How would 80s WI and 2000s Australia fare in unbeatable current India?

[Migara]

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).

Indian spinners are effective overseas than most ATG attacks other than for Australia. WI didn't have a spin attack. 1948 Australian team was also not big on spin talent. Imran's Pakistan team had good spinners, but Ashwin and Jadeja are better than them on non SC conditions. Only spin attacks which has done better than Ahswin and jadeja in non SC conditions during last 50 so years, are Australia with Warne , Sri Lanka with Murali, Pakistan with Saqlain and Mushtaq, England with Swann. Australia with Lyon is there and there abouts. Australia had a seam attack very similar to India today. Pakistan probably had a better attack, but their attitude was rancid, hence ineffective. When these two reasons combined, it gives you an ATG attack on any type of surface.

 

[subshakerz]

What are you guys talking about? India's bowling has been consistently amazing away from home for most of this era (up until 2022 or so). It's the batting that has under performed.

They have failed at the big moments IMO in South Africa, England and NZ. Though batting is the bigger failure there.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

They have failed at the big moments IMO in South Africa, England and NZ. Though batting is the bigger failure there.

He said up until 2022, so only the NZ properly counts

 

[subshakerz]

He said up until 2022, so only the NZ properly counts

They lost in SA in 2022 by failing to bowl them out twice and then drew the series in England by failing to bowl them out.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

They lost in SA in 2022 by failing to bowl them out twice and then drew the series in England by failing to bowl them out.

I agree but that was in 2022. Until 2022, means before it

 

[Daemon]

I think the 2022 caveat was to account for the failures to close out games in SA and the one off England test where we were bazballed.

I suppose you can make the argument that post-Ishant/pre-Siraj the attack changed a bit and so the cut off makes sense.

Either way it’s still an all timer for sure though, just like the other great attack of its time (Cummins, Haze, Starc and Lyon).

 

[Slifer]

Indian spinners are effective overseas than most ATG attacks other than for Australia. WI didn't have a spin attack. 1948 Australian team was also not big on spin talent. Imran's Pakistan team had good spinners, but Ashwin and Jadeja are better than them on non SC conditions. Only spin attacks which has done better than Ahswin and jadeja in non SC conditions during last 50 so years, are Australia with Warne , Sri Lanka with Murali, Pakistan with Saqlain and Mushtaq, England with Swann. Australia with Lyon is there and there abouts. Australia had a seam attack very similar to India today. Pakistan probably had a better attack, but their attitude was rancid, hence ineffective. When these two reasons combined, it gives you an ATG attack on any type of surface.

Lol lol ok. Indian spinners are not effective overseas. Ashwin is passable and can probably hold an end down. But India's prowess outside Asia is completely down to their pacemen and especially the great Bumrah. And that part about effective spinners apart from Ashwin/Jadeja well Chandra, Underwood, Gupte (limited tests), Laker etc (I'm ignoring your last 50 years designation) have all been better outside their home countries.

Let me just say India does have a great attack but that versatility stuff is mostly confined to home because the spinners are basically support bowlers outside Asia.

 

[Slifer]

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.

I can also say though, if this Indian attack had to face better batting lineups, things might look different for them as well. For example atm, they're bowling to WI and RSA with 0.0 batsmen who average over 40. WI don't even have a batsman averaging over 35. Contrast that with what McWarne faced:

WI with Lara, Shiv, Sarwan etc
Rsa: Kallis, Cullinan, Kirsten etc
Ind: self explanatory
SL: Sanga, Jayasuriya, Jayawardene
Pak: Inzi, Yousuf , khan etc

 

[subshakerz]

Either way it’s still an all timer for sure though, just like the other great attack of its time (Cummins, Haze, Starc and Lyon).

This is another attack which looks better on paper than reality.

 

[Xix2565]

I can also say though, if this Indian attack had to face better batting lineups, things might look different for them as well. For example atm, they're bowling to WI and RSA with 0.0 batsmen who average over 40. WI don't even have a batsman averaging over 35. Contrast that with what McWarne faced:

WI with Lara, Shiv, Sarwan etc
Rsa: Kallis, Cullinan, Kirsten etc
Ind: self explanatory
SL: Sanga, Jayasuriya, Jayawardene
Pak: Inzi, Yousuf , khan etc

I mean if the older teams had their struggles in tough batting conditions and against strong attacks, then no, I don't think much would change regarding the recent Indian side's bowling quality if they had to play them. Think that's just your projections without considering conditions and strength of bowling attacks relatively in this comparison.

 

[Slifer]

I mean if the older teams had their struggles in tough batting conditions and against strong attacks, then no, I don't think much would change regarding the recent Indian side's bowling quality if they had to play them. Think that's just your projections without considering conditions and strength of bowling attacks relatively in this comparison.

Conditions? WI's best batsman averages 34 odd and Ashwin has feasted on them over 13 tests. You have to be a simpleton to believe he'd do the same vs a lineup featuring Lara, Chanders or Sarwan in the WI. Ditto RSA and ditto SL.

90s batting condition were just as challenging as now but again the WI, RSA etc still had class batsmen to balance that out. Fwiw, conditions now aren't particularly challenging, it's the T20 fast runs mentality (imo) of most of today's batsmen. If Steve Smith tried that scoop 6 nonsense in the 90s vs a Wasim, he'd be dead.

Let me just say this again. India does have a great attack. They're amazing home and away. Their versatility imo, is mostly confined to home and Asia because their spinners are support bowlers outside Asia. Their attack is probably in the top 20 maybe top 10 of all time. That's an achievement in and of itself. What is there to argue about....

 

[Xix2565]

Conditions? WI's best batsman averages 34 odd and Ashwin has feasted on them over 13 tests. You have to be a simpleton to believe he'd do the same vs a lineup featuring Lara, Chanders or Sarwan in the WI. Ditto RSA and ditto SL.

90s batting condition were just as challenging as now but again the WI, RSA etc still had class batsmen to balance that out. Fwiw, conditions now aren't particularly challenging, it's the T20 fast runs mentality (imo) of most of today's batsmen. If Steve Smith tried that scoop 6 nonsense in the 90s vs a Wasim, he'd be dead.

Let me just say this again. India does have a great attack. They're amazing home and away. Their versatility imo, is mostly confined to home and Asia because their spinners are support bowlers outside Asia. Their attack is probably in the top 20 maybe top 10 of all time. That's an achievement in and of itself. What is there to argue about....

You'd only say that if you considered batting to be equal to bowling but that isn't really the case. Bowling in Tests is a more impactful skill largely because it dictates what the batter has to face. It's hard to score runs if the bowling is difficult to face (and this difficulty can be exacerbated by the quality and amount of bowlers, as well as conditions). To suggest blindly that people averaging higher in the past compared to modern players would be just fine without examining exactly how and against whom they scored their runs to make better comparisons is silly. As is claiming that the existence of other formats has reduced the general quality of players playing currently. You haven't made a good point in this post, so it's difficult to say anymore than this.

 

[Slifer]

You'd only say that if you considered batting to be equal to bowling but that isn't really the case. Bowling in Tests is a more impactful skill largely because it dictates what the batter has to face. It's hard to score runs if the bowling is difficult to face (and this difficulty can be exacerbated by the quality and amount of bowlers, as well as conditions). To suggest blindly that people averaging higher in the past compared to modern players would be just fine without examining exactly how and against whom they scored their runs to make better comparisons is silly. As is claiming that the existence of other formats has reduced the general quality of players playing currently. You haven't made a good point in this post, so it's difficult to say anymore than this.

And to believe that Ashwin would've done what he's done now vs WI of the 90s and 2000s is moronic. Murali aka the goat of spinners (along with Warne) went at 23 striking at 50 odd in WI. Ashwin is going at 19 striking at 42. Give me a break. Ashwin is. not i murali's class. And I never said players of the past would be fine today but I'd like to know what conditions you think now that are more challenging than the past. More protection for batsmen, roped in boundaries, better bats, stricter bouncer rules, better nutrition and physio therapy?? What's more challenging now for batsmen than the past? (80s/90s) . Go on......

 

[Xix2565]

And to believe that Ashwin would've done what he's done now vs WI of the 90s and 2000s is moronic. Murali aka the goat of spinners (along with Warne) went at 23 striking at 50 odd in WI. Ashwin is going at 19 striking at 42. Give me a break. Ashwin is. not i murali's class. And I never said players of the past would be fine today but I'd like to know what conditions you think now that are more challenging than the past. More protection for batsmen, roped in boundaries, better bats, stricter bouncer rules, better nutrition and physio therapy?? What's more challenging now for batsmen than the past? (80s/90s) . Go on......

My point wasn't about challenging conditions though. It was that given past teams have struggled when up against a superior bowling attack than their own, why shouldn't we expect the modern Indian side to not struggle as much against such teams, let alone be competitive and well matched against the better bowling attacks? Conditions have changed over time, and often what seem as the better batting lineups by numbers often had the benefit of better batting pitches + weaker bowling lineups compared to other eras where the numbers don't seem as impressive. What you can say is more challenging is the greater difference in conditions across the world, and the stronger, deeper home bowling attacks for most teams which makes winning away from home more difficult than before.

 

[Slifer]

My point wasn't about challenging conditions though. It was that given past teams have struggled when up against a superior bowling attack than their own, why shouldn't we expect the modern Indian side to not struggle as much against such teams, let alone be competitive and well matched against the better bowling attacks? Conditions have changed over time, and often what seem as the better batting lineups by numbers often had the benefit of better batting pitches + weaker bowling lineups compared to other eras where the numbers don't seem as impressive. What you can say is more challenging is the greater difference in conditions across the world, and the stronger, deeper home bowling attacks for most teams which makes winning away from home more difficult than before.

Can I ask what exactly you're arguing about?

One: referencing the OP I've already stated that WI of the 80s and Australia of the 2000s would both likely lose to India in India.

Two: India has a great attack but their spinners are less effective outside Asia.

Three :Indias fast bowlers have been great outside India and in particular the great Bumrah.

What above do you have a problem with???

 

[Xix2565]

Can I ask what exactly you're arguing about?

One: referencing the OP I've already stated that WI of the 80s and Australia of the 2000s would both likely lose to India in India.

Two: India has a great attack but their spinners are less effective outside Asia.

Three :Indias fast bowlers have been great outside India and in particular the great Bumrah.

What above do you have a problem with???

My point is about how good people consider the current India to be, as part of how much more favoured they should be in hypotheticals like this thread. You've basically been arguing against that and dismissing it with all sorts of arguments. Thought it was pretty clear from my point of view. You don't see them as being that impressive vs what were more dominant teams home and away, and you've not been very receptive to the idea that being that dominant in the past was more down to the average team not being very good compared to the modern equivalent.

 

[Slifer]

My point is about how good people consider the current India to be, as part of how much more favoured they should be in hypotheticals like this thread. You've basically been arguing against that and dismissing it with all sorts of arguments. Thought it was pretty clear from my point of view. You don't see them as being that impressive vs what were more dominant teams home and away, and you've not been very receptive to the idea that being that dominant in the past was more down to the average team not being very good compared to the modern equivalent.

What do you want, for us to declare the recent Indian teams to be better/on par or more dominant than Australia of the 2000s or WI of the 80s because that's not going to happen.

India has been impressve, especially that win in Australia a few years ago. What's your issue dude?? I said (and this is in response to Migara ) that their bowling feats outside Asia, has nothing to do with their spinners, therefore his point about versatility outside Asia is moot. India is impressive away strictly because of their fast bowlers and in particular Bumrah. If you have a problem with this pov, I suggest a strong alcoholic beverage or two...

 

[Molehill]

Where is this currently unbeatable India? Is it some mythical location?

 

[Socerer 01]

itt : subs doing his finest work yet of

 

[kyear2]

My point is about how good people consider the current India to be, as part of how much more favoured they should be in hypotheticals like this thread. You've basically been arguing against that and dismissing it with all sorts of arguments. Thought it was pretty clear from my point of view. You don't see them as being that impressive vs what were more dominant teams home and away, and you've not been very receptive to the idea that being that dominant in the past was more down to the average team not being very good compared to the modern equivalent.

None of this is true.