India all time test XI

[Muloghonto]

13 minutes ago, zen said:

 

 

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:

Again, thats like saying just because i didnt do well vs Mohammed Ali and you did well vs Evander Holyfield, you are better than me.

You are expected to do far worse against far better players.

 

 

13 minutes ago, zen said:

 

 

 

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

 

thank you 

 

Except this attack is nowhere as good as the top 3 attack of the 90s alone. 

[Muloghonto]

45 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

 

A lot of people have a bias towards eras gone by.

And a lot of people have recency bias. 

 

 

45 minutes ago, express bowling said:

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.

it still doesnt change the fact that the late 80s-early 2000s is the highest density of quality fast bowlers ever seen in the game. All sports have a golden age period - ice hockey, football, baseball, tennis etc all go through it.

High end talents are mostly fluke chances, not grown out of industrial production line like droids. The opposite also applies in all sports - some eras are distinctly weaker. 

 

People who form emotional attachment to their eras or suffer from recency bias have a very hard time accepting this simple truth of high end athletics.

 

[zen]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

Again, thats like saying just because i didnt do well vs Mohammed Ali and you did well vs Evander Holyfield, you are better than me.

You are expected to do far worse against far better players.

 

Except this attack is nowhere as good as the top 3 attack of the 90s alone. 

 

Sorry but did not see the below? 

 

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

 

 

Are you delusional enough to imply that an avg of 19 (bottom of the list) at 1-3 v McWarne, when an avg avg w/o him his 45, can make you claim random stuff about facing bowling attacks? And when others are doing well v equally good all round attacks? 

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, zen said:

 

Sorry but did not see the below? 

 

Answered multiple times already:

 

Again, thats like saying just because i didnt do well vs Mohammed Ali and you did well vs Evander Holyfield, you are better than me.

You are expected to do far worse against far better players.

 

1 minute ago, zen said:

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

 

 

Are you delusional enough to imply that an avg of 19 (bottom of the list) at 1-3 v McWarne, when an avg avg w/o him his 45, can make you claim random stuff about facing bowling attacks? And when others are doing well v equally good all round attacks? 

 

 

 

 

Spinner Lyon, the guy who has 21 average has 150 wickets and not 550, the guy who has 25 average has never averaged under 25 and the old guy who has 26 average never averaged above 24 till his last 3 years.

And equally good.

 

As i said, why dont you ask Pujara himself if he thinks he is better than Dravid or find me an actual cricket expert who thinks he is better than Dravid. 

 

You wanna exclude the best knocks of Dravid to come up  with this top order average- which is meaningless in test cricket. Number manupulation wont get you far with me- you should know that by now.

 

 

[Soldier]

11 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Again, thats like saying just because i didnt do well vs Mohammed Ali and you did well vs Evander Holyfield, you are better than me.

You are expected to do far worse against far better players.

 

 

 

Except this attack is nowhere as good as the top 3 attack of the 90s alone. 

It's not because it's better dummy. 

[zen]

2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

it still doesnt change the fact that the late 80s-early 2000s is the highest density of quality fast bowlers ever seen in the game.

 

It still does not change the fact that if the top tier players avg 50 for e.g. v those attacks and you avg say 35 (30% lower), it does not make you automatically better (when each era has its own challenges) 

 

 

[Soldier]

13 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

No.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

 

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

 

I watched all those fodders play. They played in a weak era of 90s. Bowlers were vastly overrated. You are being delusional here. 

 

Hahahahaha anymore of this nostalgic rubbish that you spew? Past is always great lmao.

 

Not to mention the following:

 

Ball tampering 

Fixed games

Biased umpiring 

No drs

No advanced technology to analyse tapes. 

Bat differences

Field 

 

I'd you say batsmen were better then then bowlers of current era are better because they are playing a in a batsman friendlier era. 

 

 

[zen]

14 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Answered multiple times already:

 

Again, thats like saying just because i didnt do well vs Mohammed Ali and you did well vs Evander Holyfield, you are better than me.

You are expected to do far worse against far better players.

 

 

Spinner Lyon, the guy who has 21 average has 150 wickets and not 550, the guy who has 25 average has never averaged under 25 and the old guy who has 26 average never averaged above 24 till his last 3 years.

And equally good.

 

As i said, why dont you ask Pujara himself if he thinks he is better than Dravid or find me an actual cricket expert who thinks he is better than Dravid. 

 

 

 

 

 

You haven't answered anything but just shown how clueless you are 

 

 

Quote

You wanna exclude the best knocks of Dravid to come up  with this top order average- which is meaningless in test cricket. Number manupulation wont get you far with me- you should know that by now.

 

Appears as if you forgot your own statement below as well:

 

Quote

Dravid was miles and miles better #3 than Pujara is or ever will be.

 

 

As usual you are just typing some random stuff and wasting others' time 

Edited January 20, 2021 by zen

[Soldier]

Old generation would struggle with th demands of modern era. Play t20, frnachzie cricket, along with various international trophies etc. Their stats will look different. 

 

Current era bowlers are superior. Just because some madago Muppet claims his glorified greats of 90s are better doesnt make them so. Hahahahah

 

What a joke. Unless you have the same set of players play across both era's, you can't say who is better.

 

Era comparison is utterly futile and not going to translate across era's. 

[Soldier]

Easier for bowlers despite playing in batsman friendly era now hahahaha. 

 

Also because Murali said so. Murali the bonafide chucker hahaha. 

 

He would have been banned in this era. 

 

Yea no. 

 

Bowlers are much better and have way more talent now comapres to past. 

 

Batsmen look better in the past only because they dint have to play t20. 

[Soldier]

20 minutes ago, zen said:

 

You haven't answered anything but just shown how clueless you are 

 

 

 

Appears as if you forgot your own statement below as well:

 

 

 

As usual you are just typing some random stuff and wasting others' time 

Dravid avesge in South Africa? What is it zen? 

I forgot th calibre of bowlers he faced. 

 

Nitini Nel lol and geriatric Pollock. 

[Muloghonto]

33 minutes ago, zen said:

 

You haven't answered anything but just shown how clueless you are 

 

Says the man who cant answer the simple analogy. Hence you run away.

 

33 minutes ago, zen said:

 

 

Appears as if you forgot your own statement below as well:

 

 

 

As usual you are just typing some random stuff and wasting others' time 

?????

Seems like you forgot even how to quote.

 

[Muloghonto]

14 minutes ago, Soldier said:

Easier for bowlers despite playing in batsman friendly era now hahahaha. 

 

Also because Murali said so. Murali the bonafide chucker hahaha. 

 

He would have been banned in this era. 

 

Yea no. 

 

Bowlers are much better and have way more talent now comapres to past. 

 

Batsmen look better in the past only because they dint have to play t20. 

 

You sound like you are 21. I would rather listen to an ATG bowler than a rando kid on the internet with recency bias who has no experience to draw on

 

[zen]

Just now, Muloghonto said:

Says the man who cant answer the simple analogy. Hence you run away.

 

?????

Seems like you forgot even how to quote.

 

 

round and round .... might as well just type ahklhalishdlkhslhdkhqhQHDKLDHKLH

[Muloghonto]

32 minutes ago, Soldier said:

Old generation would struggle with th demands of modern era. Play t20, frnachzie cricket, along with various international trophies etc. Their stats will look different. 

 

Every single older fast bowler - especially of the 80s generation- played FAR more cricket than your frail gym-bod modern players. They played more days of cricket per year, bowled more balls by a significant margin over their careers etc. 

So much for the demands of modern era. 

32 minutes ago, Soldier said:

Current era bowlers are superior. Just because some madago Muppet claims his glorified greats of 90s are better doesnt make them so. Hahahahah

 

They are not. Just because a kid with no actual credibility says so, doesnt make it so either. 

32 minutes ago, Soldier said:

What a joke. Unless you have the same set of players play across both era's, you can't say who is better.

 

Era comparison is utterly futile and not going to translate across era's. 

 

After a certain point, yes. the 90s era is still very relevant today, the 50s era not so much. You wouldnt know because you are way too young to know.

 

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, zen said:

 

round and round .... might as well just type ahklhalishdlkhslhdkhqhQHDKLDHKLH

Yes, post Dravid's stats as #3 overseas and that of Pujara please, instead of making mickey mouse comparisons on how Cummins == McGrath 

[Soldier]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

 

You sound like you are 21. I would rather listen to an ATG bowler than a rando kid on the internet with recency bias who has no experience to draw on

 

You sound like delusional fanboy who is too nostalgic to be able to think straight. Come back to me when you actually make some sense. 

 

Lmao at Murali said so.

 

Murali would have struggled to excel in modern era given how demanding it is.

 

Plus he is a chucker. 

 

[Soldier]

2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Every single older fast bowler - especially of the 80s generation- played FAR more cricket than your frail gym-bod modern players. They played more days of cricket per year, bowled more balls by a significant margin over their careers etc. 

So much for the demands of modern era. 

 

They are not. Just because a kid with no actual credibility says so, doesnt make it so either. 

 

After a certain point, yes. the 90s era is still very relevant today, the 50s era not so much. You wouldnt know because you are way too young to know.

 

No they don't. Just because a dimwit on the Interner said so doesn't make it true. 

[Muloghonto]

38 minutes ago, Soldier said:

I watched all those fodders play. They played in a weak era of 90s. Bowlers were vastly overrated. You are being delusional here. 

 

Hahahahaha anymore of this nostalgic rubbish that you spew? Past is always great lmao.

 

Not to mention the following:

 

Ball tampering 

Fixed games

Biased umpiring 

No drs

No advanced technology to analyse tapes. 

Bat differences

Field 

 

I'd you say batsmen were better then then bowlers of current era are better because they are playing a in a batsman friendlier era. 

 

 

 

Who said past is always great. I pointed out a golden age of cricket. I can do so for ice hockey or for soccer too. late 80s was way worse than early 80s or the 90s- same with early 70s.

 

You had fitter pacers back then compared to today. 

In fact both Ambrose and Otis Gibson are on record stating that west indies pacers of the current crop massively improved their matchfintness by ditching the gym and doing it the old school fitness way.

 

Things dont continuously get better in sports - this isnt a production line factory. Some things improve some things regress and we dont churn out ATGs at the same yearly rate every year or every decade for every sport.

 

You simply have a problem with the fact that 90s was a golden gen for cricket because you are too young to remember it.

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, Soldier said:

No they don't. Just because a dimwit on the Interner said so doesn't make it true. 

 

You can do math, cant you ? Check out the total career stats of the bowlers of the 80s and 90s and compare it to now to see how many average days per annum they played cricket across all formats and all levels.

The gap with the 80s is HUGE FYI and the current bowlers arent fit enough to carry the jockstraps of the players of the 80s and 90s.