Would this be the greatest test series win of all time if NZ win?

[capt_Luffy]

I mean sure if that makes you feel better. We both know he wasn't the deciding factor in that period.

I mean, the deciding factor was really Ponting not playing.......

 

[Silver Silva]

I will already include Jaiswal for Vijay. Vijay was mostly really good away, but think Jaiswal has done enough at home already.

I'd actually keep Vijay because he played on worse turners than Jaiswal + longevity..

And his record at home during unbeaten era was pretty good .

Between 2013-2018 he played 25 tests at home and scored 1877 runs @46.92 with 8 Test hundreds

 

[ankitj]

Really? Are we going to pretend you guys wouldn't put asterisks on series lost if prime Kohli or Ashwin was missing?

Yes.

 

[subshakerz]

I mean, the deciding factor was really Ponting not playing.......

Come on man, Australia had done their homework well that series and won their two tests quite decisively. Let's not be bitter and give credit where it's due.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Come on man, Australia had done their homework well that series and won their two tests quite decisively. Let's not be bitter and give credit where it's due.

I am giving! India also were the favourites at Chennai, and I can't find any reason to not count 1995 for missing McGrath but doing 2005 despite Tendulkar.

 

[ma1978]

3-3 if you want to split hairs and not include 1998

whatever it is you have no argument

Not that’s deterred you in the past

 

[ma1978]

You can't include 98. They didn't have either McGrath or Gillespie then. No Gilly, Hayden, Langer either. The two relevant series are 2001 (freak loss) and 2004/5 (fairly comfortable win).

the results are the resutls

even using your twisted logic they were 3-3 against a much worse team

 

[subshakerz]

the results are the resutls

even using your twisted logic they were 3-3 against a much worse team

Yeah I am telling you the margin of the results.

3-3? Three absolute convincing wins and three barely scratched together losses based on miracle batting/bowling and a lottery pitch.

Overall, one series barely lost and the other with prep rather definitively won. And that 'much worse side' had a better batting unit than Kohlis.

None of this is evidence that Aus are getting steamrolled by Kohlis side. Like I said, tight series with Aus having a clear edge.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yeah I am telling you the margin of the results.

3-3? Three absolute convincing wins and three barely scratched together losses based on miracle batting/bowling and a lottery pitch.

Overall, one series barely lost and the other with prep rather definitively won. And that 'much worse side' had a better batting unit than Kohlis.

None of this is evidence that Aus are getting steamrolled by Kohlis side. Like I said, tight series with Aus having a clear edge.

3-3 is 3-3 for ****ing Christ's Sake. That's the result, can compare Australia in Kohli's India if you want, but can't change that that Aussie team overall had a record of 3-3; even ignoring 1998 series.

 

[subshakerz]

3-3 is 3-3 for ****ing Christ's Sake. That's the result, can compare Australia in Kohli's India if you want, but can't change that that Aussie team overall had a record of 3-3; even ignoring 1998 series.

I know but if you are going to blankly just read that scoreline, ignore context and say therefore Kohli team is crushing them, that is just silly.

Its like saying that because in 99 WI drew 2-2 with Australia (basically due to Lara having the greatest batting series of all time) that team is getting crushed by 80s WI.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I know but if you are going to blankly just read that scoreline, ignore context and say therefore Kohli team is crushing them, that is just silly.

Its like saying that because in 99 WI drew 2-2 with Australia (basically due to Lara having the greatest batting series of all time) that team is getting crushed by 80s WI.

99 Aus was Lara's second best batting series

 

[SteveNZ]

It almost feels like a cobbled together series win in a way, although the great teams do rely on different individuals to stand up and perform when they need to

Rachin 247 runs at 82, Conway 201 at 50 despite looking like he's batting with a cane in rollerskates at times, Latham with 116 at 29 but arguably a match winning 86 in there, Young somehow averaging 40.

Then Santner 13 wickets in a Test when the majority of us didn't see value in him, Henry a dominant 1st Test, and O'Rourke 7 wickets at 17 despite not being required in this Test.

Pretty crazy result. No, it isn't the greatest Test series win of all-time. India's in Australia in 2021 with a lot of troops out was better, and that's not even trying to think long-term. But it's pretty epic.

 

[capt_Luffy]

It almost feels like a cobbled together series win in a way, although the great teams do rely on different individuals to stand up and perform when they need to

Rachin 247 runs at 82, Conway 201 at 50 despite looking like he's batting with a cane in rollerskates at times, Latham with 116 at 29 but arguably a match winning 86 in there, Young somehow averaging 40.

Then Santner 13 wickets in a Test when the majority of us didn't see value in him, Henry a dominant 1st Test, and O'Rourke 7 wickets at 17 despite not being required in this Test.

Pretty crazy result. No, it isn't the greatest Test series win of all-time. India's in Australia in 2021 with a lot of troops out was better, and that's not even trying to think long-term. But it's pretty epic.

I think it's NZ's best.

 

[SteveNZ]

I think it's NZ's best.

You could absolutely be right. People would say 1985 in Australia, but if you look at the Australian XI, it's not exactly star-studded

 

[subshakerz]

99 Aus was Lara's second best batting series

You know what I am saying.

 

[ma1978]

You know what I am saying.

I don’t know what you’re saying but I know what you’re clutching… straws

 

[Slifer]

the results are the resutls

even using your twisted logic they were 3-3 against a much worse team

I'd say an India team with the following:

Sehwag
Gambhir
Dravid
Sachin
Vvs
Ganguly
Patel +
Kumble
Harbajan
Zaheer
Pathan

The team above isn't "much worse" than even Peak Kohli India. The bowling is much weaker but the batting is on a completely different level, even accounting for Kohli’s India having a long batting lineup with Ash and Jadeja. Oh and they are night and day apparently vs spin ( especially spin friendly indian wkts).

 

[capt_Luffy]

I'd say an India team with the following:

Sehwag
Gambhir
Dravid
Sachin
Vvs
Ganguly
Patel +
Kumble
Harbajan
Zaheer
Pathan

The team above isn't "much worse" than even Peak Kohli India. The bowling is much weaker but the batting is on a completely different level, even accounting for Kohli’s India having a long batting lineup with Ash and Jadeja. Oh and they are night and day apparently vs spin ( especially spin friendly indian wkts).

A few points I would like to comment on; Tendulkar played in 2005 BGT from midway through, as he was called after a batting collapse, when he was noway near fit enough. Sehwag was great, but both Laxman and Dravid were poor. Now, on the bowling, it's just thrash, like complete utter thrash. Kumble was great, but no one else. Zaheer was before his peak and he had a horrible home record, Harbhajan was poor as always and Irfan has a career average of ****ing 45 vs non minnows. Also, this team had a much better top order, but the tail is relatively mild. Pant - Jadeja - Ashwin are a significant push. Like for batting only, in that series Sehwag was great, Sachin was injured, Laxman and Dravid flopped and Ganguly was in decline. On paper better batting, but hardly much better. Circa 2018-19 Kohli, Pujara and Rahane are around to Dravid, Laxman and Ganguly back then; while Sehwag was superior to Rohit, I can't say that about his partner and Agarwal/Rahul. Overall the openers are equal. Now down the order, Pant is a huge upgrade on Yuvraj, Jadeja plenty big on Patel and Ashwin equal to Pathan. So yeah, much worse bowling and hardly better batting.

 

[Slifer]

A few points I would like to comment on; Tendulkar played in 2005 BGT from midway through, as he was called after a batting collapse, when he was noway near fit enough. Sehwag was great, but both Laxman and Dravid were poor. Now, on the bowling, it's just thrash, like complete utter thrash. Kumble was great, but no one else. Zaheer was before his peak and he had a horrible home record, Harbhajan was poor as always and Irfan has a career average of ****ing 45 vs non minnows. Also, this team had a much better top order, but the tail is relatively mild. Pant - Jadeja - Ashwin are a significant push. Like for batting only, in that series Sehwag was great, Sachin was injured, Laxman and Dravid flopped and Ganguly was in decline. On paper better batting, but hardly much better. Circa 2018-19 Kohli, Pujara and Rahane are around to Dravid, Laxman and Ganguly back then; while Sehwag was superior to Rohit, I can't say that about his partner and Agarwal/Rahul. Overall the openers are equal. Now down the order, Pant is a huge upgrade on Yuvraj, Jadeja plenty big on Patel and Ashwin equal to Pathan. So yeah, much worse bowling and hardly better batting.

I'm assuming all players are at their respective peaks or close to it. When Kohli was at his best, there was no Pant and hardly any Bumrah.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I'm assuming all players are at their respective peaks or close to it. When Kohli was at his best, there was no Pant and hardly any Bumrah.

Both debuted in 2018. Circa 2019, everyone was up and kicking. Bumrah was already bowling like now, and I won't really hate trading that Pant for Saha. And like, you can't assume the 2005 India team at peak, because they weren't. Had they been, we won't had the lost the series, heck we would had drawn without rain in Chennai.