Is India Truly the 2nd Greatest Cricket Nation of all time after Australia? Comparing Performances in major tournaments & overall stats - what is a fair stack ranking ?

[deathmonger]

3 minutes ago, Gollum said:

You can't convince a neutral that Indian cricket legacy is better than Barbados'.

 

And our population is at least 5000 times larger, and not that Barbados is a Norway or Japan economically speaking. 

Which neutral?

 

India is 80% of the cricketing watching population.

 

The only people who might rate Barbados higher are old white men who crave for the good old days when they ruled cricket and when WI was good.

 

WI were great but they were great in an earlier non professional era. They can barely compete nowadays. Like Uruguay in the early days of football when they won the first two world cups and the first two olympic golds.

[Gollum]

1 minute ago, deathmonger said:

Which neutral?

 

India is 80% of the cricketing watching population.

 

The only people who might rate Barbados higher are old white men who crave for the good old days when they ruled cricket and when WI was good.

 

WI were great but they were great in an earlier non professional era. They can barely compete nowadays. Like Uruguay in the early days of football when they won the first two world cups and the first two olympic golds.

Cricket was professional by mid to late 70s, cos of Packer.

 

There were 5-6 decent cricket nations by then. 

[deathmonger]

10 minutes ago, Gollum said:

But then you have to be consistent. If you neglect previous eras, you must also accept that there are 7-8 nations above India in field hockey. 

Difference is that they have still not been able to overtake India's total medals overall.

 

India has the 2nd most number of ICC titles overall and also overtaken WI in test W/L ratio.

 

Like I said who will be no 2 if not India?

 

SA don't have much white ball success.

 

Ditto England.

 

WI have become poor at red ball and overall are now poorer than India.

 

Edited October 13, 2025 by deathmonger

[deathmonger]

3 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Cricket was professional by mid to late 70s, cos of Packer.

 

There were 5-6 decent cricket nations by then. 

And there are around 9-10 now and even the minnows are better (in white ball).

Edited October 13, 2025 by deathmonger

[Gollum]

T20s India has the greatest legacy. 

 

ODI, distant 2nd behind Aus. 

 

Test cricket is where we fall way behind, at least I consider this as the most important format, and give more weightage. For most of our cricket history we were minnows, and till 5-6 years back our greatest pacers were Zaheer, Kapil, Srinath types. 

[deathmonger]

4 minutes ago, Gollum said:

T20s India has the greatest legacy. 

 

ODI, distant 2nd behind Aus. 

 

Test cricket is where we fall way behind, at least I consider this as the most important format, and give more weightage. For most of our cricket history we were minnows, and till 5-6 years back our greatest pacers were Zaheer, Kapil, Srinath types. 

This I will agree with.

 

Overall all formats combined we are no 2.

 

Tests we will be no 4 by W/L ratio next year and then maybe over the next 10-20 years can become the no 2.

Edited October 13, 2025 by deathmonger

[putrevus]

Winning world t20 has no significant value.It is played every year.If West Indies of 1980s were supposed to play CT and world t20s they would have won lot more.

 

So India with one ATG fast bowler is no way near Aussies or WI.

Edited October 14, 2025 by putrevus

[deathmonger]

59 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Winning world t20 has no significant value.It is played every year.If West Indies of 1980s were supposed to play CT and world t20s they would have won lot more.

 

So India will one ATG fast bowler is no way near Aussies or WI.

Naah like I said this is hindsight bias. 

 

Cricket which is rich enough that there is a world t20 every year is not cricket in which poorer countries can succeed.

 

And WI of 80s won none of the WCs in that decade nor the WSC so you can't ASSUME that they would win.

 

Aus better yes. WI no.

 

India has more ICC trophies as well as has a better test W/L ratio. West Indies mediocrity over the last 20 years has cancelled out their great era.

[putrevus]

11 hours ago, deathmonger said:

Naah like I said this is hindsight bias. 

 

Cricket which is rich enough that there is a world t20 every year is not cricket in which poorer countries can succeed.

 

And WI of 80s won none of the WCs in that decade nor the WSC so you can't ASSUME that they would win.

 

Aus better yes. WI no.

 

India has more ICC trophies as well as has a better test W/L ratio. West Indies mediocrity over the last 20 years has cancelled out their great era.

There is no hindsight. They won WSC in Australia thruout 80s defeating Australia in Australia handily.

 

WI were head and shoulders above every team for 15 years.The bowling talent plus the batting firepower they would have smashed every team with ease in t20s and would have done well in other ICC tournaments in 80s.

 

Just like SA and NZ won test championship but they are noway better test teams than India in last 10 plus years.

 

Winning trophies cannot be only measure for greatness.

 

In overall picture India is noway near WI , the fast bowlers they produced vs what India has produced is no contest.

 

 

Edited October 14, 2025 by putrevus

[Tillu]

West Indies was a truly great team during the 70s and 80s but that doesn't make it the 2nd greatest team ever.

 

You need to consistently be a top 2 or top 3 team in every generation to be a top team. West Indies doesn't have financial resources nor the population to meet these requirements.

 

Give it a decade and when we sufficiently improve our win loss ratio, there will be no debates about India being the 2nd best team ever.

[deathmonger]

3 hours ago, putrevus said:

There is no hindsight. They won WSC in Australia thruout 80s defeating Australia in Australia handily.

 

WI were head and shoulders above every team for 15 years.The bowling talent plus the batting firepower they would have smashed every team with ease in t20s and would have done well in other ICC tournaments in 80s.

 

Just like SA and NZ won test championship but they are noway better test teams than India in last 10 plus years.

 

Winning trophies cannot be only measure for greatness.

 

In overall picture India is noway near WI , the fast bowlers they produced vs what India has produced is no contest.

 

 

Overall picture is overall picture.

 

And overall they have a W/L ratio lower than India.

 

Their peak might have be higher but we are comparing overall.

 

Kohli has the highest peak of any Indian batsman ever (and greater than many other ATGs as well). Is he better than Sachin? Gavaskar?

 

The spinners India have produced (who have dominated them at home) vs what they have produced is also no contest.

 

Plus India have produced way more ATG/good batsmen than them and the pipeline is not slowing down while they make do with 20 averaging batsman.

 

And Australia in 80s were not that strong. A weak Indian team drew to series there. West Indies did not win any of the WCs that decade nor the WCC. That is a fact.

 

Edited October 14, 2025 by deathmonger

[deathmonger]

2 hours ago, Tillu said:

West Indies was a truly great team during the 70s and 80s but that doesn't make it the 2nd greatest team ever.

 

You need to consistently be a top 2 or top 3 team in every generation to be a top team. West Indies doesn't have financial resources nor the population to meet these requirements.

 

Give it a decade and when we sufficiently improve our win loss ratio, there will be no debates about India being the 2nd best team ever.

This.

 

WI had a great peak of around 20ish years but quite mediocre either side of that (and downright poor since the mid-late 2000s).

 

We are talking EVER not 70s-80s.

Edited October 14, 2025 by deathmonger

[vvvslaxman]

These historical  greatness mean very little for a fan though. We just have to live int he present.  Look at the WI fans. They got tired of these nostalgic  talks about viv richards, marshall. An average fan cares about his team winning in current scenario. 

[deathmonger]

3 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

These historical  greatness mean very little for a fan though. We just have to live int he present.  Look at the WI fans. They got tired of these nostalgic  talks about viv richards, marshall. An average fan cares about his team winning in current scenario. 

Exactly.

 

And India has better records overall.

 

Someone like an SA or Pakistan you could argue still have not matched WI's achievements, especially in white ball.

 

We have more ICC titles than them and have a better overall test record. We have also won test series everywhere barring SA where WI also has not won.

[Gollum]

1 hour ago, deathmonger said:

 

Plus India have produced way more ATG/good batsmen than them 

 

In tests, not even close. Their batting legacy is far greater. 

[govinda]

22 minutes ago, Gollum said:

In tests, not even close. Their batting legacy is far greater. 

Yes they have atgs like headly, three w's, sobers, viv&lara. Also very good batsmen like Llyod, kanhai, kalicharan&greendige

Edited October 14, 2025 by govinda

[deathmonger]

19 minutes ago, Gollum said:

In tests, not even close. Their batting legacy is far greater. 

Not really.

 

Like England, they have a lots of guys with great averages from the 1940s to the 1960s but then those guys made their runs beating up hapless India, Pakistan, NZ teams. They started playing earlier and also played a lot more matches.

 

For example check out Everton Weekes.

 

vs Aus/Eng - 43

vs Ind/NZ/Pak - 83.72

 

Clyde Walcott

 

vs Aus/Eng - 49.04

vs Ind/NZ/Pak - 74.65

 

Frank Worell

 

vs Aus/Eng - 45.26

vs Ind/NZ - 68.78

 

They are all good players but they also had the advantage of playing in the early era when there were only two other good teams and boosted their stats that way to 50+ ATG territory. Easier to average 50+ when the other teams are weak.

 

I would say post 1970s it is neck and neck. They have Sobers, Richards, Lara while India has Gavaskar, Sachin, Dravid. Then good second tiers for both teams.

 

Of course India have Gill, Pant, Jaiswal who will at least end up as very good if not ATG. Even likes of Jurel can end up as good. 

 

WI will prolly never produce a great test batsman ever again.

 

 

 

 

[deathmonger]

39 minutes ago, govinda said:

Yes they have atgs like headly, three w's, sobers, viv&lara. Also very good batsmen like Llyod, kanhai, kalicharan&greendige

Sobers, Viv, Lara are ATGs.

 

And the Lloyd, Kanhai, Kallicharan, Greenidge are good as well.

 

The 3 W's are not ATGs in the modern sense though. They are well respected for historical reasons of course and were the first good batsmen of WI but their 50+ averages are purely due to beating up the weaker teams. In any other era they would probably be solid mid 40s averaging batsmen.

 

The three W's have the same sort of record against strong teams that Merchant and Hazare has. Merchant never played a weak team in his career and Hazare played only 3 vs Pak where he averaged 111.50. If these two had a similar split they would also be averaging 50+.

Edited October 14, 2025 by deathmonger

[govinda]

30 minutes ago, deathmonger said:

Sobers, Viv, Lara are ATGs.

 

And the Lloyd, Kanhai, Kallicharan, Greenidge are good as well.

 

The 3 W's are not ATGs in the modern sense though. They are well respected for historical reasons of course and were the first good batsmen of WI but their 50+ averages are purely due to beating up the weaker teams. In any other era they would probably be solid mid 40s averaging batsmen.

 

The three W's have the same sort of record against strong teams that Merchant and Hazare has. Merchant never played a weak team in his career and Hazare played only 3 vs Pak where he averaged 111.50. If these two had a similar split they would also be averaging 50+.

You forgot gorge headley aka black bradman. He was known to have carried a minnow west indies team from 1930 to 54. He averaged 60+

[deathmonger]

44 minutes ago, govinda said:

You forgot gorge headley aka black bradman. He was known to have carried a minnow west indies team from 1930 to 54. He averaged 60+

Yeah he was good.