India all time test XI

[Soldier]

4 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Quote the aussies who said its their best ever attack ?

Australia's current bowling attack up there with the all-time greats: McGrath - News Nation USA

[zen]

18 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

You mean twisting nosensense how Hazlewood and Starc are comparable to McGrath & Gillespie and Lyon is comparable to Warne.

The only one twisting is you. 

To glorify a SENA fail batsman who only averages decent in South Africa vs a SENA specialist who only did badly in South Africa- where almost every single Asian test batsman does poorly.

Ok.

 

You should ask Chepu whether he thinks he is a better batsman than Dravid or not.

 

 

Ok so that is what you understood ...  or are you resorting to childish tactics now

 

The point is clear stated -> Dravid did not do well when McWarne played esp. at #3 (FYI, Gaekwad faced an attack w/ the 4 WI great bowlers); while Pujara did well v an ATG like attack consisting of Cummins, Starc, Hazelwood and Lyon in two series, helping Ind win both of them. You do know that bowling as a group, this attack is rated higher than any Dravid faced sans McWarne? Or is ignorance a bliss? 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 20, 2021 by zen

[express bowling]

11 minutes ago, Soldier said:

current aussie attack is their best ever. 

 

 

If we compare by types of bowlers. .. 

 

Cummins >>>> Gillespie 

McGrath >>> Hazlewood

Lee = Starc

Warne >>>> Lyon

 

I think this pace attack is as good as any they have had ... but the presence of Warne makes the 2000 attack better.

 

The Aussie commentators were choosing their best pace attack in the last 25 years. This consisted of big names like Border, Warne, Gilchrist, Healy and Hussey ...  Cummins and McGrath were the unanimous choices. Johnson was the 3rd pick albeit not unanimously.   :  )

 

[Soldier]

2 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Ok so that is what you understood ...  you are resorting to childish tactics now

 

The point is clear stated -> Dravid did not do well when McWarne played esp. at #3 (FYI, Gaekwad faced an attack w/ the 4 WI great bowlers); while Pujara did well v an ATG like attack consisting of Cummins, Starc, Hazelwood and Lyon in two series, helping Ind win both of them. You do know right that as a group, this attack is rated high? Or is ignorance a bliss. 

 

 

 

 

lee average 31 vs starc 26.9

mcgrath 21 vs cummins 21

gillespie 26.59 vs hazelwood 25.6

warne 25 vs lyon 32

 

 

so current attack is better based on stats alone. Already said its hard to compare across eras because transitivity theory doesn't work. you are a product of your time. 

 

BEsides he seems to forget to factor in t20, franchize cricket and its implications on test cricket. Not to mention, india doesnt even prepare tour games before a major test series as often anymore. They did it this time but india still played t20 and odi prior to a test series. In the 2000 era, tests were seen as the pinnacle of cricket. Nowadays all formats are considered equally important. 

 

in 2000 era, india also started an away tour by playing tests first which is a huge advantage unlike current india side that has to play shorter format prior to an important test series. 

 

dravid may be a better player than pujara, however, dravid also struggled vs steyn, mcgrath etc. Current generation bowlers are just as good. So its not a given that dravid would have outperformed puji in modern era. 

[Soldier]

6 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

 

If we compare by types of bowlers. .. 

 

Cummins >>>> Gillespie 

McGrath >>> Hazlewood

Lee = Starc

Warne >>>> Lyon

 

I think this pace attack is as good as any they have had ... but the presence of Warne makes the 2000 attack better.

 

The Aussie commentators were choosing their best pace attack in the last 25 years. This consisted of big names like Border, Warne, Gilchrist, Healy and Hussey ...  Cummins and McGrath were the unanimous choices. Johnson was the 3rd pick albeit not unanimously.   :  )

 

they also have a support bowler in green. they dint have that luxury in 2000 era. plus green can bat. i would say current attack is more complete and better honestly. 

[express bowling]

13 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

I dont see how Jadeja sneaks ahead of Vinoo Mankad in the XI. Both LHB & SLA bowlers, one opened and batted routinely in the top order, the other isnt top order material.

Vinoo also played on uncovered pitches. 

 

 

I have not seen Mankad play. So, I don't really know much about him ... nor do you.

 

However,  Jadeja has a bowling average of 24 which is a "great " level average. While Mankad had a bowling average of 32.  Add to this Jadeja's superb fielding. 

 

Jadeja becomes a much better pick.

 

[express bowling]

1 minute ago, Soldier said:

they also have a support bowler in green. they dint have that luxury in 2000 era. plus green can bat. i would say current attack is more complete and better honestly. 

 

 

Since the 2000 attack could take 20 wickets without the help of a 5th bowler, I won't hold it against them.

 

However, this attack has a better backup in Pattinson. That attack did not have anyone of Pattinson's quality as the 4th seamer.

[zen]

8 minutes ago, Soldier said:

lee average 31 vs starc 26.9

mcgrath 21 vs cummins 21

gillespie 26.59 vs hazelwood 25.6

warne 25 vs lyon 32

 

 

so current attack is better based on stats alone. Already said its hard to compare across eras because transitivity theory doesn't work. you are a product of your time. 

 

BEsides he seems to forget to factor in t20, franchize cricket and its implications on test cricket. Not to mention, india doesnt even prepare tour games before a major test series as often anymore. They did it this time but india still played t20 and odi prior to a test series. In the 2000 era, tests were seen as the pinnacle of cricket. Nowadays all formats are considered equally important. 

 

in 2000 era, india also started an away tour by playing tests first which is a huge advantage unlike current india side that has to play shorter format prior to an important test series. 

 

dravid may be a better player than pujara, however, dravid also struggled vs steyn, mcgrath etc. Current generation bowlers are just as good. So its not a given that dravid would have outperformed puji in modern era. 

 

  .... the issue is that he does not know 

 

a) Dravid did not do well v McWarne esp. at #3 (avgs 18 in 8 tests). Merely mentioning McWarne does not mean a batsman did well. Gaekwad for e.g. faced an WI attack with the 4 fast bowling greats 

b) That Cummins-Hazelwood-Starc-Lyon bowling as a group are rated higher than any attack Dravid faced sans McWarne 

 

He is basically going in circles with 

 

a) Dravid faced McWarne (as if it means something w/o doing well. Gaekwad analogy) so automatically becomes superior 

b) That Lyon, xyz, etc are not good or not as good as Warne for e.g. (when the bowling attack as a group is being talked about) 

c) and so on (various logical fallacies) 

 

He is basically clueless on the topic and known to discuss in circles 

 

Edited January 20, 2021 by zen

[Muloghonto]

15 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Ok so that is what you understood ...  or are you resorting to childish tactics now

 

The point is clear stated -> Dravid did not do well when McWarne played esp. at #3 (FYI, Gaekwad faced an attack w/ the 4 WI great bowlers); while Pujara did well v an ATG like attack consisting of Cummins, Starc, Hazelwood and Lyon in two series, helping Ind win both of them. 

 

Except the former is far superior to the latter attack. 

So thats like saying u r better than me because mohammed ali knocked me out in 5 seconds and u lasted 1 round with mike tyson.

 

15 minutes ago, zen said:

You do know that bowling as a group, this attack is rated higher than any Dravid faced sans McWarne? Or is ignorance a bliss? 

 

 

 

 

It is, but dravid very rarely faced an aussie attack in his prime that was sans mcwarne in australia.

 

[Soldier]

1 minute ago, express bowling said:

 

 

Since the 2000 attack could take 20 wickets without the help of a 5th bowler, I won't hold it against them.

 

However, this attack has a better backup in Pattinson. That attack did not have anyone of Pattinson's quality as the 4th seamer.

adn jhye who is quite good. not as good as umesh but still quality in home conditions. 23.74 average in home conditions. 

[Muloghonto]

8 minutes ago, Soldier said:

lee average 31 vs starc 26.9

mcgrath 21 vs cummins 21

gillespie 26.59 vs hazelwood 25.6

warne 25 vs lyon 32

 

Yes and the former lot has 3x the wicket as the latter lot. Which makes their averages a whole lot more valuable.

 

8 minutes ago, Soldier said:

 

so current attack is better based on stats alone. Already said its hard to compare across eras because transitivity theory doesn't work. you are a product of your time. 

It isnt.

The ones who average 21 in both attacks have a gap of 400 wickets and warne averaging 25 makes it far, far superior attack than the current one.

Also for most of the time they played against each other, gillespie averaged 24. He averages 26 due to his last couple of years slow-down. Which will come for this attack too.

 

8 minutes ago, Soldier said:

BEsides he seems to forget to factor in t20, franchize cricket and its implications on test cricket.

Implications for test cricket is spelt out by Murali - wickets come easier now as batsmen lack patience.

 

8 minutes ago, Soldier said:

Not to mention, india doesnt even prepare tour games before a major test series as often anymore. They did it this time but india still played t20 and odi prior to a test series. In the 2000 era, tests were seen as the pinnacle of cricket. Nowadays all formats are considered equally important. 

They arent.

Test is still the king.

 

8 minutes ago, Soldier said:

 

 

 

dravid may be a better player than pujara, however, dravid also struggled vs steyn, mcgrath etc. Current generation bowlers are just as good. So its not a given that dravid would have outperformed puji in modern era. 

They arent as good and there arent as many great bowlers as there were in the 90s- which has the highest density of great bowlers ever for a decade FYI.

 

[Muloghonto]

24 minutes ago, Soldier said:

Australia's current bowling attack up there with the all-time greats: McGrath - News Nation USA

Up there and being the best are not the same thing.

I said there are at least 3 other attacks OZ has fielded that better. Sure. It still makes this attack up there with those 3.

 

[Muloghonto]

26 minutes ago, Soldier said:

i do agree dravid is the better batsman but cummins is as good as mcgrath

hazelwood is every bit as good as gillespie. he is good bowler. 

starc better than lee anyday. 

 

warne is greater than lyon.

 

Hazlewood has never averaged below 24, Gillespie for most of his career averaged below 24. 

Starc is nowhere as good as Lee was, he just has one standard left armers delivery and is way more inconsistent. He just doesnt have to face as many great batsmen as Lee did who could beat the snot outta him easily.

 

Comparing Warne to Lyon is like comparing a rolls royce to a maruti.

 

[Soldier]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Yes and the former lot has 3x the wicket as the latter lot. Which makes their averages a whole lot more valuable.

 

It isnt.

The ones who average 21 in both attacks have a gap of 400 wickets and warne averaging 25 makes it far, far superior attack than the current one.

Also for most of the time they played against each other, gillespie averaged 24. He averages 26 due to his last couple of years slow-down. Which will come for this attack too.

 

Implications for test cricket is spelt out by Murali - wickets come easier now as batsmen lack patience.

 

They arent.

Test is still the king.

 

They arent as good and there arent as many great bowlers as there were in the 90s- which has the highest density of great bowlers ever for a decade FYI.

 

stat wise current era is better

current era is harder with 3 formats in play

i doubt old generation players would compete as well vs current athletes

you cant compare eras

transitivity theory doesnt work. 

truth is better

current bowlers are better than your glorified 90s era dweebs. you are just sayin that to make your hero batsmen appear better than they actually are,

 

dravid would have got wrecked just as badly by current aussie attack as he did vs mcwarne. good luck. 

[zen]

del

Edited January 20, 2021 by zen

[express bowling]

22 minutes ago, Soldier said:

lee average 31 vs starc 26.9

mcgrath 21 vs cummins 21

gillespie 26.59 vs hazelwood 25.6

warne 25 vs lyon 32

 

 

so current attack is better based on stats alone. Already said its hard to compare across eras because transitivity theory doesn't work. you are a product of your time. 

 

BEsides he seems to forget to factor in t20, franchize cricket and its implications on test cricket. Not to mention, india doesnt even prepare tour games before a major test series as often anymore. They did it this time but india still played t20 and odi prior to a test series. In the 2000 era, tests were seen as the pinnacle of cricket. Nowadays all formats are considered equally important. 

 

in 2000 era, india also started an away tour by playing tests first which is a huge advantage unlike current india side that has to play shorter format prior to an important test series. 

 

dravid may be a better player than pujara, however, dravid also struggled vs steyn, mcgrath etc. Current generation bowlers are just as good. So its not a given that dravid would have outperformed puji in modern era. 

 

 

A lot of people have a bias towards eras gone by. Eras when they were teenagers or in their early 20s seem to have a romanticism attached to them. Only the good memories remain regarding their childhood heroes.

 

Having watched cricket for many many years ... I would say that the quality of fast bowling in the 2010s and 2020s decades is as good as any era. And this is primarily due to much improved physical fitness and better use of biomechanics. Sustaining pace and intensity is much better now.

 

Bumrah, Cummins, Steyn, Rabada, Shami, Hazlewood, Archer etc. are very very high quality fast bowlers. Boult, Broad, Anderson are as good swing bowlers as they come. 

 

Many people seem to miss the rigours that playing 3 formats + T20 leagues bring.

Edited January 20, 2021 by express bowling

[Soldier]

2 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

 

A lot of people have a bias towards eras gone by. Eras when they were teenagers or in their early 20s seem to have a romanticism attached to them. Only the good memories remain regarding their childhood heroes.

 

Having watched cricket for many many years ... I would say that the quality of fast bowling in the 2010s and 2020s decades us as good as any era. And this is primarily due to much improved physical fitness and better use of biomechanics.

 

Bumrah, Cummins, Steyn, Rabada, Shami, Hazlewood, Archer etc. are very very high quality fast bowlers. Boult, Broad, Anderson are as good swing bowlers as they come. 

 

Many people seem to miss the rigours that playing 3 formats + T20 leagues bring.

there ya go. spot on. 

[Soldier]

lol can you imagine Sehwag  vs rabada and philander in seaming wickets lmao. he averages like 21 vs saffers.

 

very poor vs england with a weaker bowling lineup

[zen]

51 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Except the former is far superior to the latter attack. 

So thats like saying u r better than me because mohammed ali knocked me out in 5 seconds and u lasted 1 round with mike tyson.

 

 

 

arre bhai, superior or inferior only comes into play if you do well against it ... you appear to not know how stats are discussed. below is what is meant by not doing well:

 

Talking about #3 (top order). At positions #1-3 when both McGrath & Warne are playing

Primary team India

Opposition team Australia

Involving all of the players GD McGrath (AUS)  or SK Warne (AUS)

Batting position between 1 and 3

Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 150

Ordered by batting average (descending)

Overall figures

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	BF	SR	100	50	0	4s	6s
VVS Laxman	1999-2001	5	9	0	633	281	70.33	1001	63.23	2	2	1	98	0
V Sehwag	2004-2004	3	6	1	286	155	57.20	409	69.92	1	1	1	42	0
SS Das	2001-2001	3	6	0	173	84	28.83	447	38.70	0	1	0	24	1
S Ramesh	1999-2001	5	10	1	222	61	24.66	475	46.73	0	1	1	25	0
R Dravid	1999-2004	7	11	0	208	60	18.90	862	24.12	0	1	2	25	0

 

^ Avg average w/o Dravid is around 45 v McWarne in the top order, Dravid avg 19

 

In the MO (#4-7), his avg is better due to the 180 at Kol. Overall (#1-7), not that good

 

 

Quote

It is, but dravid very rarely faced an aussie attack in his prime that was sans mcwarne in australia.

 

 

And Pujara did great v an ATG like attack on two occasions winning the series for Ind in Aus

 

thank you 

Edited January 20, 2021 by zen

[Muloghonto]

43 minutes ago, Soldier said:

stat wise current era is better

No.

 

43 minutes ago, Soldier said:

current era is harder with 3 formats in play

No. Its easier for bowlers as batsmen are less patient. As Murali himself said.

 

43 minutes ago, Soldier said:

i doubt old generation players would compete as well vs current athletes

Ah recency bias. I guess thats why new gen cant keep nearly as fit as the old gen used to do regularly for pace bowlers.

 

43 minutes ago, Soldier said:

you cant compare eras

transitivity theory doesnt work. 

truth is better

You sound like an SJW type chanting your weird irrelevant mantras.

 

43 minutes ago, Soldier said:

current bowlers are better than your glorified 90s era dweebs.

Bahahahaaha. No. Are you even old enough to remember the 90s ?

 

43 minutes ago, Soldier said:

you are just sayin that to make your hero batsmen appear better than they actually are,

Likewise back at you.

At least unlike you i have the option to go by my actual watched experience and not exercise a youngster's arrogant bias.

 

43 minutes ago, Soldier said:

 

dravid would have got wrecked just as badly by current aussie attack as he did vs mcwarne. good luck. 

 

Bahaahahahha. Sure bud.  Any more of this ' everything new is better than everything old' western philosophy nonsense u spew ?