How would 80s WI and 2000s Australia fare in unbeatable current India?

[subshakerz]

The fab 4 will definitely pose some serious threat; just that Ashwin/Jadeja will pose a much bigger threat to the WI batsmen

Lol.

But, conversely, the WI bats are better than their Indian counterparts. So Ashwin/Jadeja are more suited threats to the conditions but are facing a better lineup than Indian batting who are facing bowling less suited to the conditions. It seems to equalise somewhat.

And I think the WI lineup is quite capable of having somewhat play a solo innings like Pope today or Smith in 2017. That is the key to winning in India, you need a bat you can

 

[Slifer]

Ok, let us run on the assumption that a 4 test series will have three rank turners, and one dull pitch.

Two questions:

How much of a threat do WI pacers, Marshall/Robert, Holding, Garner and a regulation spinner, pose on a turning pitch to Indian bats?

Do you foresee a one-innings shootout?

I forsee 2 wins for India, one for WI and a draw. By the 3rd test on a rank turner, WI batting would be used to the pitches and put up enough runs for a draw. On a flat surface they'd blast out India's batting. India aren't winning by more than one test.

 

[subshakerz]

I forsee 2 wins for India, one for WI and a draw. By the 3rd test on a rank turner, WI batting would be used to the pitches and put up enough runs for a draw. On a flat surface they'd blast out India's batting. India aren't winning by more than one test.

That isnt happening. Turners are going to be result-oriented. So if you admit WI batting would be making enough runs by then, and then blast out India on the flat wicket, that means 2-2 draw.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I think you are making my point for me.

I don't think you are going to argue, even with Smith's form, that Australia 2017's batting was better than Australia 2000s, or that their bowling was as good. Yet they still scored runs, made the Indian batting sweat and challenged them. Australia 2000s will do far better.

No, I am not arguing that 2000s Australia had a worse batting than 2017s; but at the same time I don't see India often playing equally shitty as in that series; which by the way they won. You are forgetting how shitty Kohli was in that series as well; and that only 2 Indian batsmen produced results. I don't know if Kohli will average sub 10 each time, not to mention how shitty Murali Vijay, Karun Nair and Abhinav Mukund were as well. Smith 2017 was pure genius; and he got decent support from Renshaw, Handscomb, Warner, Maxwell, Wade, Marsh and heck even Starc. They performed equally if not better to Rahane, Saha and Jadeja. I am not sure if only having a good line-up on paper is going to make the cut every time.

But, conversely, the WI bats are better than their Indian counterparts. So Ashwin/Jadeja are more suited threats to the conditions but are facing a better lineup than Indian batting who are facing bowling less suited to the conditions. It seems to equalise somewhat.

And I think the WI lineup is quite capable of having somewhat play a solo innings like Pope today or Smith in 2017. That is the key to winning in India, you need a bat you can

Yes, WI bats are better than the Indians one; but I think the bowling will be enough to produce a difference. A touring side with 4 pacers, no matter how good they're, aren't going to make the cut to a series win imo.

 

[subshakerz]

No, I am not arguing that 2000s Australia had a worse batting than 2017s; but at the same time I don't see India often playing equally ****ty as in that series; which by the way they won. You are forgetting how ****ty Kohli was in that series as well; and that only 2 Indian batsmen produced results. I don't know if Kohli will average sub 10 each time, not to mention how ****ty Murali Vijay, Karun Nair and Abhinav Mukund were as well. Smith 2017 was pure genius; and he got decent support from Renshaw, Handscomb, Warner, Maxwell, Wade, Marsh and heck even Starc. They performed equally if not better to Rahane, Saha and Jadeja. I am not sure if only having a good line-up on paper is going to make the cut every time.

Highly dubious claim that 2000s Australia with Hayden, Clarke, Martyn, Lehman and even Gilly who has two match-winning tons in India are inferior to 2017 Australia with basically uber Smith and help, including Warner lol.

Kohli having a poor series while in good form is on him. The fact is that Kohli's India allowed inferior spinners and pacers to 2000s Australia to put them in check the entire series, it was basically decided towards the end of the last test.

Yes, WI bats are better than the Indians one; but I think the bowling will be enough to produce a difference. A touring side with 4 pacers, no matter how good they're, aren't going to make the cut to a series win imo.

I don't think you can prove Ishant/Shami/Ashwin/Jadeja has a bigger edge on Greenidge/Viv/Lloyd/Kalli than Marshall/Holding/Garner/Croft on Kohli/Vijay/Pujara/Rahul, even with the pitch advantage, especially given that Indian pacers have also thrived on the same turning pitches. At best, it is even.

 

[Slifer]

W

That isnt happening. Turners are going to be result-oriented. So if you admit WI batting would be making enough runs by then, and then blast out India on the flat wicket, that means 2-2 draw.

Well assuming all matches produce a result, then 2-2 is my best bet, because I highly doubt any team with the exception of an atg Australian team (in Australia) is going to beat 80s WI by 2 tests; no one did. I'd prefer 5 tests in which case India wins 3-2. I personally hate test series with even numbers anyway.

 

[Slifer]

Highly dubious claim that 2000s Australia with Hayden, Clarke, Martyn, Lehman and even Gilly who has two match-winning tons in India are inferior to 2017 Australia with basically uber Smith and help, including Warner lol.

Kohli having a poor series while in good form is on him. The fact is that Kohli's India allowed inferior spinners and pacers to 2000s Australia to put them in check the entire series, it was basically decided towards the end of the last test.


I don't think you can prove Ishant/Shami/Ashwin/Jadeja has a bigger edge on Greenidge/Viv/Lloyd/Kalli than Marshall/Holding/Garner/Croft on Kohli/Vijay/Pujara/Rahul, even with the pitch advantage, especially given that Indian pacers have also thrived on the same turning pitches. At best, it is even.

Oh and Roberts for Croft.

 

[subshakerz]

W

Well assuming all matches produce a result, then 2-2 is my best bet, because I highly doubt any team with the exception of an atg Australian team (in Australia) is going to beat 80s WI by 2 tests; no one did. I'd prefer 5 tests in which case India wins 3-2. I personally hate test series with even numbers anyway.

Agreed for WI. For Australia, I put it at 2-1 Australia vs India.

Oh and Roberts for Croft.

Marshall and Croft? That makes it even harder for India.

 

[CricAddict]

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.

If you penalize Ashwin-Jadeja for bowling on favorable bowling pitches,award the batsmen for batting on such tough pitches. You can't be penalizing and dismissing the whole Indian line-up which has the most successful record ever in Indian history.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Highly dubious claim that 2000s Australia with Hayden, Clarke, Martyn, Lehman and even Gilly who has two match-winning tons in India are inferior to 2017 Australia with basically uber Smith and help, including Warner lol.

Kohli having a poor series while in good form is on him. The fact is that Kohli's India allowed inferior spinners and pacers to 2000s Australia to put them in check the entire series, it was basically decided towards the end of the last test.


I don't think you can prove Ishant/Shami/Ashwin/Jadeja has a bigger edge on Greenidge/Viv/Lloyd/Kalli than Marshall/Holding/Garner/Croft on Kohli/Vijay/Pujara/Rahul, even with the pitch advantage, especially given that Indian pacers have also thrived on the same turning pitches. At best, it is even.

I can't prove anything Subs; it's all orbitrary. And will you please stop acting like India lost that series?? Gilchrist also averages sub 30 in India overall, not to mention from Hayden to Clarke; they all played in dream wickets as opposed to whatever India produces nowadays. And on that series, literally Nair played all the matches and Vijay and Mukund played most and they were horrible. I highly doubt you are accounting for that. I think India has a slight edge over Australia in both batting and bowling; and I very highly doubt you have produced any evidence except literally India's worst series home (which they won anyway) that's enough to change my mind. And by I am basically repeating myself so I also doubt I can change yours. Let's leave it at that for now until either of us has any better arguments. Also, no; I don't think despite Indian pacers success (which actually steams much from the pressure the spinners creates) WI playing with 4 pacers could match Ash/Jadeja in India; even accounting for batting level differences (which are actually not that match); though ofcourse I can't prove it.

 

[Slifer]

Agreed for WI. For Australia, I put it at 2-1 Australia vs India.


Marshall and Croft? That makes it even harder for India.

Bowling line up of Marshall, Holding, Roberts and Garner/Croft. The 1st 3 are a must. That's the three that won in '83.

 

[subshakerz]

If you penalize Ashwin-Jadeja for bowling on favorable bowling pitches,award the batsmen for batting on such tough pitches. You can't be penalizing and dismissing the whole Indian line-up which has the most successful record ever in Indian history.

So you believe Kohli and co are superior to Sachin and co? Because that was the question.

 

[CricAddict]

So you believe Kohli and co are superior to Sachin and co? Because that was the question.

Sachin is the best of all time for me. But imo the current Indian team will over the 2000s Indian team which in turn won the series versus atg aussie team at home. So, this Indian team should be able to beat 2000s Aussie team 2-1 which is the original question of the thread.

 

[subshakerz]

I can't prove anything Subs; it's all orbitrary. And will you please stop acting like India lost that series?? Gilchrist also averages sub 30 in India overall, not to mention from Hayden to Clarke; they all played in dream wickets as opposed to whatever India produces nowadays. And on that series, literally Nair played all the matches and Vijay and Mukund played most and they were horrible. I highly doubt you are accounting for that. I think India has a slight edge over Australia in both batting and bowling; and I very highly doubt you have produced any evidence except literally India's worst series home (which they won anyway) that's enough to change my mind. And by I am basically repeating myself so I also doubt I can change yours. Let's leave it at that for now until either of us has any better arguments. Also, no; I don't think despite Indian pacers success (which actually steams much from the pressure the spinners creates) WI playing with 4 pacers could match Ash/Jadeja in India; even accounting for batting level differences (which are actually not that match); though ofcourse I can't prove it.

I bring up Aus 2017 and 2023 because I think those were the strongest teams Kohli's India faced and they ran India hard.

Otherwise, Kohli's India hasn't faced generally strong opposition at home which is one reason they seem unbeatable.

But yes no need to keep beating on this. Thanks for the exchange.

 

[subshakerz]

Sachin is the best of all time for me. But imo the current Indian team will over the 2000s Indian team which in turn won the series versus atg aussie team at home. So, this Indian team should be able to beat 2000s Aussie team 2-1 which is the original question of the thread.

That wasnt the question I asked. It was regarding better batting lineup.

 

[CricAddict]

That wasnt the question I asked. It was regarding better batting lineup.

Sachin, Dravid and Laxman are better than the current batsmen bar Kohli. Sehwag=Rohit. But you are forgetting the biggest strength of the current Indian team regards batting. It is the batting depth. Pant-Jadeja-Ashwin-Axar>>>Mongia-Kumble-Bhajji-Ojha

 

[capt_Luffy]

I bring up Aus 2017 and 2023 because I think those were the strongest teams Kohli's India faced and they ran India hard.

Otherwise, Kohli's India hasn't faced generally strong opposition at home which is one reason they seem unbeatable.

But yes no need to keep beating on this. Thanks for the exchange.

By 2023, India team had declined in the batting, A LOT; and for 2017, India fielded a lot of mediocre batters in the form Mukund, Nair and a washed up Vijay. On that series, alongside Smith Pujara and Rahul also played excellent; Rahane wasn't half bad and it probably had Saha's best innings. So, among those you would field for India's 2010s team, no one performed poorly except for Kohli, who probably had his worst series of all time. As for bowling, Jadeja was excellent, and Shami and Umesh were great too; but Ashwin was only good in that series (though 2nd highest wicket taker), Bhuvi wasn't working any longer and Ishant was really bad.

Also: Australia also I won't say had defeated any marvellous strong side in the 2010s. They lost the Ashes to a pretty mediocre English side; and the 2 times they won in SA, their main bowler was literally Nitini (Donald played only one game in his last leg in the 1st series, Pollock didn't played; and Pollock was well past his prime in the second one). Pakistan no longer had Akram and Waqar as did came the downfall of WI. They lost against a much weaker Indian team, with the best they had ever been, in the absence of India's leading (and kinda back then only dependable bowler) Kumble. I would say the toughest they ever had was India in 2005 without (or even worse, injured) Sachin. And they also proved how much they were dependent on McGrath as well. In one series he wasn't available, India came and drew. And the moment he retired, they lost in India and lost to SA at home. So.... Yeah. You're too harsh on India for playing against not the strongest teams ever, while Australia has done the same.

 

[kyear2]

Bowling line up of Marshall, Holding, Roberts and Garner/Croft. The 1st 3 are a must. That's the three that won in '83.

Swap Harper for someone. Then again, he batted at 6ish?

 

[kyear2]

I need to know which India team we are referring. I heard mentions of 2019?

Before we continue, we should have that baseline.

@Slifer rank turners or not, do we see India's batting line up standing up to that '81 or '83 bowling attack?

 

[Migara]

Yes it will be a tight contest. I just think that India wouldn't spice their pitches up for fear of letting Warne and MacGill go on a rampage.

They will prepare a flat pitch and unleash five quality bowlers. Which WI and Aus at their peaks failed to do.