• 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?

P

Patience and Accuracy+Gut

State Vice-Captain
honestbharani said:
Its funny coz the only reason Aus ever won a series here is that the curator at Nagpur got salty at the then BCCI president and decided to take it out on his golden boy Ganguly. :laugh:

They would have drawn even that series had it not been for the stupid rain in Chennai. This inspite of that being our weakest side we put at home since 2000 and till at least about 2012-13. Salty hatez dem facts coz they dont suit his narrative. Another of his Trump moves. :p
Click to expand...
With over 200 runs to go, that’s definitely more like 50-50.
 
M

ma1978

International Debutant
subshakerz said:
They were beaten soundly in 98 with no real pacers. Tho it's worth pointing out that Aus had no proper series in India between 86 to 98, so the players came there fresh and totally out of their element, so the 98 loss was in part due to lack of adjustment to conditions.

They were much closer to winning in 2001 except for some miracle performances denying them.

Then they won convincingly in 2004/5 with experience in the conditions and the best squad of spin players.

Thats why regardless of whether you think Australia 2000s would lose to Kohlis team, a repeat series will almost certainly result in an Aussie victory as they would adapt, the same way the last three years teams have adapted better to conditions and led in part to more wins than in 2016-2019, for example more reverse sweeps tried to counter Ashwin-Jadeja.

However, no amount of touring by any non-ATG side will lead to an eventual victory against 2000s Aus in Aus.
Click to expand...
the latter point is an irrelevance, the former two points a contortion. The fact is they didn’t win. Everything else is lame explanation to justify they didn’t win. Results are the only thing that matters.
 
Nintendo

Nintendo

Cricketer Of The Year
ma1978 said:
the latter point is an irrelevance, the former two points a contortion. The fact is they didn’t win. Everything else is lame explanation to justify they didn’t win. Results are the only thing that matters.
Click to expand...
My ex wife did not agree with this sentiment.

Edit: If anyone needs a good divorce attorney HMU. I know a real solid guy. Dug me out of a massive hole and put my wife in one.
 
X

Xix2565

International Regular
I'll be honest, the 90-00s Aus looks a lot better when they don't have to play better bowling attacks a lot of the time. Doesn't mean they're not great, but it's easy to shine when everything else is mediocre or hopeless bar the occasional flash.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
ma1978 said:
and lost in 2001

3-3 against an inferior team

there is no facts based argument to say they would beat a superior team
Click to expand...
These are just circular arguments. To me a comfy victory and tight loss in India is good evidence they will do well there. The rest is just looking at team strengths.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Xix2565 said:
I'll be honest, the 90-00s Aus looks a lot better when they don't have to play better bowling attacks a lot of the time. Doesn't mean they're not great, but it's easy to shine when everything else is mediocre or hopeless bar the occasional flash.
Click to expand...
They played a lot of quality spinners for sure.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
capt_Luffy said:
Such idiotic dogshitery...... Ignoring the fact that they indeed lost as much as they won against an inferior team, missing their best bowler in the first series and best batter in the next.
Click to expand...
Lol. You entire narrative is to up-play the 2001 loss and to downplay the 2004 victory.
 
Last edited:
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
capt_Luffy said:
I love how calling SRT our best batter is lolworthy all of a sudden.
Click to expand...
Because he wasn't on form in 2004/5. You know that, I know. Yet you want to pretend he was the difference between loss and victory (when he was present when they actually lost the series).

This is such an obvious point that I am starting to assume your entire thread here is just rage posting.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
subshakerz said:
Because he wasn't on form in 2004/5. You know that, I know. Yet you want to pretend he was the difference between loss and victory (when he was present when they actually lost the series).

This is such an obvious point that I am starting to assume your entire thread here is just rage posting.
Click to expand...
I am rage posting?? Dude, the first thing you did after India lost a home series is being a bottle of lube and re-open this thread. Sachin Tendulkar was still Sachin Tendulkar. He infact was the deciding factor in the Mumbai Test. You waved off 3 India wins as "tight" or "lucky" and the whole previous Australia series when they were by and large already up and kicking as "doesn't counts". And you are using these things to conclude that Aussie team would succeed against the India prime one is beyond rage posting. It's sad posting.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
capt_Luffy said:
I am rage posting?? Dude, the first thing you did after India lost a home series is being a bottle of lube and re-open this thread. Sachin Tendulkar was still Sachin Tendulkar. He infact was the deciding factor in the Mumbai Test. You waved off 3 India wins as "tight" or "lucky" and the whole previous Australia series when they were by and large already up and kicking as "doesn't counts". And you are using these things to conclude that Aussie team would succeed against the India prime one is beyond rage posting. It's sad posting.
Click to expand...
The thread title I created is about the 2000s ATG Aus side vs Kohlis side, not the 90s Aus teams. The 97 Aus team didn't have half the main players of the 2000s sides that toured.

The three Indian wins were tight. The three Aussie wins were fairly comfortable ones. The 2001 series was won by India thanks to some of the greatest once in a lifetime exceptional batting and bowling performances in cricket history.

Tendulkar was in a form slump 2003 to 2006 due to injuries. Tendulkar did play a good knock in the last test, but he was also there in the decisive 3rd test when they lost.

Tell me what in the above you disagree with? I see them all as facts.
 
Last edited:
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
subshakerz said:
The thread title I created is about the 2000s ATG Aus side vs Kohlis side, not the 90s Aus teams. The 97 Aus team didn't have half the main players of the 2000s sides that toured.

The three Indian wins were tight. The three Aussie wins were fairly comfortable ones.

Tendulkar was in a form slump 2003 to 2006 due to injuries. Tendulkar did play a good knock in the last test, but he was also there in the decisive 3rd test when they lost.

Tell me what in the above you disagree with?
Click to expand...
Except the very premise of comparing the results against a mediocre India vs Kohli's India....

Then surely the 2007 tour counts? By your logic, it must.

The Eden win was by over 170 runs. Tight or not doesn't matters, the results does. No point in crying over "but but but we lost by so little".

Again, slump no slump, Sachin Tendulkar was Sachin Tendulkar. His name in the sheet brought confidence to those around him. It's tomfoolery to write of Australia 1998 and even the home series of 2003 for McGrath not playing, but not acknowledging the distance Tendulkar made. Or how Kumble, our by far the best bowler, was absent in 2001.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
capt_Luffy said:
Except the very premise of comparing the results against a mediocre India vs Kohli's India....

Then surely the 2007 tour counts? By your logic, it must.

The Eden win was by over 170 runs. Tight or not doesn't matters, the results does. No point in crying over "but but but we lost by so little".

Again, slump no slump, Sachin Tendulkar was Sachin Tendulkar. His name in the sheet brought confidence to those around him. It's tomfoolery to write of Australia 1998 and even the home series of 2003 for McGrath not playing, but not acknowledging the distance Tendulkar made. Or how Kumble, our by far the best bowler, was absent in 2001.
Click to expand...
So you think the Eden result wasn't tight based on margin. Fair enough.

No point bringing up the 2007 tour. That was a totally different Aus side again.

You agree Tendulkar had a slump but that him being in the side would have brought them confidence? Why didn't it bring them confidence in the 3rd test when they lost the series? The point is whether his runs would have made a difference in the result and I don't think you believe so.

2004/5 was a pretty clear indication of an Aus side who had done their homework gaining an unambiguous victory.
 
M

ma1978

International Debutant
In Subz mind Aus won the 2021 BGT because their win was bigger than Indiia’s wins and they had the better team on paper

the reality is the record is the record and the GOAT Aus team went either 3-3 or 4-5 in India depending on how you define the timeframe. As a result they were equal to or worse than the India team of that era in India. This is the only indisputable fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top