• 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?

S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Slifer said:
Migara is trolling. He rates India's attack as the best of all time because they have multiple players rated in the top 20. That's good and all, but the strength of an attack is to have bowlers capable of performing home and away. Outside of Bumrah, India doesn't have that. Their attack is very good away but not great
Click to expand...
I can never tell if Migara is trolling or not. He is quite quirky in his views but I respect that to an extent.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
Migara said:
Now does any one realize current Indian bowling lineup is among the best to be fielded in a cricket game?
Click to expand...
A great attack doesn't need, what ever you'll are calling doctored pitches and are also great away from home.
 
Migara

Migara

International Coach
kyear2 said:
A great attack doesn't need, what ever you'll are calling doctored pitches and are also great away from home.
Click to expand...
Current Indian fast bowling doesn't need doctored pitches. They are good enough to get 20 wickets by themselves. The difference is when presented with a dustbowl, with Ashwin and Jadeja, they are equally deadly.

Other important thing is versatility. On a green mamba they can play four seamers and Jadeja. On a dust bowl they can play two seamers and three spinners. No one in the history had that much of luxury in the way of versatility.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
Slifer said:
I did it myself WI averaged 25 and change away ie great.
Click to expand...
I am not really comparing this Indian attack to the WI one, simply because of the lack of away series wins except Australia.... And well, it's not really comparable by stretch; but from 2019 onwards, they also do averages 25 away, Australia being the 2nd best at 30.
 
Slifer

Slifer

International Captain
Migara said:
Current Indian fast bowling doesn't need doctored pitches. They are good enough to get 20 wickets by themselves. The difference is when presented with a dustbowl, with Ashwin and Jadeja, they are equally deadly.

Other important thing is versatility. On a green mamba they can play four seamers and Jadeja. On a dust bowl they can play two seamers and three spinners. No one in the history had that much of luxury in the way of versatility.
Click to expand...
Actually this isn't unreasonable but versatility does not equal effectiveness. And they aren't as effective outside of Asia relative to other great attacks (specifically the spinners).
 
X

Xix2565

International Regular
kyear2 said:
A great attack doesn't need, what ever you'll are calling doctored pitches and are also great away from home.
Click to expand...
From 2016 till 2019 the home pitches weren't terrible. You would know if you even took a glance at a scorecard. Even from 2021 onwards not all pitches were poor. Like maybe people should at least try to understand what they're supposed to be discussing first? Would be really nice.
 
B

Bolo.

International Captain
capt_Luffy said:
I am not really comparing this Indian attack to the WI one, simply because of the lack of away series wins except Australia.... And well, it's not really comparable by stretch; but from 2019 onwards, they also do averages 25 away, Australia being the 2nd best at 30.
Click to expand...
You can use 2016 instead of 2019 for a bit more longevity. That was when their bowling attack started to get good. That's almost as long as WI 80s, and almost the same average.

Lack of series wins are more on the batting. Kohli (42) is the best with more than a couple of matches. WI had 4 bats who played a bunch of matches in the 80s averaging more than Kohli.

WIs 80s have much better individual bowlers. But with home performances, versatility (spin/pace and ARs) and depth (WIs were not able to field their strongest attack most of the time, and never had a good 5th option), they aren't that far behind WI on bowling as a unit.
 
X

Xix2565

International Regular
I just think it's easier to dominate when the opposition isn't great. Which was largely the case in the 80s when most teams didn't have bowling attacks close to the WIs or similarly the case for the 2000s Australian side. Less so in the late 2010s onwards. People love to credit being much better than a bunch of mid tier attacks more than having actual competition across a wider range of conditions.
 
Slifer

Slifer

International Captain
Umm usually that's how great teams dominate ie by being much better than the opposition(s) in some or several aspects : bowling, batting, fielding. I hope you're not making the case that current India is dominant because they're not. Or maybe you're saying they're not dominant because they're several strong attacks around (idk).

Regarding the comment about the 80s, true no team had an attack as strong as WI but none of the attacks were absolutely dire either:

Pakistan: Imran, Safraz, Qasim, Qadir later Wasim

NZ: Hadlee, Chatfield

India: Dev

Australia: McDermott, Hogg, Reid, Alderman, Lawson

England: Botham, Willis

Bear in mind when WI began their ascent to greatness they did so vs challenging attacks and teams:

India would've had Bedi, Chandra, Prasana and Venkat,

Australia: Lilllee, Tommo, Mallet, Walker, Pascoe etc

Eng: Snow, Underwood, Hendrick

Probably the best period of parity among attacks would've been the 90s imo.
 
X

Xix2565

International Regular
Slifer said:
Or maybe you're saying they're not dominant because they're several strong attacks around (idk).
Click to expand...
This. I think you'd have to be blind to say otherwise. You put those great sides in the current era and they'd suddenly look far weaker than people expect because they'd be challenged more often.
 
X

Xix2565

International Regular
I mean the batting looks worse because of the strength of the bowling attacks that they face more than just being bad in general.
 
B

Bolo.

International Captain
Xix2565 said:
I mean the batting looks worse because of the strength of the bowling attacks that they face more than just being bad in general.
Click to expand...
Partly. But the batting lineup averages 44 home and 31 away since 2016. Conditions have had a much bigger impact on them than the bowlers (24 home and 27 away).
 
Shady Slim

Shady Slim

International Coach
this attack or variants thereof beat australia twice in australia guys let's not be too cute here, the attack which india is fiending and has recently fielded is an all timer
 
X

Xix2565

International Regular
Bolo. said:
Partly. But the batting lineup averages 44 home and 31 away since 2016. Conditions have had a much bigger impact on them than the bowlers (24 home and 27 away).
Click to expand...
Yeah that sounds right as well. I don't think you could really say the same for some past teams because pitch preparation has changed over the years and that has impacted bowling and batting around the world.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top