• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

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

S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Socerer 01 said:
they didnt beat peak Murali at home, they boshed the rest of the bowlers instead. big difference between those two
Click to expand...
Not completely true. At key moments in each test of the series, they managed to neutralise and limit's Muralis damage. He took a lot of wickets but it wasn't like he was feasting on the Aussies every match.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
subshakerz said:
Not completely true. At key moments in each test of the series, they managed to neutralise and limit's Muralis damage. He took a lot of wickets but it wasn't like he was feasting on the Aussies every match.
Click to expand...
And that's the thing in comparing Indian attack with Sri Lankas. They were extremely dependent on Murali to get them wickets and to an extent Vaas; and had fielded a no of bowlers at times who weren't really Test standard. India isn't dependent on one bowler; be it Ashwin, Jadeja, Bumrah, Shami, Umesh or Axar, everyone of them is dangerous in their own right. You can't just neutralize one and win, you have to be able to dominate them.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
capt_Luffy said:
And that's the thing in comparing Indian attack with Sri Lankas. They were extremely dependent on Murali to get them wickets and to an extent Vaas; and had fielded a no of bowlers at times who weren't really Test standard. India isn't dependent on one bowler; be it Ashwin, Jadeja, Bumrah, Shami, Umesh or Axar, everyone of them is dangerous in their own right. You can't just neutralize one and win, you have to be able to dominate them.
Click to expand...
Obviously, nobody here is going to suggest Murali/Vaas is the same level of threat as India in India on their special wickets.

But this is just to debunk this notion that Australia had any sort of special weakness to spin. They obviously did not. They proved themselves in India and SL against higher quality spinners that Kohli's team faced.
 
B

Bolo.

International Captain
subshakerz said:
Yes it was. They beat peak Murali at home yet you have posters here pretending they are going to flounder against spin.
Click to expand...
1 India are a tougher bowling prospect than SL.

2 Nobody is claiming Aus would collapse. They were an outstanding lineup. India home is tougher than anything they faced though, and the reasonable expectation is that they will perform below their typical standards (and possibly by a lot).

3 'Look at what happened in series xyz' is a really poor way of predicting what would otherwise happen. I expect (insert mediocre team name) to beat AUS in AUS tomorrow cos WI drew there. Or not. Cos this is daft.

And even if you could extrapolate from a series, you would use one from India, not another country.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Bolo. said:
3 'Look at what happened in series xyz' is a really poor way of predicting what would otherwise happen. I expect (insert mediocre team name) to beat AUS in AUS tomorrow cos WI drew there. Or not. Cos this is daft.

And even if you could extrapolate from a series, you would use one from India, not another country.
Click to expand...
We don't need to extrapolate, but we can gauge the strength of sides based on the opposition they faced.

I never said because they won in SL, they will win in Kohli's India. At least bother to see the point I was replying to, which was that Aus 2000s didn't face strong sides.

And most of the actual series I was talking about relative to predicting Kohli's India were those in India.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
subshakerz said:
Obviously, nobody here is going to suggest Murali/Vaas is the same level of threat as India in India on their special wickets.

But this is just to debunk this notion that Australia had any sort of special weakness to spin. They obviously did not. They proved themselves in India and SL against higher quality spinners that Kohli's team faced.
Click to expand...
Look man, simply put 3 Aussie batsmen averaged in 20s in India against worse spinners in much worse conditions.... I am not saying that none of them were good players of spin or any of them were bad batsmen; but simply that India's batting is better in India. Kohli can match Steve Waugh, Rohit to Hayden, Rahul to Mark Waugh, Rahane to Ponting, Vijay/Agarwal is better Langer, Pujara than Martyn, Pant than Gilchrist, and if you still feel some of the assessments are wrong and Aussie top 7 is still better; then Jadeja and Ashwin is a deal sealer.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
capt_Luffy said:
Look man, simply put 3 Aussie batsmen averaged in 20s in India against worse spinners in much worse conditions.... I am not saying that none of them were good players of spin or any of them were bad batsmen; but simply that India's batting is better in India. Kohli can match Steve Waugh, Rohit to Hayden, Rahul to Mark Waugh, Rahane to Ponting, Vijay/Agarwal is better Langer, Pujara than Martyn, Pant than Gilchrist, and if you still feel some of the assessments are wrong and Aussie top 7 is still better; then Jadeja and Ashwin is a deal sealer.
Click to expand...
Yeah and I don't buy that Kohli's Indias batting is as good at home as you make it out to be, simply because on the really spicy wickets they have generally struggled against average spinners and otherwise cashed in against mostly medium attacks on the more flatter surfaces.

They would be more out of their depth, IMO, facing McGrath/Gillespie/Warne/MacGill than Aussie batting would be facing Shami/Umesh/Ashwin/Jadeja, except as I mentioned for the true rank turners that are so bad that the game becomes a gamble for both sides.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
subshakerz said:
Yeah and I don't buy that Kohli's Indias batting is as good at home as you make it out to be, simply because on the really spicy wickets they have generally struggled against average spinners and otherwise cashed in against mostly medium attacks on the more flatter surfaces.

They would be more out of their depth, IMO, facing McGrath/Gillespie/Warne/MacGill than Aussie batting would be facing Shami/Umesh/Ashwin/Jadeja, except as I mentioned for the true rank turners that are so bad that the game becomes a gamble for both sides.
Click to expand...
I see, I feel the same way for Australia and don't expect them to be really effective on these Indian pitches against quality bowlers given their struggle in batting pitches against mediocre bowlers; but let's agree to disagree then.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
capt_Luffy said:
I see, I feel the same way for Australia and don't expect them to be really effective on these Indian pitches against quality bowlers given their struggle in batting pitches against mediocre bowlers; but let's agree to disagree then.
Click to expand...
Which ones are you referring to?
 
X

Xix2565

International Regular
They could be the bowlers who managed 390 Test wickets at avg/SR of 39/79.4 while Kumble/Harbhajan took 466 wickets at 26.2/60.2 in India from 1998-2008.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
capt_Luffy said:
As said by Xix2565; bowling partners of Kumble and Bhajji
Click to expand...
Lol this is ridiculous. Kumble isnt mediocre. Neither was Harbi in 2001, that was the greatest series performances of any spinner of all-time, he was bowling ridiculously well.

And Aussie won against Kumble/Harbi in 2004/5, they didnt struggle particularly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top