India all time test XI

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, rkt.india said:

I would compare

 

 Cummins=McGrath

Hazelwood>Gillespie

Starc>Lee

Lyon<Warne 

 

For me:

McGrath >>>>>> Cummins

Gillespie >>>> Hazlewood

Lee > Starc

Warne >>>>>>>>>> ^10 Lyon

[zen]

2 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

 

What I am saying is ... people who pick players who they have actually watched are taking more informed decisions  ( unless one is picking a GOAT like say Bradman )

 

These close cases are difficult to evaluate objectively.

 

Since we have not watched Mankad bowl, we don't really know whether he was a better spinner than Jadeja.  

 

I know what I am getting when I am choosing Jadeja.

Agree for taking a more informed approach but that also means fans are being limited to picking players from their period. The process may get limited to picking a spinner from Warne and Murali for e.g. Now if we expand our horizon, a Sydney Barnes becomes an option.  

[express bowling]

4 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

I would compare

 

 Cummins=McGrath

Hazelwood>Gillespie

Starc>Lee

Lyon<Warne 

 

 

I was comparing by pacer type

 

Fast ... Cummins, Gillespie 

Express  ... Lee, Starc

Fast-medium bounce bowler ... McGrath, Hazlewood 

[Rightarmfast]

5 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

I would compare

 

 Cummins=McGrath

Hazelwood>Gillespie

Starc>Lee

Lyon<Warne 

 

Nopes! Dont agree

 

Mcgrath>>>Cummins

Cummins> Gillespie.   Cummins I find marginally better than Gillespie. 

Starc maybe as good as Lee, although I think Lee was better.

[express bowling]

11 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

For me:

McGrath >>>>>> Cummins

 

Not based on facts.

 

Cummins is almost as accurate as McGrath but with 7 kph higher pace and more hostility.

 

The Aussie greats in the Comm box were repeatedly saying that they are starting to consider Cummins as their best ever, along with McGrath.

 

Quote

Gillespie >>>> Hazlewood

 

Maybe.   But not significantly.

 

Quote

Lee > Starc

 

 

Based on his extra pace I would say yes. Having a 145 k to 155 k pacer in the side does add a different dimension to the attack.

 

Quote

Warne >>>>>>>>>> ^10 Lyon

 

Definitely.  This is the key difference.

Edited January 20, 2021 by express bowling

[kohli]

34 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

Except 99, Dravid didn't face a great attack in Aus. Though I consider Dravid better than Pujara. Also Pujara faced better attack in England and New Zealand. SA attack has been equally good for both.

Dravid faced peak Anderson, broad & swann in 2011 

[rkt.india]

1 hour 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.

 

Cricket in 80s wasn't as demanding or competitive. A bowler could bowl at 80% and still do decently.

[kohli]

Dravid also faced ambrose, walsh & bishop in 97 better than any attack pujara faced untill now .

[Muloghonto]

9 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Not based on facts.

 

Cummins is almost as accurate as McGrath but with 7 kph higher pace and more hostility.

Nowhere as accurate, nowhere as consistent throughout the day and nowhere as much variety.

 

9 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

The Aussie greats in the Comm box were repeatedly saying that they are starting to consider Cummins as their best ever, along with McGrath.

 

Yeah comms. I will believe it when he gets to even half the wickets as McGrath and keeps that average thereabouts. Till then, no dice.

 

9 minutes ago, express bowling said:

Maybe.   But not significantly.

 

At their peaks, its a no contest. 

 

[Muloghonto]

5 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

Cricket in 80s wasn't as demanding or competitive. A bowler could bowl at 80% and still do decently.

 

Yeah thats nonsense and flat out disrespectful of the older gen. Professionalism wasnt invented by the current millenial generation- if anything they are worse at it than the older ones. Cricket has always been competetive when it turned professional. Same with every sport. When you play for your livelyhood, you compete as hard as anyone else. Doesnt matter if its 1970s or 2250s. 

Edited January 20, 2021 by Muloghonto

[express bowling]

36 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Nowhere as accurate, nowhere as consistent throughout the day and nowhere as much variety.

 

You need to check out Cummins' pitch maps. Amazingly accurate.

 

 

Quote

 

Yeah comms. I will believe it when he gets to even half the wickets as McGrath and keeps that average thereabouts. Till then, no dice.

 

 

 

 

Any pacer who has understood the areas to bowl at, to take regular wickets, usually retains his potency.

Edited January 20, 2021 by express bowling

[Muloghonto]

Just now, express bowling said:

 

You need to check out Cummins' pitch maps. Amazingly accurate.

 

Yes, but he doesnt have the consistency of McGrath or Ambrose who are deadly accurate even when it was the 19th over of the day for them. Cummins flags significantly in his later spells and also isnt relied as much on due to this reason IMO. 

 

[express bowling]

5 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Yes, but he doesnt have the consistency of McGrath or Ambrose who are deadly accurate even when it was the 19th over of the day for them. Cummins flags significantly in his later spells and also isnt relied as much on due to this reason IMO. 

 

 

 

No, Cummins doesnt lose accuracy or intensity in his later spells. 

 

He is sometimes used as an enforcer pacer ... told to bowl bouncer barrages ... and then you will see a different pitch map.

 

McGrath never had the pace or hostility of Cummins ... and this adds a different dimension to a bowler if he is accurate too.

Edited January 20, 2021 by express bowling

[Soldier]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

 

 

For eg your hero Cummins.

 

34 tets + 13 FC matches, 90 List-As and 96 20/20  in 9 year span.  Yeilds 395 max playing days in 9 year span == 43.88 days of professional cricket per annum

 

Courtney walsh:  132 tests + 297 FC matches + 440 List As in a 20 year span. Yeilds 1991 max playing days i a 20 year span == 99.55 days of professional cricket per annum. 

 

And this is selling him short, since at least half the FC matches he played are in English FC circuit, which had 4 day FC matches, not 3 day ones like rest of the world.

 

Ie, LITERALLY played twice as much cricket per year for twice as long as this cummins. and that too, a solid 20% of the time cummins has spent on cricket is for T20- which is FOUR OVER EASY TIME ON THE BODY - not even a GODDAMN FULL OPENING SPELL in FC or ODI cricket.

 

Do your math - no modern bowler is fit enough to be the standard workhorse pace bowler of the 80s-90s and such.

 

What about all the strength and conditioning training

What about franchize cricket

What about tournaments.

Champions trophy

T20 World cup

Shield cricket

 

 

Add that all. Then come back to me. 

Even if he was supposedly fitter, it doesn't equate to him being better buddy. 

 

Cummins is an ATG already. 

 

 

[Soldier]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

You sound like a postmodernist who thinks that everything improves at mechanical efficiency as time goes on and there is no regress or that in elite sports greats dont sometimes clumpify in their arrival spread.

Murali would have given Ashwin and the rest a clinic on how to bowl FYI.  lack of respect for the elders is so un-Indian- you sure you aint a wannabe yankee, kiddo ??

 

Point is don't compare era's. It's just our conjecture. Technique may have been better back then due to more tests exposure. Environment has changed now. Players have to accomodate for 3 formats. So it's much harder to specialise now. Much much harder to excel in all 3 formats. You only think of 4 overs but it's the training that goes behind it and rigourous routine of peaking at the right time that makes T20 an extremely greuelling format.

 

 

Technology never goes backward so yes I believe modern technology will always be better. Past era players would get picked apart in modern era as there are more analytics available to dissect their game in detail. Vice Versa could be true but batsman have better protective gearing, bigger bats and shorter boundaries which negates the bowlers impact. You need to factor that in before you go off tangent and compare across era's.

 

 

[Muloghonto]

13 minutes ago, Soldier said:

What about all the strength and conditioning training

What about franchize cricket

What about tournaments.

Champions trophy

T20 World cup

Shield cricket

 

 

Add that all. Then come back to me. 

Even if he was supposedly fitter, it doesn't equate to him being better buddy. 

 

Cummins is an ATG already. 

 

 

 

This includes ALL franchise cricket. Learn to read.

List A = every single 50 over game that is recognised. Same with T20s. 

 

None of the modern pacers have the strength or stamina to last as long playing cricket as much as the oldies do. 

 

ATG with 150 wickets ?? Millenials keep lowering standards i guess 

 

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, Soldier said:

Point is don't compare era's. It's just our conjecture.

I can compare any two players i have seen with my own two eyes as to who was the better player. 

Quote

Technique may have been better back then due to more tests exposure. Environment has changed now. Players have to accomodate for 3 formats. So it's much harder to specialise now. Much much harder to excel in all 3 formats. You only think of 4 overs but it's the training that goes behind it and rigourous routine of peaking at the right time that makes T20 an extremely greuelling format.

Dont make up nonsense. T20 is easy walk in the park for bowlers. 4 overs bowled and that too, sometimes just 2 in the start and 2 in the end. For most pacers, the MINIMUM REQUIREMENT to be a first class bowler is to bowl 6-7 overs on the trot.  So yes, T20 is like a half day before Durga Puja type of workload for a bowler compared to any other format. Much easier on the body. 

 

Walsh, Ambrose, Otis Gibson have all said that the best and most important training for fast bowlers is running every goddamn day. Walsh ran 5km every day for like 20 years of his life practically. 

 

And sure enough, West Indies team, after Jermaine Taylor got injured during the rash of injuries around 2009-2015 or so, forced their players to adopt the old school just run and stretch, stretch and run routines and results are obvious - west indies bowlers break down less often now than 5-6 years go. 

 

Your modern routine is nothing more than overcomplicating things and in engineering we say 'dont re-invent the wheel again'.

Quote

 

 

Technology never goes backward so yes I believe modern technology will always be better.

Technology has gone backwards several times in human history. 

And sports isnt about technology, its about mental training first and foremost- something the modern internet generation starts at a fundamental disadvantage over.  If you dont have strong mental skills, you will suck as a pro sports-person or never get there in the first place. 

Just about the only advantage we hve in the modern era as far as physical stuff goes -is recovering from injuries is hell of a lot easier now than 30 years ago. 

Quote

Past era players would get picked apart in modern era as there are more analytics available to dissect their game in detail.

Dissect a mohammed Ali punch all you want but no one is still good enough to evade it. Same analogy applies. 

Quote

Vice Versa could be true but batsman have better protective gearing, bigger bats and shorter boundaries which negates the bowlers impact. You need to factor that in before you go off tangent and compare across era's.

 

 

 

I am not comparing the 70s helmetless era or the 60s uncovered pitches era to 2020. None of these things are of much difference from mid 90s to now. You simply dont know what you are talking about because you are too young to know better and too americanised to be able to learn.

 

Edited January 20, 2021 by Muloghonto

[Soldier]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

This includes ALL franchise cricket. Learn to read.

List A = every single 50 over game that is recognised. Same with T20s. 

 

None of the modern pacers have the strength or stamina to last as long playing cricket as much as the oldies do. 

 

ATG with 150 wickets ?? Millenials keep lowering standards i guess 

 

You know that because? Past players have played T20?

 

Who said that it's easier?, Let me guess a past era player? Yea that totally substantiates your argument. 

 

Let us hear a quote from a modern era player. He will explain to you how tough it is to play 3 formats. 

 

Until your much romanticized 90s players play in T20 era we would never know how good they cannot won't be

 

With this era being batting friendlier, I am 100% sure bowlers of current era are superior. I have watch teams play across both era's and standard was poorer in 90s. There were just names.

 

Now in the current era we see more pace bowlers. We see bowler of even lower tier level cpaabale of generating pace at 140 plus. 

 

Apart from Pakistan, no other Asian team had back up players who had the pace to play for international standards. 

 

Not to mention the catching inadequacy and poor fitness/ fielding standards back then. 

 

 

You can portray tour 90s as the goat era all you want but I have watched teams play across both era's and I truly believe modern era bowlers are superior in every way. Better atheltes now. 

[Soldier]

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Yes, but he doesnt have the consistency of McGrath or Ambrose who are deadly accurate even when it was the 19th over of the day for them. Cummins flags significantly in his later spells and also isnt relied as much on due to this reason IMO. 

 

Cummins bumrah rabada are all better. Check out the great Ambrose's record vs India in West Indies. 

 

3 hours ago, kohli said:

Dravid also faced ambrose, walsh & bishop in 97 better than any attack pujara faced untill now .

Current Aussie attack is better. 

[Muloghonto]

Just now, Soldier said:

You know that because? Past players have played T20?

 

Who said that it's easier?, Let me guess a past era player? Yea that totally substantiates your argument. 
 

plenty of past era players played T20s too.

 

it’s easier because it’s easier to bowl 24 balls max than 60 or 120+. Duh.

Just now, Soldier said:

 

Let us hear a quote from a modern era player. He will explain to you how tough it is to play 3 formats. 

 

Until your much romanticized 90s players play in T20 era we would never know how good they cannot won't be

 

With this era being batting friendlier, I am 100% sure bowlers of current era are superior. I have watch teams play across both era's and standard was poorer in 90s. There were just names.

don’t lie, you are not old enough to have seen all of the 90s. 
it’s tough for modern players is because they are not fit enough. That’s why they cannot play as much as the older pros.

Just now, Soldier said:

 

Now in the current era we see more pace bowlers. We see bowler of even lower tier level cpaabale of generating pace at 140 plus. 

 

Apart from Pakistan, no other Asian team had back up players who had the pace to play for international standards. 

 

Not to mention the catching inadequacy and poor fitness/ fielding standards back then. 
 

close in catching was far far better back then. 

Just now, Soldier said:

 

 

You can portray tour 90s as the goat era all you want but I have watched teams play across both era's and I truly believe modern era bowlers are superior in every way. Better atheltes now. 

they are inferior athletes. That’s why they cannot stay fit for as long as the older players who played far far more. Walsh was way fitter than any modern player and 90% of the players back then played more cricket than today’s players and got injured less often.

 

its attitudes like yours that is the leading cause of decline because your modernist take is to reinvent the wheel and discard proven methods just to try something different in the name of modernism. That’s why there ain’t a fast bowler today as durable as the oldies who played twice as much cricket in a year and did it for 20 year careers compared to the much less fit pacers today