TheJediBrah]

subshakerz has been a lone warrior for most of this thread. Agree or disagree have to respect the commitment

 

[subshakerz]

subshakerz has been a lone warrior for most of this thread. Agree or disagree have to respect the commitment

Somebody has to, otherwise general agreement isn't so fun.

 

[ankitj]

One reason why Sehwag did well in Australia but sucked in the rest.

Indian batsmen generally dont mind bounce, its the lateral movement that is tricky for them.

This seems like new wisdom. Wasn't long when Indian batsmen (including Sehwag) were mocked for not being able to play "anything that bounces above the knee"

 

[_00_deathscar]

Batsmen with a better average than Kohli, Pujara and Rahane since 2020:
Buttler
Bairstow
Pope
Sibley
Crawley

Better than Pujara and Rahane but not better than Kohli (marginally):
Burns

This is the bottom of the table since 2020 with minimum 500 runs.

 

[ankitj]

So in last 1 year
1. We lost a Test at home to a below average
English side
2. Lost WTC final
4. Lost a WC match to PAK
5. Couldn't get into knockouts of T20 WC
6. Lost Test series to weakest RSA side since readmission.

We need a new batting order and a new approach .

You forgot something important?

 

[subshakerz]

This seems like new wisdom. Wasn't long when Indian batsmen (including Sehwag) were mocked for not being able to play "anything that bounces above the knee"

I dont recall that critique of Sehwag. From his first tour in Australia it was clear bounce didn't give him problems.

 

[ankitj]

Yeah I don't disagree. That mockery may have been a lazy meme. Same thing has been said of Dhoni who was never really troubled by bounce.

 

[Spark]

Yeah Indian batsmen haven't been troubled by bounce in my lifetime. SL and Pakistan batsmen, that's another story.

 

[Xix2565]

There are two ways to compare SA's Smith and Kohli's India. The first is to judge the merits by comparing their actual lineups. Most here agree that man-to-man SA are simply a superior lineup.

The second way is to compare their records. I have always maintained that SA's inferior home record does downgrade them compared to India's complete domination, but India can only claim a better overall record if they fill the gaps in their away record (winning in SA and England).

As it stands, India have only won away in Sri Lanka, WI and Australia and lost four series, compared to SA who won in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, NZ, WI, Australia and England and also never lost a series. That is a fairly big gulf.

So you have one team who are much much better, but at an easier task (winning at home).

And another team who are much better, but at a much harder task (winning away from home).

Is it unreasonable to prefer SA then?

Merits of their actual lineups means what exactly? Do you account for conditions and development of bowling attacks? Otherwise you can't exactly say suddenly that man-to-man SA is superior.

As for records, India might lose more away, but India win so much more at home so it's really not a decisive answer to pick SA like I said earlier. And like HB says, it ignores various factors involved in the series to just blankly say X is better/worse because they won/lost. You don't even try to accept or understand how much better bowling has become in general and the idea that older batters playing in more batting friendly conditions might struggle as well if they had to take on the various attacks involved.

The only real attempts at such have been by other posters while you've just said SA won/drew more away from home so they're better.

 

[subshakerz]

Merits of their actual lineups means what exactly? Do you account for conditions and development of bowling attacks? Otherwise you can't exactly say suddenly that man-to-man SA is superior.

As for records, India might lose more away, but India win so much more at home so it's really not a decisive answer to pick SA like I said earlier. And like HB says, it ignores various factors involved in the series to just blankly say X is better/worse because they won/lost. You don't even try to accept or understand how much better bowling has become in general and the idea that older batters playing in more batting friendly conditions might struggle as well if they had to take on the various attacks involved.

The only real attempts at such have been by other posters while you've just said SA won/drew more away from home so they're better.

I think my points are clear. Man-to-man just list the sides we are comparing, assuming they are all in good form, and draw your own judgment on which is a better all-round team. Or compare their records.

I said before that SA's unbeaten 9 year away record > India's dominant home record as far as a team achievement is concerned.

To me, India losing series away more frequently is a much more serious blow to calling them a great team than SA's not closing series at home, for which SA also lose points.

As for superior bowling now, it goes both ways, since SA also faced some higher quality batting lineups too in general and beat them. Regardless, I think India's issue has been the weakness of their middle order which Indian fans mostly admit.

Thus far, Kohli team supporters tend to value their home record more highly than I do in assessing the greatness of their team. Which is fine, let's agree to disagree.

 

[Xix2565]

I think my points are clear. Man-to-man just list the sides we are comparing, assuming they are all in good form, and draw your own judgment on which is a better all-round team. Or compare their records.

I said before that SA's unbeaten 9 year away record > India's dominant home record as far as a team achievement is concerned.

To me, India losing series away more frequently is a much more serious blow to calling them a great team than SA's not closing series at home, for which SA also lose points.

As for superior bowling now, it goes both ways, since SA also faced some higher quality batting lineups too in general and beat them. Regardless, I think India's issue has been the weakness of their middle order which Indian fans mostly admit.

Thus far, Kohli team supporters tend to value their home record more highly than I do in assessing the greatness of their team. Which is fine, let's agree to disagree.

Once again, this is just ignoring my query. I've rarely seen anything like what Kilowatt has posted here in support of his argument from you, so forgive me for not straightaway taking the SA side's superiority as gospel.

So you penalise away series performances more and don't give any recognition good or bad for home performances. Sorry, but a team isn't judged and rated on 50% of their record. Poorly performing at home is as much of a mark on teams as is playing poorly overseas.

 

[subshakerz]

Once again, this is just ignoring my query. I've rarely seen anything like what Kilowatt has posted here in support of his argument from you, so forgive me for not straightaway taking the SA side's superiority as gospel.

So you penalise away series performances more and don't give any recognition good or bad for home performances. Sorry, but a team isn't judged and rated on 50% of their record. Poorly performing at home is as much of a mark on teams as is playing poorly overseas.

Maybe you didn't read my response. I said that SA do lose points for not performing dominantly at home. Please reread it.

Yes, teams be penalized for poor home performances, not that SA at home have been that poor anyways.

How on Earth can you compare their performances at home (losing two series in 9 years against a Johnson-led Australia in 2009 and 2014, and then drawing against Eng in 2009 and India in 2011) and assume that is somehow worse than India losing four series away in 6 years (including to this more inexperienced SA side, a 4-1 loss to England and a whitewash against NZ)? To me, having watched all these series, the latter is obviously worse.

Our arguments are going to go in circles but it will boil down to how highly you rate India's home record vs. SA's away record, and how problematic you weigh India's away record vs SA's home record. So where do you stand?

To boil it down, again, I said that based on India's strong home record, all they needed to do was fill in some gaps in the away resume to have the better all-round record. I think that is reasonable. They havent done that yet.

To be clear, Smith's SA and Kohli's India are both flawed sides. But objectively, SA was a much tougher team to beat which is why I rate them higher.

 

[Spark]

Batsmen with a better average than Kohli, Pujara and Rahane since 2020:
Buttler
Bairstow
Pope
Sibley
Crawley

Better than Pujara and Rahane but not better than Kohli (marginally):
Burns

This is the bottom of the table since 2020 with minimum 500 runs.
View attachment 30453

Jesus, that's ****ing shocking.

 

[Xix2565]

Maybe you didn't read my response. I said that SA do lose points for not performing dominantly at home. Please reread it.

Yes, teams be penalized for poor home performances, not that SA at home have been that poor anyways.

How on Earth can you compare their performances at home (losing two series in 9 years against a Johnson-led Australia in 2009 and 2014, and then drawing against Eng in 2009 and India in 2011) and assume that is somehow worse than India losing four series away in 6 years (including to this more inexperienced SA side, a 4-1 loss to England and a whitewash against NZ)? To me, having watched all these series, the latter is obviously worse.

Our arguments are going to go in circles but it will boil down to how highly you rate India's home record vs. SA's away record, and how problematic you weigh India's away record vs SA's home record. So where do you stand?

To boil it down, again, I said that based on India's strong home record, all they needed to do was fill in some gaps in the away resume to have the record. They havent done that yet.

To be clear, Smith's SA and Kohli's India are both flawed sides. But objectively, SA was a much tougher team to beat which is why I rate them higher.

No, you read my post. I said you penalise away series performances more, aka, you think away performances is so important that team judgements live and die on it. You clearly don't think poor home series are that bad, and you've not really convinced me that you give both parts of a team's records due respect.

Again, you can keep saying stuff, but unless you actually deign to do more than say things and perhaps start actually making and proving your arguments I don't see why this is suddenly a decisive answer in favour of SA.

That is my problem with your argument, you've just said all sorts of statements that I'm supposed to take for gospel and barely engaged with anything regarding data of the teams. And then you pretend you've made objective arguments when you didn't. I really don't see why anyone should agree with you beyond generally liking how the post agrees with their prior assumptions.

 

[subshakerz]

No, you read my post. I said you penalise away series performances more, aka, you think away performances is so important that team judgements live and die on it. You clearly don't think poor home series are that bad, and you've not really convinced me that you give both parts of a team's records due respect.

Again, you can keep saying stuff, but unless you actually deign to do more than say things and perhaps start actually making and proving your arguments I don't see why this is suddenly a decisive answer in favour of SA.

That is my problem with your argument, you've just said all sorts of statements that I'm supposed to take for gospel and barely engaged with anything regarding data of the teams. And then you pretend you've made objective arguments when you didn't. I really don't see why anyone should agree with you beyond generally liking how the post agrees with their prior assumptions.

I actually gave examples of specific series. You haven't given any data yourself despite asking me for it. In fact, you've given no counter argument whatsoever.

I think my points are pretty straightforward but if you don't get it feel free to agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Bolo.]

Which team played in a stronger era? Their records are close enough to argue it either way.

 

[Xix2565]

I actually gave examples of specific series. You haven't given any data yourself despite asking me for it. In fact, you've given no counter argument whatsoever.

I think my points are pretty straightforward but if you don't get it feel free to agree to disagree and move on.

You've referenced them by names, and when data otherwise is brought up by others you've missed it or ignored it altogether. Even till now, you've only said stuff and not made an attempt to prove or show exactly how Smith's team is better.

 

[The Sean]

Batsmen with a better average than Kohli, Pujara and Rahane since 2020:
Buttler
Bairstow
Pope
Sibley
Crawley

Better than Pujara and Rahane but not better than Kohli (marginally):
Burns

This is the bottom of the table since 2020 with minimum 500 runs.
View attachment 30453

Seen through that lens, it's in fact a hell of a tribute to their bowling attack that they've still done so well.

 

[_00_deathscar]

I think my points are clear. Man-to-man just list the sides we are comparing, assuming they are all in good form, and draw your own judgment on which is a better all-round team. Or compare their records.

I said before that SA's unbeaten 9 year away record > India's dominant home record as far as a team achievement is concerned.

To me, India losing series away more frequently is a much more serious blow to calling them a great team than SA's not closing series at home, for which SA also lose points.

As for superior bowling now, it goes both ways, since SA also faced some higher quality batting lineups too in general and beat them. Regardless, I think India's issue has been the weakness of their middle order which Indian fans mostly admit.

Thus far, Kohli team supporters tend to value their home record more highly than I do in assessing the greatness of their team. Which is fine, let's agree to disagree.

Why does man to man matter here? South Africa were massive underachievers. The thread title says 'Best team' not 'Best collection of individuals'.

They had amazing players, many of whom didn't really hit the heights that they could/should have, and certainly not as a collective unit. Evidence? The fact that there is even a debate if Kohli's team is as good/better is evidence of this. Man to man, South Africa were a stacked unit. The fact is that they weren't quite as good as good as a whole as the sum of their parts should have been.