MAYANK YADAV .... EXPRESS and bouncy Indian pacer who is accurate too

[Kron]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

thats irrelevant to the batsman. And i dont think rules favoured the bowlers in tests in the 90s, where there were significantly more # of world class bowlers than now

Not high enough compared to the 90s.

If tendya can average 60+ in a decade where only two others averaged 50+ ( Lara and Steve Waugh), he can average 60+ in a decade where more than half a dozen players average 50+

He is by far the best batsman i've seen and the gap between him and #2 ( Lara) is wider than the gap between #2 and #10

 

I disagree. Bowling quality I feel overall depth is better post 2014. 

 

90s had great individual bowlers buy not as a unit.

 

And rules heavily favoured bowlers. With bouncer rule, no drs, no no ball umpire, biased jome umpiring etc. 

 

You are just judging by names. In terms of bowling depth, the entire pack unit era post 2014 is much better or equal at the very least. 

Edited April 24 by Kron

[Chaos]

3 minutes ago, Kron said:

I disagree. Bowling quality I feel overall depth is better post 2014. 

 

90s had great individual bowlers buy not as a unit.

 

And rules heavily favoured bowlers. With bouncer rule, no drs, no no ball umpire, biased jome umpiring etc. 

 

90s… thinking of indian fast bowlers like prasad, kuravella made other sides shake n piss in the pants. Our fast bowling was soo good SL MADE 950+ they could easily gotten 1200+ in ONE innings

[Kron]

23 minutes ago, Chaos said:

 

90s… thinking of indian fast bowlers like prasad, kuravella made other sides shake n piss in the pants. Our fast bowling was soo good SL MADE 950+ they could easily gotten 1200+ in ONE innings

Exactly. Only west indies had 2 high quality seamers. Australia had very raw young mcg. He wasn't the monster he was post 2000. 

Pak had a good attack

England were average nz etc all average. Nz had one great bowler in bond towards late 90s. 

 

Sri Lanka had vaas but he isn't top tier. 

[Chaos]

5 minutes ago, Kron said:

Exactly. Only west indies had 2 high quality seamers. Australia had very raw young mcg. He wasn't the monster he was post 2000. 

Pak had a good attack

England were average nz etc all average. Nz had one great bowler in bond towards late 90s. 

 

Sri Lanka had vaas but he isn't top tier. 

how can india concede almost 1000 man, sl still must be laughing theor asses off.. thank god no sanga or those stat pads would make it 1500

Edited April 24 by Chaos

[singhvivek141]

1 hour ago, Kron said:

Exactly. Only west indies had 2 high quality seamers. Australia had very raw young mcg. He wasn't the monster he was post 2000. 

Pak had a good attack

England were average nz etc all average. Nz had one great bowler in bond towards late 90s. 

 

Sri Lanka had vaas but he isn't top tier. 

Windies had Bishop & Benjamin as well for sometime in 90's

Australia had Fleming, McG, Warne.

Pak had two W's, Aaqib Javed and then Akhtar later

England had Angus Frazer, their bowling attack were better in 00's due to arrival of Hoggard, Freddie, Simon Jones, Harmison.

SA had Donald, Klusener, Brian McMillan, Pollock, Ntini. Later Steyn, Philander, Morkel joined

Zimbabwe had Streak, Brandes, Whittal bros

NZ was the only weak link...

 

[Kron]

1 hour ago, singhvivek141 said:

Windies had Bishop & Benjamin as well for sometime in 90's

Australia had Fleming, McG, Warne.

Pak had two W's, Aaqib Javed and then Akhtar later

England had Angus Frazer, their bowling attack were better in 00's due to arrival of Hoggard, Freddie, Simon Jones, Harmison.

SA had Donald, Klusener, Brian McMillan, Pollock, Ntini. Later Steyn, Philander, Morkel joined

Zimbabwe had Streak, Brandes, Whittal bros

NZ was the only weak link...

 

Talking only 90s.

 

 

[Kron]

2 hours ago, Chaos said:

how can india concede almost 1000 man, sl still must be laughing theor asses off.. thank god no sanga or those stat pads would make it 1500

But we destroyed them.many times after

So all good In the end. I honestly don't recall them even winning a test in India? Have they

[MediumPacer]

2 hours ago, Kron said:

Exactly. Only west indies had 2 high quality seamers. Australia had very raw young mcg. He wasn't the monster he was post 2000. 

Pak had a good attack

England were average nz etc all average. Nz had one great bowler in bond towards late 90s. 

 

Sri Lanka had vaas but he isn't top tier. 

Back then they had lot more draws, these days hardly see them.

[Chaos]

2 hours ago, Kron said:

But we destroyed them.many times after

So all good In the end. I honestly don't recall them even winning a test in India? Have they

They have not ONE test in india.

[New guy]

2 hours ago, MediumPacer said:

Back then they had lot more draws, these days hardly see them.

That's because batsmen have forgotten defence. In the 90s players like Dravid could leave balls all day. Today no batsmen can do that, they will 100% try to feel bat on ball after 1 leave and one defence.

 

And it works both ways, draws are less as batting collapses but we are also seeing record run chases of 250, 300+ in this era which never happened before so it's definitely not the pitches or bowling quality.

 

It's because t20 has changed batsmen mentality and attitude 

Edited April 24 by New guy

[Muloghonto]

8 hours ago, Kron said:

I disagree. Bowling quality I feel overall depth is better post 2014. 

 

your disagreement isnt data driven or objective. post 2014, the only teams to have a better bowling lineup in tests from the 90s is India & New Zealand. With NZ attack quality being not that much better as to having more durable bowlers. South Africa, Australia, West Indies, Pakistan,Sri Lanka had all better bowling attacks, significantly more so for the last 3. England is an interesting case, because English bowling attack had stronger depth in the 90s and were pretty much equally competent at home but less competent overseas. 
 

8 hours ago, Kron said:

90s had great individual bowlers buy not as a unit.

Thats india. not rest of the world. 

8 hours ago, Kron said:

 

And rules heavily favoured bowlers. With bouncer rule, no drs, no no ball umpire, biased jome umpiring etc. 

 

You are just judging by names. In terms of bowling depth, the entire pack unit era post 2014 is much better or equal at the very least. 

drs also favours batsmen - plenty of times batters get out defending when the ball comes off the arm in the pre-drs days. Bouncer rule was in effect in the 90s. it came into being sometime in the early 80s iirc.  

As for depth, even england had greater depth back then than in 2014+ period. 

 

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, New guy said:

That's because batsmen have forgotten defence. In the 90s players like Dravid could leave balls all day. Today no batsmen can do that, they will 100% try to feel bat on ball after 1 leave and one defence.

 

And it works both ways, draws are less as batting collapses but we are also seeing record run chases of 250, 300+ in this era which never happened before so it's definitely not the pitches or bowling quality.

 

It's because t20 has changed batsmen mentality and attitude 

 

funny thing is, as great as Dravid was at defending, he is still no 'i shall not get out, come whatever may' hall of famer. For those, you'd have to get to the 50s & 60s, where #4-5 batsmen would LITERALLY pull off figures like 35 not out from 250 balls coz they know that getting 300 runs in last day to win with 8 wickets in hand is impossible. 

Dravid could've been that batsman but he got shamed into being a bit more proactive in tests in his early days.

 

[Kron]

27 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

your disagreement isnt data driven or objective. post 2014, the only teams to have a better bowling lineup in tests from the 90s is India & New Zealand. With NZ attack quality being not that much better as to having more durable bowlers. South Africa, Australia, West Indies, Pakistan,Sri Lanka had all better bowling attacks, significantly more so for the last 3. England is an interesting case, because English bowling attack had stronger depth in the 90s and were pretty much equally competent at home but less competent overseas. 
 

Thats india. not rest of the world. 

drs also favours batsmen - plenty of times batters get out defending when the ball comes off the arm in the pre-drs days. Bouncer rule was in effect in the 90s. it came into being sometime in the early 80s iirc.  

As for depth, even england had greater depth back then than in 2014+ period. 

 

Mcgrath wasn't in his peak in 90s. Fleming dint play enough. 

 

Nz had just bond. And even he was better post 99

 

England had a weaker attack then

 

West indies I agree had a great attack in 90s

 

South africa? Steyn morkel philander etc can easily outshine whatever their 90s version is. Donald was their greatest bowler. Pollock was great. Rest were not as good. 

Then now jansen nortje rabada and burger? He'll no. You are being nostalgic here. Sa's problem is weak batting now. Their bowling has always been high quality.

 

Indian attack is the best or top 2 in the world. Obviously well ahead compared to its 90s attack

 

Australia? This attack is easily their second best attack of all time.cummins hazlewood starc green. 

 

Lanka had one good pacer in vaas. That's it. 

Even now it's their batting that let's them down. They are actually quite a decent bowling unit at full strength with kumara, ranjita etc

 

Pakistan yes had a better attack back then but they tampered with the ball, used bottle caps etc. 

 

Drs means batsmen now have to be more wary about how their foot is positioned as chances of getting trapped has exponentially increased. Same can easily happen to the so called greats of 90s. 

 

Also so much biased umpiring back then. No no ball umpiring. Unlimited bouncer rule and against less protected players. 

 

You can't have it both ways. Logic doesn't work. I don't feel quality was superior at all in 90s. 

 

If you say bowling was superior In those times then I could easily say they faced poorer batsmen in the 90s. Lot of those guys benefited from home umpiring. Many marginal calls would go against them in drs era. 

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, Kron said:

Mcgrath wasn't in his peak in 90s. Fleming dint play enough. 

McGrath was well into his peak by mid 90s. He made Lara his bunny mostly in the 90s. 

2 hours ago, Kron said:

Nz had just bond. And even he was better post 99

Bond is not from the 90s. 

2 hours ago, Kron said:

England had a weaker attack then

Not by much

2 hours ago, Kron said:

West indies I agree had a great attack in 90s

 

South africa? Steyn morkel philander etc can easily outshine whatever their 90s version is. Donald was their greatest bowler. Pollock was great. Rest were not as good. 

Nope. Pollock-Donald-Ntini are a better attack than Steyn-Morkel-Philander. 

2 hours ago, Kron said:

Then now jansen nortje rabada and burger? He'll no. You are being nostalgic here. Sa's problem is weak batting now. Their bowling has always been high quality.

Nope. Only Rabada is good enough to walk into the 90s attack of the saffies. 

2 hours ago, Kron said:

Indian attack is the best or top 2 in the world. Obviously well ahead compared to its 90s attack

Which isnt relevant here for an indian batter. Kohli doesnt face Indian bowling same way Tendy wouldnt face indian bowling

2 hours ago, Kron said:

Australia? This attack is easily their second best attack of all time.cummins hazlewood starc green. 

Nope. McGrath-Warne-Fleming-Lee are a better attack. Even aussies will say so. 

2 hours ago, Kron said:

Lanka had one good pacer in vaas. That's it. 

Even now it's their batting that let's them down. They are actually quite a decent bowling unit at full strength with kumara, ranjita etc

Only had the greatest spin bowler ever and their best ever fast bowler back then. 

2 hours ago, Kron said:

Pakistan yes had a better attack back then but they tampered with the ball, used bottle caps etc. 

Not relevant to the batter. 

2 hours ago, Kron said:

Drs means batsmen now have to be more wary about how their foot is positioned as chances of getting trapped has exponentially increased. Same can easily happen to the so called greats of 90s. 

DRS cuts both ways so its not an argument. batsmen benefit so do bowlers today. 

2 hours ago, Kron said:

 

Also so much biased umpiring back then. No no ball umpiring. Unlimited bouncer rule and against less protected players. 

Unlimited bouncer rule didnt exist in the 90s. 2 bouncer per over rule came into effect in the early 80s. 

2 hours ago, Kron said:

You can't have it both ways. Logic doesn't work. I don't feel quality was superior at all in 90s. 

You most probably didnt see the matches of 90s then. 

2 hours ago, Kron said:

 

If you say bowling was superior In those times then I could easily say they faced poorer batsmen in the 90s. Lot of those guys benefited from home umpiring. Many marginal calls would go against them in drs era. 

Again, thats irrelevant to comparing batsmen. 

[Kron]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

McGrath was well into his peak by mid 90s. He made Lara his bunny mostly in the 90s. 

Bond is not from the 90s. 

Not by much

Nope. Pollock-Donald-Ntini are a better attack than Steyn-Morkel-Philander. 

Nope. Only Rabada is good enough to walk into the 90s attack of the saffies. 

Which isnt relevant here for an indian batter. Kohli doesnt face Indian bowling same way Tendy wouldnt face indian bowling

Nope. McGrath-Warne-Fleming-Lee are a better attack. Even aussies will say so. 

Only had the greatest spin bowler ever and their best ever fast bowler back then. 

Not relevant to the batter. 

DRS cuts both ways so its not an argument. batsmen benefit so do bowlers today. 

Unlimited bouncer rule didnt exist in the 90s. 2 bouncer per over rule came into effect in the early 80s. 

You most probably didnt see the matches of 90s then. 

Again, thats irrelevant to comparing batsmen. 

Just cause you say nop doesn't mean it's true. 

 

Nitini Pollock donald were easily matched by morkel steyn and philander. They actually beat Australia away. And Australia were still strong in 07. Infact they won 3 consecutive away series wins. 

 

Current Aussie attack is actually considered one of their best ever attack by Aussies pundits themselves. Infact as punter himself. 

 

Mcgrath peaked toward late 90s. Fleming dint play enough to be considered great. Hazlewood is no less than Fleming. Lee was always wayward. 

 

Batsmen who are supposedly great at spin or pace will have problems with marginal calls in modern era. Huge problems. They will have to adjust stance and play a different style which may or very likely won't work for them. 

 

Bowlers too benefit yes. Lot of times w.indies would bowl no balls and get wickes. Huge amount of wickets in home games by playing on treacherous pitches and very biased home umpiring. Hitting and power striking quality was poor back then if you say they lack defensive technnique now. They often played for draws. 

 

Tendulkar had some chinks in his armour vs spin. He would have problems in the drs era. 

 

Rabada jansen ngidi and burger. That's a very balanced attack and would be just as good for the batting unit that SA possessed. They literally have everything.

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, Kron said:

Just cause you say nop doesn't mean it's true. 

Same goes to you

1 minute ago, Kron said:

 

Nitini Pollock donald were easily matched by morkel steyn and philander. They actually beat Australia away. And Australia were still strong in 07. Infact they won 3 consecutive away series wins. 

No, they are not. Despite having lower overall opposition batting averages vs them, Ntini-Pollock-Donald have better average than Morkel-Steyn-Philander. 

Whether you beat a team or not is irrelevant to comparative bowling quality. You can lose to better teams even if you have better bowlers. 

1 minute ago, Kron said:

 

Current Aussie attack is actually considered one of their best ever attack by Aussies pundits themselves. Infact as punter himself. 

One of the best, yes. But not equal to THE best by the aussies since ww2, which is the 94-07 bowling attack. 

 

1 minute ago, Kron said:

 

Mcgrath peaked toward late 90s. Fleming dint play enough to be considered great. Hazlewood is no less than Fleming. Lee was always wayward. 

Hazlewood is far lesser than Fleming as statistics show. Lee is better than Starc. And McWarne are incomparable to the current aussie bowlers. 

1 minute ago, Kron said:

 

Batsmen who are supposedly great at spin or pace will have problems with marginal calls in modern era. Huge problems. They will have to adjust stance and play a different style which may or very likely won't work for them. 

Irrelevant. 

1 minute ago, Kron said:

 

Bowlers too benefit yes. Lot of times w.indies would bowl no balls and get wickes. Huge amount of wickets in home games by playing on treacherous pitches and very biased home umpiring. Hitting and power striking quality was poor back then if you say they lack defensive technnique now. They often played for draws. 

Because playing for draws is a better option than risking loss from a team perspective. PLaying for win and losing is done to placate the viewers. 

1 minute ago, Kron said:

 

Tendulkar had some chinks in his armour vs spin. He would have problems in the drs era. 

 

Rabada jansen ngidi and burger. That's a very balanced attack and would be just as good for the batting unit that SA possessed. They literally have everything.

 

Tendulkar is a better player of spin than any since him. By a huge margin. 

As i said, the 90s bowling attacks were objectively better. South Africa was better. Australia was better. Paksitan, west indies & Sri lanka were waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better. England and NZ were comparable/slightly worse. So overall the bowling of 90s was significantly harder to face for an indian batsman.

 

[Kron]

28 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Same goes to you

No, they are not. Despite having lower overall opposition batting averages vs them, Ntini-Pollock-Donald have better average than Morkel-Steyn-Philander. 

Whether you beat a team or not is irrelevant to comparative bowling quality. You can lose to better teams even if you have better bowlers. 

One of the best, yes. But not equal to THE best by the aussies since ww2, which is the 94-07 bowling attack. 

 

Hazlewood is far lesser than Fleming as statistics show. Lee is better than Starc. And McWarne are incomparable to the current aussie bowlers. 

Irrelevant. 

Because playing for draws is a better option than risking loss from a team perspective. PLaying for win and losing is done to placate the viewers. 

 

Tendulkar is a better player of spin than any since him. By a huge margin. 

As i said, the 90s bowling attacks were objectively better. South Africa was better. Australia was better. Paksitan, west indies & Sri lanka were waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better. England and NZ were comparable/slightly worse. So overall the bowling of 90s was significantly harder to face for an indian batsman.

 

I disagree. South Africa was not better. They don't have the batsmen to support their strong attack. Their batting is a joke. They have everything. Pace bounce swing ability etc. 

Give them their batting unit of 90s and they would demolish most ATG teams

 

Australia yes both have a great attacks but their batting unit was superior. So you don't know if their 90s bowling attack would necessarily fare better or not. If anything current attack with their 90s batting unit would fare just as well if not Better than how their 90s side performed overall. 

 

England and nz were not comparable at all. Especially not nz. Current England attack has much better depth and bowl way better as a unit overall in the post 2014 era. 

 

Well playing for draws is frowned upon now. We would never see 4th day chases of 300 plus scores back then. 

 

Most importantly, home biased umpires, match fixing, treacherous pitches and no no ball umpiring all ruined 90s era. Unless we transpose them to modern era and we see them perform I can't accept that they are superior. Certain bowlers who are truly ATG would do well in every era. But that goes for every great bowler

 

Tendulkar never played in drs era though. Imagine him in the snake maybe pitches we see in India sometimes. Also I don't count checkers like Murali as a great. Most Pakistani spinner greats chucked too. 

 

Btw I agree Tendulkar would be great in any era without doubt

He would average 55 to 60 in this era but he would face the same if not more difficult against bowlers of this era. 

 

Him and Smith would be the best batsmen going around. 

 

For me 

India attack > 90s

Nz > 90s

Aus = aus of 90s

Pak 90s > pak now 

England > England of 90s

South africa 90s = now SA

West indies 90s > now easy

Sri Lanka 90s had greater batting but bowling. Is it better really? Chucker might not qualify to play. Vaas is a good trundler. Ok let's say sl > now

 

[Muloghonto]

4 minutes ago, Kron said:

I disagree. South Africa was not better. They don't have the batsmen to support their strong attack. Their batting is a joke. They have everything. Pace bounce swing ability etc. 

Give them their batting unit of 90s and they would demolish most ATG teams

Not having good batters is irrelevant to the discussion. Tendy or virat doesnt care how good saffie batters are. they care about how good their bowlers are for their performance. 

Its an objective fact that South Africa had a better attack in the 90s. 

 

4 minutes ago, Kron said:

 

Australia yes both have a great attacks but their batting unit was superior. So you don't know if their 90s bowling attack would necessarily fare better or not. If anything current attack with their 90s batting unit would fare just as well if not Better than how their 90s side performed overall. 

Again, batting unit is out of scope of this conversation, as the conversation is about strong bowling attacks. Again, it matters not a jot to Tendulkar if Aussie batting lineup is 5 alan borders or 5 brett lees. He still has to score his runs against the bowlers at hand. 

There is no basis to think that the current attack would fare better, because the current attack is significantly worse than the best aussie attack ever since ww2. 

4 minutes ago, Kron said:

 

England and nz were not comparable at all. Especially not nz. Current England attack has much better depth and bowl way better as a unit overall in the post 2014 era. 

Actually no, England has lesser depth - take away Anderson & Broad and England's bowling attack is a lot shallower than in the 90s when they had significantly greater number of test quality bowlers, though none as good as Anderson in home conditions ( plenty are equal to or better than him in overseas condition). 

 

4 minutes ago, Kron said:

Well playing for draws is frowned upon now. We would never see 4th day chases of 300 plus scores back then. 

 

Most importantly, home biased umpires, match fixing, treacherous pitches and no no ball umpiring all ruined 90s era. Unless we transpose them to modern era and we see them perform I can't accept that they are superior. Certain bowlers who are truly ATG would do well in every era. But that goes for every great bowler

Quick question- how much test cricket did you see in the 90s ?
 

4 minutes ago, Kron said:

 

Tendulkar never played in drs era though. Imagine him in the snake maybe pitches we see in India sometimes. Also I don't count checkers like Murali as a great. Most Pakistani spinner greats chucked too. 

We saw him on the crumblers of India and he did just fine against good bowlers. Its irrelevant if you count murali as a chucker or not, he is still the hardest spinner to face in history of the game. 

 

4 minutes ago, Kron said:

 

Btw I agree Tendulkar would be great in any era without doubt

He would average 55 to 60 in this era but he would face the same if not more difficult against bowlers of this era. 

He would easily average 60+ in this era if he didnt hang around too log like he did. Tendulkar has faced the most # of great bowlers in history of the game and as i demonstrarted, 90s era was significantly tougher for indian batters than it is now due to the majority of opposition teams having better bowling attacks then.

 

4 minutes ago, Kron said:

Him and Smith would be the best batsmen going around. 

Smith isnt in the top 5 batsmen i've seen.

 

4 minutes ago, Kron said:

For me 

India attack > 90s

Nz > 90s

Aus = aus of 90s

Pak 90s > pak now 

England > England of 90s

South africa 90s = now SA

West indies 90s > now easy

Sri Lanka 90s had greater batting but bowling. Is it better really? Chucker might not qualify to play. Vaas is a good trundler. Ok let's say sl > now

 

you are wrong.

India attack is not relevant

NZ attack is slightly better now

Australia attack was noticably better back then

South African attack was slightly better back then

Pakistan attack was orders of magnitude better back then

Sri Lanka attack was orders of magnitude better back then

West Indies attack was orders of magnitude better back then

English attack is slightly better now. 

 

Ergo, 90s attack is better than now.

This is also proven objectively by the 90s having lesser number of 45+ averaging batsmen in tests than we do now. 

 

[vvvslaxman]

Now that we have identified him let us wait for his recovery and give him the best facility to hone his fitness. Him playing for LSG won't help India. It might furhter aggravate the injury. Let him recover at his own pace. A long as we don't lose ight of him we are good. Nobody excited me more than Nagarkoti when he was new. Depite a short stature like Agarkar he looked like a real deal. Since then i keep my optimism in check. Even with Bumrah was a bit skeptical. But he proved he is special.  Finding fasts bowlers is such a difficult job.  So many came and disappeared. So many were non starters. Bumrah  is one guy who surpassed our expectations.  This is why taking a dig at Bumrah for his no-how in games is in poor taste. I may have done it too. You see how hard it is to find a pacer, groom him, develop him into a complete bowler to represent all 3 formats successfully. Bumrah is a treasure. Hope we find more of him.

[Kron]

34 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Not having good batters is irrelevant to the discussion. Tendy or virat doesnt care how good saffie batters are. they care about how good their bowlers are for their performance. 

Its an objective fact that South Africa had a better attack in the 90s. 

 

Again, batting unit is out of scope of this conversation, as the conversation is about strong bowling attacks. Again, it matters not a jot to Tendulkar if Aussie batting lineup is 5 alan borders or 5 brett lees. He still has to score his runs against the bowlers at hand. 

There is no basis to think that the current attack would fare better, because the current attack is significantly worse than the best aussie attack ever since ww2. 

Actually no, England has lesser depth - take away Anderson & Broad and England's bowling attack is a lot shallower than in the 90s when they had significantly greater number of test quality bowlers, though none as good as Anderson in home conditions ( plenty are equal to or better than him in overseas condition). 

 

Quick question- how much test cricket did you see in the 90s ?
 

We saw him on the crumblers of India and he did just fine against good bowlers. Its irrelevant if you count murali as a chucker or not, he is still the hardest spinner to face in history of the game. 

 

He would easily average 60+ in this era if he didnt hang around too log like he did. Tendulkar has faced the most # of great bowlers in history of the game and as i demonstrarted, 90s era was significantly tougher for indian batters than it is now due to the majority of opposition teams having better bowling attacks then.

 

Smith isnt in the top 5 batsmen i've seen.

 

you are wrong.

India attack is not relevant

NZ attack is slightly better now

Australia attack was noticably better back then

South African attack was slightly better back then

Pakistan attack was orders of magnitude better back then

Sri Lanka attack was orders of magnitude better back then

West Indies attack was orders of magnitude better back then

English attack is slightly better now. 

 

Ergo, 90s attack is better than now.

This is also proven objectively by the 90s having lesser number of 45+ averaging batsmen in tests than we do now. 

 

I dont think so. South Africa current attack is just as good as their 90s attack easily. More well balanced. 

 

Sri Lanka attack was only better cause of the chucker

 

I disagree about Australia having a better attack. Even Australians own pundits admit this could be their best ever attack. Just look objectively you will see how potent it is overall. They have everything you need. 

 

Flemmo just dint play enough. 

 

England gave quite a bit of depth post 2014. Andy broad they had Finn for a bit. Wood, Archer, woakes, potts, Robinson etc. Saqib and fisher too.

 

Nz not slightly better. Lot lot better.