Best team since Waugh/ Ponting’s Australia?

[subshakerz]

If only Pujara, Rahane and Kohli didn’t decide to collectively **** the bed, we’d have probably won in SA. That would’ve been huge - 2 away wins in Aus, draw in Eng and win in SA.

Unfortunately under Kohli the tendency has been for the team to buckle under pressure at key moments in away tours and ICC tournaments.

By right, India should have won in England and SA and Kohli would have secured his legacy

 

[Xix2565]

Shami and Ishant are not Donald and McGrath so why bring up the greats of the past? To the extent they bowled well at home, it has been as a support act for the spinners, who often even opened the bowling. Over the course of a series and assuming their spinners are neutralized, I dont think the pace battery will be the matchwinning difference between the sides you make them out to be.

And yes, as a batting unit, Sehwag, Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman and Dhoni are a league ahead of Rohit, Kohli, Pujara, Rahane and Pant, home or abroad and especially as players of spin, even if we ignore the collective slump the middle order has been in. The fact that Kohli's side has to regularly bailed out by the lower order is also a reflection of their top order struggles.

Again, this is about great bowling attacks, not great bowlers. Shami and Ishant don't have to be ATGs to be part of one of the current best bowling attacks in the world, and the best one in India by far. Also pretty clear you didn't watch Indian pacers bowl or you wouldn't be saying this considering how crucial they've been in taking early wickets to put enormous pressure on the opposition to survive both them and the spinners.

Assertions =/= evidence. You've yet to show anything that suggests that, especially taking into account the eras they've played in and the quality of bowling attacks. I will never understand this consistent overrating of batting prowess compared to bowling prowess when one is clearly more important to winning Test matches and it isn't batting.

 

[subshakerz]

Again, this is about great bowling attacks, not great bowlers. Shami and Ishant don't have to be ATGs to be part of one of the current best bowling attacks in the world, and the best one in India by far. Also pretty clear you didn't watch Indian pacers bowl or you wouldn't be saying this considering how crucial they've been in taking early wickets to put enormous pressure on the opposition to survive both them and the spinners.

Assertions =/= evidence. You've yet to show anything that suggests that, especially taking into account the eras they've played in and the quality of bowling attacks. I will never understand this consistent overrating of batting prowess compared to bowling prowess when one is clearly more important to winning Test matches and it isn't batting.

You are not disputing what I said. I said the pace attack bowled well but played a support role for the spinners rather than a decisive role in winning series. That is pretty much unarguable.

The 2000s Indian batting is far ahead both based on record and reputation and also the quality of spinners they faced. You can check their averages and who faced Murali, Saqlain, Warne, MacGill, Swann, etc.

 

[Xix2565]

You are not disputing what I said. I said the pace attack bowled well but played a support role for the spinners rather than a decisive role in winning series. That is pretty much unarguable.

The 2000s Indian batting is far ahead both based on record and reputation and also the quality of spinners they faced. You can check their averages and who faced Murali, Saqlain, Warne, MacGill, Swann, etc.

Yeah it's nice that you can keep saying things without actually backing it up, but it won't fly with me. Really impressive to keep it up even though it's ultimately useless in debating.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah it's nice that you can keep saying things without actually backing it up, but it won't fly with me. Really impressive to keep it up even though it's ultimately useless in debating.

I mentioned superior records (except for Dhoni, each of the 2000s ones averages significantly more than their current counterparts) and gave examples of quality spinners that they faced. What do you want, a thesis? Do you really need a lot of evidence to convince you that Sehwag and Dravid are better than Sharma and Pujara? Maybe you didn't watch their careers.

Perhaps the onus is on you to show how the current batting lineup is comparable to the 2000s one, since most here don't dispute that the 2000s one is superior if not significantly superior.

 

[Xix2565]

I mentioned superior records (except for Dhoni, each of the 2000s ones averages significantly more than their current counterparts) and gave examples of quality spinners that they faced. What do you want, a thesis? Do you really need a lot of evidence to convince you that Sehwag and Dravid are better than Sharma and Pujara? Maybe you didn't watch their careers.

Perhaps the onus is on you to show how the current batting lineup is comparable to the 2000s one, since most here don't dispute that the 2000s one is superior if not significantly superior.

And you've ignored the differences in eras regarding pitch quality and batting average inflation/deflation, as well as how the quality of bowlers involved is spread out and you can't make value judgements just by saying they faced Great X, Y and Z while completely omitting that X, Y and Z played for different teams and often had worse bowlers around them to make their attacks overall not as good or consistent as the best bowlers pace or spin.

So yeah, I do kind of need more than your words on how good the batting lineups are, and how the pace advantage is something totally irrelevant when we've seen the current Indian pacers consistently outbowl their opposition and help win crucial games. This isn't taking away anything from the quality of Ashwin and Jadeja, it's pointing out that Ashwin and Jadeja don't exactly have noobs around them to bowl fast and waste overs before letting them take over to do the real work.

It's ridiculous really that you think you can keep getting away with not backing up your statements or making ridiculous assumptions that you think no one will call you out on.

 

[subshakerz]

And you've ignored the differences in eras regarding pitch quality and batting average inflation/deflation, as well as how the quality of bowlers involved is spread out and you can't make value judgements just by saying they faced Great X, Y and Z while completely omitting that X, Y and Z played for different teams and often had worse bowlers around them to make their attacks overall not as good or consistent as the best bowlers pace or spin.

Please give those numbers and figures showing that all adjusted, Sharma and Pujara are roughly as good as Sehwag and Dravid. I am assuming you must have done it before because you are demanding such a spreadsheet breakdown from me. Otherwise you are just giving statements and ridiculous assumptions yourself.

So yeah, I do kind of need more than your words on how good the batting lineups are, and how the pace advantage is something totally irrelevant when we've seen the current Indian pacers consistently outbowl their opposition and help win crucial games. This isn't taking away anything from the quality of Ashwin and Jadeja, it's pointing out that Ashwin and Jadeja don't exactly have noobs around them to bowl fast and waste overs before letting them take over to do the real work.

You are strawmanning. I didn't call the noobs, I literally said the pace bowlers bowled well and that Kohli's team has a pace advantage. But that their role was more support and not series-defining. Why? Because freakin Ashwin/Jadeja were taking 30-50 wickets plus on average per series between themselves, while a pacer would rarely break 10 wickets in a series at home!

 

[Xix2565]

Please give those numbers and figures showing that all adjusted, Sharma and Pujara are roughly as good as Sehwag and Dravid. I am assuming you must have done it before because you are demanding such a spreadsheet breakdown from me. Otherwise you are just giving statements and ridiculous assumptions yourself.


You are strawmanning. I didn't call the noobs, I literally said the pace bowlers bowled well and that Kohli's team has a pace advantage. But that their role was more support and not series-defining. Why? Because freakin Ashwin/Jadeja were taking 30-50 wickets plus on average per series between themselves, while a pacer would rarely break 10 wickets in a series at home!

No need to shift goalposts to avoid proving your points here. Especially when it's not something I'm debating in the first place. Maybe learn to stick to what I'm asking for and answer that rather than running away.

 

[subshakerz]

No need to shift goalposts to avoid proving your points here. Especially when it's not something I'm debating in the first place. Maybe learn to stick to what I'm asking for and answer that rather than running away.

Look at all my posts this page. All I was debating is 2000s Indian batting vs current batting and whether Kohli's pacers would win them a series against 2000s India. I will take your response as basically a fold.

 

[Xix2565]

Look at all my posts this page. All I was debating is 2000s Indian batting vs current batting and whether Kohli's pacers would win them a series against 2000s India. I will take your response as basically a fold.

And you did nothing beyond say 2000s batting good, current batting bad and pace quality difference is irrelevant. Nice to know you can't back anything up when asked for it, thanks for the concession.

 

[Xix2565]

Always hilarious that whenever I ask for some proof, @subshakerz is always very keen on refusing to provide it. Very interesting... ?

 

[Magrat Garlick]

the thread topic is "Best team since Waugh/ Ponting’s Australia?" can you both at least pretend to stick to that rather than going around in circles around each other.

 

[Xix2565]

the thread topic is "Best team since Waugh/ Ponting’s Australia?" can you both at least pretend to stick to that rather than going around in circles around each other.

Then just lock it? Since no one else cares beyond repeating old posts or starting new debates that are tangents off this one.

 

[Chrish]

No it will ruin the sole purpose of subshakerz’s being on this forum: pakpassion style opportunistic bumping..

He is already eagerly hoping for Australian series win in India. And it would make it that much sweeter when it won’t happen . Already hearing that silent cry..

 

[subshakerz]

No it will ruin the sole purpose of subshakerz’s being on this forum: pakpassion style opportunistic bumping..

He is already eagerly hoping for Australian series win in India. And it would make it that much sweeter when it won’t happen . Already hearing that silent cry..

Pakpassion? The bumping would have been done by the Kohli team fanboys if the result went the other way, no doubt.

Anyways I think India is favorites to beat Australia at home and the latter would be fortunate to draw.

But yeah feel free to wrap up this thread. All has been said to be said.

 

[Chrish]

The bumping would have been done by the Kohli team fanboys if the result went the other way, no doubt.

None of regular posters are “fanboys”. Not talking about new accounts that pop up once in a while for trolling purpose.

Any ways india will be favorite but this Australian team has a decent shot; better than anyone else in the recent memory. It will be a close series IMO.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

thread locked by OP request