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

[Starfighter]

but if you look at the Australian XI, it's not exactly star-studded

I don't like these aspersions being cast against Dave Gilbert.

 

[SteveNZ]

I don't like these aspersions being cast against Dave Gilbert.

Sorry, Mr Gilbert

 

[subshakerz]

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.

Dravid was in the middle of a golden run. But both he and Laxman were completely stiffled by the tight Aussie bowling. You have to give credit to the Aussies rather than trashing the lineup. Objectively, India in the 2000s had a better batting lineup and much better players of spin to, which is relevant if Warne and MacGill are around.

If you are going to judge them based on form, how can you say Harbi was poor if he had an ATG series in 2001 and plenty of wickets in 2004 too?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

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

People are likely to say Australia in 1985 for a while longer, I'd say. Simply because a larger proportion of people saw that win and for your non-cricket fan Kiwi, a win over Australia is still likely to mean more.

It'll be interesting to see what influence this result has on the growing Indian diaspora in New Zealand. Often, India matches here (much like England matches) can feel a bit like away games due to the large numbers of Indian fans. But then, the future NZ team might be more dependent on players from backgrounds like Ravindra. Would this result get some of those Indian fans converting to NZ fans? Or at least seeing them as near-equals for fandom?