I prefer you more than the other posters from your side since you are willing to at least concede basic facts and this makes the arguments in good faith.
Why do you think I am consistently discussing Warne + Murali + O’Reilly + Ashwin as bowling attack ?
in the context of atg discussion, it isnt though? im not disputing that great pace attacks can win tests in India, im disputing that with everyone at their prime like every atg discussion does. or does that filter only apply for players when convenient?
We have to use real performances as a baseline to judge and the fact that three great pace attacks decisively trumped good Indian batting lineup ups to win series is significant.
Yes but we have established that this attack won't be as consistently good as the pace attack and will face major challenges in certain countries.
This is also true. Indian batting in India is pretty good.
Gilly has a matchwinning ton in each India tour. That average is misleading.
Gundappa didnt even play against the Windies in 83, he was retired or phased out. he was a 70s era batsman who played a few series in 80s well past his prime. Amarnath was **** in India, he’s the og Rahane….. actually you know what, why dont you go and see the scores Amarnath made in that series before talking about how good he was?
that leaves 2 great batsmen
Maybe you should also concede points some times
Yes, that was the way Gilly played in general. He wouldn't stick around. Would be flaying bowlers all over the park.
you’re again missing the point, @Sunil1z original point was that going pure pace in India wont work against a great batting lineup, he can correct me if im wrong. the 2000 and 83 batting lineups werent great, they arent good either in comparison with an atg lineup. 2000s SA side opted to debut Boje rather than play an extra pacer, that already proves his point, 04 Aus also had Warne
Because it helps his argument
Nah 83 and 2000 was the best we possessed at that time . No need to re write history just because we lost
So Amaranth was a bad batsman because he didn't score in that series. I don't see how that followsGundappa didnt even play against the Windies in 83, he was retired or phased out. he was a 70s era batsman who played a few series in 80s well past his prime. Amarnath was **** in India, he’s the og Rahane….. actually you know what, why dont you go and see the scores Amarnath made in that series before talking about how good he was?
this is the problem with u dude, you make blanket, generalising statements and when someone disputes that you go off on random tangents to deviate
I think you're missing the point. Yes, the Indian batting lineup will be much better, but the attacks will be much better too than what India faced in 83, 2000 and 2004/5. But the principle of great pace attacks succeeding there still stands.
Although he wasn’t a bad batsman, his Home average left lot to be desired .
That's fair but we wouldn't necessarily reduce Sehwag's wicket value for the bowler if he was touring in Eng or SA.
Highly disagree
it was lol im not saying we didnt deserve to lose, im saying its not a convincing argument to argue that it would be the same case for atg discussionsNah 83 and 2000 was the best we possessed at that time . No need to re write history just because we lost
Agree with your other point .
are you deliberately being obtuse??