UNBIASED OPINION: India's 2001 victory against Aus or 2005 England Ashes victory - Which was the greater series and which home side deserves more credit ?

[vvvslaxman]

16 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Everyone who? Bhajji picked up 32 wickets, who was next best Indian spinner Sachin and he took 3 or 4 wickets. That 4th innings chase in Chennai showed greatness of Australian team and fragility of Indian team. It just showed how lucky India was to win that series and It had once in life time performance from Laxman and Bhajji which they never repeated again in their careers.

 

Mcgrath did return to play in that 2005 series. That also showed the fighting spirit of Aussies.

 

Laxman did repeat in Australia. He consistently did well against Australia. Even in 1999 he made 167 in Sydney. He was an out and out Australian bully when they were at their peak. You discount Dravid's 180 runs. But for him we would have seen losing that test and the series.  Tendulkar scored an important 126 at Chennai. And also openers did well there along with Laxman and Dravid. But for that lead we probably would have lost. Ofcourse in each series there is going to be one stand out bowler. That was the norm at that time. Usually Kumble and two random spinners. This time it was Bhajji and two random spinners. Any slip anywhere we would be looking at 0-3. 

[rangeelaraja]

India's victory in 2001 was a result of extremely freakish performances/outcomes.

 

1) India not losing a single wicket on the 4th day of the 2nd test in Kolkata. This is a very rare occurrence, made extraordinarily rare by the fact that it was against an ATG team and against an attack that had the greatest spinner of all time ( Warne ) and the greatest fast bowler of all time (Mcgrath) - both at their peaks. 

 

2) Harbhajan taking 28 wickets in a the 2nd and 3rd test. That is an average 7 wickets per innings. Very Freakish.

 

 

Our victory was sheer grit &  against steeper odds than Eng faced in Ashes 2005.

 

But Ashes 2005 was more enjoyable to watch, brilliant performances from MANY PLAYERS from the England side. 

 

KP, Trescothick, Harmison, Flintoff, Simon Jones, Hoggard

 

Montage from Ashes 2005.  

 

 

 

[putrevus]

49 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

 

Laxman did repeat in Australia. He consistently did well against Australia. Even in 1999 he made 167 in Sydney. He was an out and out Australian bully when they were at their peak. You discount Dravid's 180 runs. But for him we would have seen losing that test and the series.  Tendulkar scored an important 126 at Chennai. And also openers did well there along with Laxman and Dravid. But for that lead we probably would have lost. Ofcourse in each series there is going to be one stand out bowler. That was the norm at that time. Usually Kumble and two random spinners. This time it was Bhajji and two random spinners. Any slip anywhere we would be looking at 0-3. 

I am not taking away from the win.But bowlers did not have staying power other than Bhajji .Bhajji never had any series like that again.Batting we did have some staying power till 2009.

[sensible-indian]

1 hour ago, vvvslaxman said:

 

I thought we were done once Laxman got out a stunning catch by Mark waugh and Bahutule got out immediately in the same over to Miller. Laxman was stunned and stood there in shock for a while. INdia was cruising. Even after Sachin got out to a brute of a delivery from Gillespie India was coasting. 38 needed with 7 wickets in hand. Horrendous shot by Ganguly led to a collapse. Warne was bowling half trackers. Laxman blasted him all over.  There was one more guy who was the main reason for Australia coming back That was Mark Waugh. 4 stunning catches. Having such a fielder is gold. 

Sameer Dighe came clutch.

 

And who can forget the crucial 0 by zaheer.

 

One of the most important duck in world cricket.

 

Like Leach's 1.

 

All round magical series.

[sensible-indian]

Looking at the bowling lineup for that 3rd test.

 

Except peak Bhajji (legendary form), others were no hopers.

 

Zaheer wasnt great in Asia.

 

Put today's bowling against that Aus and we would thrash them black and blue.

[sensible-indian]

Zaheer 

Sourav

Bhajji

Nilesh kulkarni

Sairaj Bahutule

 

Lol

[SRT100]

10 hours ago, rangeelaraja said:

In favor of the 2001 series win for India:

 

• Ganguly's first major series as test captain, India lost 5 test matches in a row including getting whitewashed ( 2-0 ) by RSA at HOME !!
•  No Anil Kumble ( the pillar of our home domination already for a few years )
•  Aus had their best playing XI with many of their ATGs in red hot form - with no injures and was on a 16 match winning streak
• India got hammered within 3 days in the 1st Test match ( I was actually at Wankhede for the 3rd day and the way Hayden toyed with our bowling made me lose all hopes for the rest of the series)
•  Even in the 2nd Test  in Kolkata India were dead and buried after the first innings. We won after a follow on was imposed on us - an extraordinarily rare feat.

 

Against the 2001 series win for India:

 

• Our bowling was all Harbhajan. Totally lopsided 1 bowler attack. Although his own performance was once in a generation series performance - our attack was absolutely toothless even at home without him.
• I think a 5 match series would have been more fair - what would we have done for a 4th or 5th test had Harbhajan got worn out or lost form due to fatigue, given the entire bowling was resting on him ? Not seen 1 bowler bowl  close to 40 % of the overs in a 5 match series. 

 

In favor of the 2005 series win for Eng:

 

• England just like India got hammered in the 1st test and made a stunning comeback. 
• England came up with extraordinary display of seam and swing bowling - that was just not a 1 man attack - Flintoff, Harmison, Simon Jones - after a long time Aus Test batting juggernaut got violated by fast bowlers. Eng pacers outdid Aus - a huge rarity for that "era"
• 5 match test series - long enough to been a fair result. Not a 2 or 3 match series where a freak performance or two could swing the result in favor of the "weaker" team.

 

Against the 2005 series win for Eng:

• Both the matches that Aus lost, Mcgrath was out injured. Eng did not win a single test match in that series that Mcgrath played. I think this was the difference. Had Mcgrath not missed 2 tests - the result of this Ashes could have been different most likely
• Gillespie was at the end of his career, totally out of form.

 

 

Overall verdict - I would strongly voted for OUR victory as being the greater victory had that series been a 5 match series. For now, I will say it is just marginally better than England's win.

 

 

 

 

 

India's win in 2001 was and is the greatest of all in the context.

 

You need to consider the basic fact that the Australian team at the time was invincibles.

[raki05]

21 hours ago, Lord said:

2005 was fun to watch even as a neutral. KP batting and Flintoff bowling is unforgettable

 

 

McGrath dint play whole series barring 1 which aus won. McGrath single handedly bullied them in lords. In remaining matches aus bowling was Warne or bust, Gillespie was totally lost the form, I think after that series he retired as well.

 

[nevada]

"Once in a lifetime" performances are exactly that! I don't care who or how or how seldom the team of 2001 played at match-winning level. The 2001 series is my favourite. 

[goose]

17 minutes ago, nevada said:

"Once in a lifetime" performances are exactly that! I don't care who or how or how seldom the team of 2001 played at match-winning level. The 2001 series is my favourite. 

exactly. when I watch a game I don’t think …hmmm, I’m going to wait a year to decide how I feel about this…how very weird

[rangeelaraja]

39 minutes ago, raki05 said:

McGrath dint play whole series barring 1 which aus won. McGrath single handedly bullied them in lords. In remaining matches aus bowling was Warne or bust, Gillespie was totally lost the form, I think after that series he retired as well.

 

 

Bhai, actually out of 5 he played 3 tests and missed 2.

 

But you are right, the 2 tests that McGrath missed are the ones that Australia lost. They did not lose a single game he played that Ashes. 

[rangeelaraja]

1 minute ago, goose said:

exactly. when I watch a game I don’t think …hmmm, I’m going to wait a year to decide how I feel about this…how very weird

 

I remember that being a class XII board exam month/year for me. 
 

Was hearing the clapping and hooting from the neighbors house on the 5th day. Was not able to watch that day live on TV.

 

When India were 8 down ( and the shouts coming from the Neighbors made it amply clear ), I was like damn these Aussies are either supermen or invincible. They just will not lose. 
 

When Bhajji and Dighe finally knocked out the remaining runs, it was as if we had ourselves done some miracle. 

[putrevus]

14 minutes ago, goose said:

exactly. when I watch a game I don’t think …hmmm, I’m going to wait a year to decide how I feel about this…how very weird

You don't think about while watching it. But you may change how you think about it in few years down the line.

[goose]

14 minutes ago, putrevus said:

You don't think about while watching it. But you may change how you think about it in few years down the line.

it’s an interesting way to live, intriguing.
 

I look forward to your thoughts on the India win in Australia once Sundar, Thakur, Siraj, Pant have all played 100 tests.

[putrevus]

3 minutes ago, goose said:

it’s an interesting way to live, intriguing.
 

I look forward to your thoughts on the India win in Australia once Sundar, Thakur, Siraj, Pant have all played 100 tests.

So you mean to say , you don't reminisce on any past series or any past performances.

[Trichromatic]

Losing ATG pacer from side was big blow for Aussies in English conditions.

 

But I doubt even Indians watch highlights of 2001 series.

 

[goose]

4 minutes ago, putrevus said:

So you mean to say , you don't reminisce on any past series or any past performances.

 

i do but you seem to be doing something quite different - rewriting your own response to an historic event. almost like you don't trust it. very interesting!  i see why you don't rate Tendulkar. your mind invents all kinds of edits.

[vayuu1]

speaking of great series windies in aus 60's ,lanka in sa  19 alongside ours 21 aus tour,kusal perera played an absolute blinder not one person believed that lanka will chase that total with 70+ runs ala stokes headingly,though windies lost that series in 60-61 but the quality of cricket was exceptional ,mind u they could have easily one the first and last test,where first was tied test and last test which aussie won by two wickets

[putrevus]

11 minutes ago, goose said:

 

i do but you seem to be doing something quite different - rewriting your own response to an historic event. almost like you don't trust it. very interesting!  i see why you don't rate Tendulkar. your mind invents all kinds of edits.

I am not rewriting anything. It was simple comparision between two historic series.I feel 2005 was better, it does not mean 2001 was bad. Samething about Sachin, I don't think at his peak Sachin was better than Ponting at his peak . It does not mean I said Sachin was a bad player or was not a great player. If you perceive it in any otherway it is on you.

[raki05]

1 hour ago, rangeelaraja said:

 

Bhai, actually out of 5 he played 3 tests and missed 2.

 

But you are right, the 2 tests that McGrath missed are the ones that Australia lost. They did not lose a single game he played that Ashes. 

Aah ok.