Yeah there's a big difference between the India lineup pre-COVID and the current one. The pre-COVID one actually could bat, this one can't. If a pretty average Australian side was one crazy session away from winning a series, the peak one would win comfortably. But equally, the 18/19 one does genuinely look close to unbeatable. It wouldn't be easy, but I think that India side would probably win in a tight one ala the 2017 tour.
Yet how was the average 2017 Aussie side able to do so well against India?
Spicier wickets in 3 out of 4 games and lack of recognition to performances by people like you tbh.
It helped that Australia had a second spinner that was pretty good and Smith basically GOATed it. I'm not sure any of the Golden Era Aussies could've done what Smith did in that series....
And even though the batting was carried hugely by Smith batting like a God, there were a couple of key attritional contributions from guys like Renshaw and Marsh that helped out.
Maxi gets no respect smfh.
And despite all of the heroics of Smith and the pathetic Indian batting, India still won that series. For the record India also drew one in Australia in 2004 which they almost won (albeit in the absence of McGrath, I don't really think Warne would had done much better than MacGill).
I mean are you really asking whether Sachin, Dravid, Sehwag, Laxman and Ganguly were better than Kohli, Pujara, Rahane, and Rohit??
I think apart from Sachin it's very debatable considering the 2000s pitches and their impact on the records. And tbh, I was referring to the other teams involved in this topic as well. Feels weird to just straight up say X is better than Y rather than make the comparison and examine if this is true.
It's not debtable really. Kohli is the only one who belongs in that company. Sachin and Dravid were tested well in the nineties. Sehwag is better than Rohit. Laxman is better than Rahane.
I never said that. Jadeja and especially Ashwin are hell of a challenge at home then you add a Shami or a Bumrah and it'll be more difficult imo, for the likes of Viv and even kalli to put enough runs on the board for bowlers to bowl to.
They wouldnt be required to as the collective batting could be expected to contribute more than just one bat.
What are enough runs in this situation on a spicy pitch? 200? 250? Can't Haynes, Greenidge, Kalli, Lloyd and Viv be expected to get that?
Well yeah if the pitch is flat or has any life in it, I expect Viv and co to at least put something on the board. But India isn't dumb, they're likely to put out pitches similar to the ones Australia faced in the first two tests of the their last tour. Rank turners.
A source for what in particular? We know teams have less exposure to countries than in the past. Decent teams are winning at home far more often than in the past. Home/away splits are really big for individuals from all over. India's home batting average is up despite reasons that we think it's falling, and I'm suggesting it's this trend and the ARs that are doing it.
Not always. Smith played way above and beyond, and as previously pointed out, got vital support from Renshaw and Marsh. Not to mention Indian batting was **** AND STILL INDIA WON.... Yeah, Ponting, Langer, Gilly all averages under 30 in India. Waugh, Hayden and Martyn are carrying the batting and even they aren't better than Kohli, Pujara and Rohit in India.
Ok, let us run on the assumption that a 4 test series will have three rank turners, and one dull pitch.
The fab 4 will definitely pose some serious threat; just that Ashwin/Jadeja will pose a much bigger threat to the WI batsmen
I think you are making my point for me.