What's new

A direct comparison: Imran Khan's Pakistan versus Virat Kohli's India

doesn't matter. then I can say the same about west Indies's dominance in 80s vs weak india, weak australia and poor England.

australia of 2000 also never faced Virat's behemoth at home. They faced a weakened india and managed to scrape a win in 04. At their peaks they got destroyed in 98.

are you sure you are talking about the right south Africa?

south africa toured vs india in 2015 as well. They got spanked 3 0 and they had 5 or 6 ATG level players there too. Virat's india is a monster at home. They would beat any team in Asian conditions.

2015 South Africa tour to India

Elite batsmen:-

Hashim Amla
AB de Villiers
Morne Morkel

5 or 6 ATG level player lol. Steyn got injured during first test, so did Philander who anyways is irrelevant in Asia.

Compared to India's 2010 him series elite players list:-

Jacques Kallis
Graeme Smith
AB de Villiers
Hashim Amla
Dale Steyn
Morne Morkel

6 vs 3.

On WIs dominance, they won everywhere home and away unlike Kohli's team who fails to beat a South African, England or New Zealand team away from home.

Australia won in 2004 series against a very solid Indian side with only Tendulkar missing. They still had a list of elite players like Sehwag, Dravid, Laxman, Kumble and Harbhajan playing for them.

Even their loss in 2001 series happened because of a commendable performance of two of India's finest test players which led to the turnaround of Indian cricket unlike Kohli's team who lost to New Zealand by completely surrending with one of their veteran batsmen with 65 tests experience and being acclaimed as "one of their better overseas batter" playing like a comedian for his 40 ball-9 in the must win game. Anyways, Australia eventually did won series everywhere including home and away unlike Kohli's team.
 
India didn’t beat Pakistan in 1989-90!

The short November days made every Test a draw, but India only took 39 wickets out of 80 in the four Tests.

But Pakistan only took 60 wickets themselves, and India comfortably held on for a draw.

Imran Khan had just turned 37, and with Waqar raw, Wasim struggling with a groin injury and Abdul Qadir in decline, his huge workload basically ended his bowling career.

At the start of the series Imran was still bowling in the 135-140K range. By the time he reached Australia six weeks later he was down to the 125-130K range, and he was finished as a bowler.

So, that means Imran's team was only good till '89. They weren't a force after that as visible by the fact that they couldn't beat an Indian team at home which didn't have a batsmen of Gautam Gambhir Calibre bar one and the bowlers were even worst with Kapil on his last legs.

Moreover, they also got smashed by a weak Australian side in Australia in 1990.
 
So, that means Imran's team was only good till '89. They weren't a force after that as visible by the fact that they couldn't beat an Indian team at home which didn't have a batsmen of Gautam Gambhir Calibre bar one and the bowlers were even worst with Kapil on his last legs.

Moreover, they also got smashed by a weak Australian side in Australia in 1990.

The Aussie side is 1990 wasn't weak at all, there were on the upswing after winning the Ashes in 1989. And Pakistan were still fairly competitive in that series and nearly won the second test. Had Pakistan faced Australia between 86-88 they would like have won as England did.
 
Imran's team was good but overrated here.

They couldn't beat an Indian team in 1989 which had a batting lineup so poor that none of the batsmen can be termed as good as Gautam Gambhir bar one- Azharrudin. Tendulkar was 16, so can't be considered. That team's bowling was so poor that Ishant Sharma will walk into that team being their best bowler.

Imran's team also lost to a mediocre Australian side in Australia in 1990.

Posters are confusing the strength of teams with the strength of captaincy.

Pakistan under Imran Khan were a team that punched above their weight, broke new ground and rose to be no.2 in the world in the 80s despite man for man being not that high quality a side. Hence more credit here goes to Imran's captaincy.

India under Kohli are a team that are clinically dominant at home but consistently underperforming away despite on paper appearing to be the strongest side in the world. Hence it is fair to blame Kohli's captaincy for this.
 
The Aussie side is 1990 wasn't weak at all, there were on the upswing after winning the Ashes in 1989. And Pakistan were still fairly competitive in that series and nearly won the second test. Had Pakistan faced Australia between 86-88 they would like have won as England did.

I don't think that Australian side was any better than the current NZ, England or the SA side that defeated India in 2018.

I do agree that Kohli's team is underachieving. If they played to their potential and were more smarter, India won't have lost all these three series.
 
No comparison Khan was & is in his own league, there’s a reason he’s the Captain of the all time 11
 
So, that means Imran's team was only good till '89. They weren't a force after that as visible by the fact that they couldn't beat an Indian team at home which didn't have a batsmen of Gautam Gambhir Calibre bar one and the bowlers were even worst with Kapil on his last legs.

Moreover, they also got smashed by a weak Australian side in Australia in 1990.
We have already covered this.

From 1986-89 the attack was based upon Imran and Qadir, with Wasim developing into a third spearhead.

Imran’s bowling faded in 89 but Waqar arrived, but it took Waqar a year to become a Test class bowler.

Mushtaq replaced Qadir at the same time.

There was basically a 10 month period from October 1989 in which the bowling standard had dropped. But by September 1990 it was at its highest ever level.

To translate into modern examples:

The Pakistan Test bowling attack from mid-1985 to mid-1989 was far better than any Indian attack ever has been.

For 10 months from October’89 the bowling attack was down to roughly Bumrah/Ishant/Shami/Ashwin quality.

By September 1990 the Pakistan attack was better than any other attack in Asian cricket history up to 2020, including the 85-89 Pakistanis.
 
2015 South Africa tour to India

Elite batsmen:-

Hashim Amla
AB de Villiers
Morne Morkel

5 or 6 ATG level player lol. Steyn got injured during first test, so did Philander who anyways is irrelevant in Asia.

Compared to India's 2010 him series elite players list:-

Jacques Kallis
Graeme Smith
AB de Villiers
Hashim Amla
Dale Steyn
Morne Morkel

6 vs 3.

On WIs dominance, they won everywhere home and away unlike Kohli's team who fails to beat a South African, England or New Zealand team away from home.

Australia won in 2004 series against a very solid Indian side with only Tendulkar missing. They still had a list of elite players like Sehwag, Dravid, Laxman, Kumble and Harbhajan playing for them.

Even their loss in 2001 series happened because of a commendable performance of two of India's finest test players which led to the turnaround of Indian cricket unlike Kohli's team who lost to New Zealand by completely surrending with one of their veteran batsmen with 65 tests experience and being acclaimed as "one of their better overseas batter" playing like a comedian for his 40 ball-9 in the must win game. Anyways, Australia eventually did won series everywhere including home and away unlike Kohli's team.

steyn played the first test and they still lost. philander also played and he is useless yes. morkel played. their best ever spinner in harmer played. duplesis and prime elgar. Looks a pretty Damn strong team to me. India beat them convincingly.

jacques kalis was past his prime in 2010. devilliers was no where near his prime. The others I agree but 2015 team was not much inferior overall and india demolished them. You can only beat who is in front of you.


Like I said india don't prepare for red ball cricket with practice matches like they used to in the past. Virat also always gets selections wrong for away series games.

In the 2000 era, india would play a few first class matches to get acclimated to those foreign conditions. We don't so that now and it's affecting India's results. India also plays the most amount of matches which takes a toll on the body.
 
We have already covered this.

From 1986-89 the attack was based upon Imran and Qadir, with Wasim developing into a third spearhead.

Imran’s bowling faded in 89 but Waqar arrived, but it took Waqar a year to become a Test class bowler.

Mushtaq replaced Qadir at the same time.

There was basically a 10 month period from October 1989 in which the bowling standard had dropped. But by September 1990 it was at its highest ever level.

To translate into modern examples:

The Pakistan Test bowling attack from mid-1985 to mid-1989 was far better than any Indian attack ever has been.

For 10 months from October’89 the bowling attack was down to roughly Bumrah/Ishant/Shami/Ashwin quality.

By September 1990 the Pakistan attack was better than any other attack in Asian cricket history up to 2020, including the 85-89 Pakistanis.

nope no Asian attack is better than the current indian attack in Asian conditions. Absolutely none. Their record is just far too good to write then off.
 
steyn played the first test and they still lost. philander also played and he is useless yes. morkel played. their best ever spinner in harmer played. duplesis and prime elgar. Looks a pretty Damn strong team to me. India beat them convincingly.

jacques kalis was past his prime in 2010. devilliers was no where near his prime. The others I agree but 2015 team was not much inferior overall and india demolished them. You can only beat who is in front of you.


Like I said india don't prepare for red ball cricket with practice matches like they used to in the past. Virat also always gets selections wrong for away series games.

In the 2000 era, india would play a few first class matches to get acclimated to those foreign conditions. We don't so that now and it's affecting India's results. India also plays the most amount of matches which takes a toll on the body.

Disagree. Kallis was at his peak even in 2010 and he was the reason India couldn't beat South Africa in SA in 2010.

AB was very much established by 2008 and started hitting away hundreds and even double hundreds.

Faf and Elgar are literally nobodies in front of quartet of Kallis, Smith, AB and Amla. If you are considering them, then that SA side also had Ashwell Prince and Mark Boucher which will increase the count to 8. So, let's not go there.

It's proved. 6 vs 3. We know which team faced the much stronger SA side and yet which of the two did better away from home.

Try with some other countries, Kohli's team not being able to beat SA away or even save the series is a big question mark for his team
 
Disagree. Kallis was at his peak even in 2010 and he was the reason India couldn't beat South Africa in SA in 2010.

AB was very much established by 2008 and started hitting away hundreds and even double hundreds.

Faf and Elgar are literally nobodies in front of quartet of Kallis, Smith, AB and Amla. If you are considering them, then that SA side also had Ashwell Prince and Mark Boucher which will increase the count to 8. So, let's not go there.

It's proved. 6 vs 3. We know which team faced the much stronger SA side and yet which of the two did better away from home.

Try with some other countries, Kohli's team not being able to beat SA away or even save the series is a big question mark for his team

yes but my point is that Virat's india lacked match practice in red ball cricket unlike dhoni's team of 2006-2011.

Doesn't matter if the team wasn't as strong as the 2011 version. India still pumped them at home. Probably would have beaten the superior 2011 version too. At home. Virat's dominance in home conditions is unquestionable. No doubt they would beat any team in their home. Question is can they compete away. Generally they do well in bouncy wickets in s.africa and australia so I don't see why they wouldn't do well there provided they play practice matches in red ball cricket. It dint happen in 2018. India in the 2000 era had several red ball games in foreign conditions to get acclimated and that's such a massive advantage. Remember India's workload is a lot higher too. Fatigue comes into play.

If they still lose after picking the right selections and playing practice games like in the past then sure your point would be right.

I agree Virat is inhibiting his team's potential in away games though. Not his fault that bhuvi our best exponent of swing conditons and pandya (for balance purposes) got injured. He could have still picked jaddu and ashwin plus 3 bowlers for depth.
 
Very interesting thread and some good arguments, although many odd arguments and clearly a lot of anti Pakistan bias. My first time diving so deep into a thread and the posts here are very, very odd.

Anyway, topic in hand, moving a bit away from stats and numbers (I'll bring these up in a bit) but much of sport is based on a collective consensus among the sportsmen and those involved in the game to a lesser capacity (journalists, spectators etc). I think the majority would label Pakistan of the 80s and early 90s as one of the greatest test teams ever, possible 3rd or 4th with WI, Aus and SA in their periods being better. The current Kohli led India side would not stack up in comparison to any of these. One of the biggest factor is that all great teams, i any team sport much have great individual cricketers also, regardless of collective results.

Kohli's India team does not have a great cricketer beside himself. None of his fast bowlers are great (Bumrah may be in the future), none of his batsmen are great and he has never had a great spinner. Pakistan had Imran, Qadir, Younis, Miandad and Akram. Aus had McGrath, Warnem Ponting, Haydos, Langer etc etc.

I personally believe the greatest India side is the one from the early to mid 00s, maybe extending to their win over England in 2007 although that English side wast transitioning. That was a team of Tendulkar, Sehwag, Dravid, Laxman, Kumble, Khan...
 
Very interesting thread and some good arguments, although many odd arguments and clearly a lot of anti Pakistan bias. My first time diving so deep into a thread and the posts here are very, very odd.

Anyway, topic in hand, moving a bit away from stats and numbers (I'll bring these up in a bit) but much of sport is based on a collective consensus among the sportsmen and those involved in the game to a lesser capacity (journalists, spectators etc). I think the majority would label Pakistan of the 80s and early 90s as one of the greatest test teams ever, possible 3rd or 4th with WI, Aus and SA in their periods being better. The current Kohli led India side would not stack up in comparison to any of these. One of the biggest factor is that all great teams, i any team sport much have great individual cricketers also, regardless of collective results.

Kohli's India team does not have a great cricketer beside himself. None of his fast bowlers are great (Bumrah may be in the future), none of his batsmen are great and he has never had a great spinner. Pakistan had Imran, Qadir, Younis, Miandad and Akram. Aus had McGrath, Warnem Ponting, Haydos, Langer etc etc.

I personally believe the greatest India side is the one from the early to mid 00s, maybe extending to their win over England in 2007 although that English side wast transitioning. That was a team of Tendulkar, Sehwag, Dravid, Laxman, Kumble, Khan...

ashwin, jadeja, bumrah, shami, kohli and pujara. if Qadir can be considered an ATG then so can ashwin and jaddu bhai based on stats alone.

It's all names. Their careers aren't over yet. People are just too nostalgic about the past. The advent of t20 format has taken some shine away from tests. Only difference being players' workloads in the modern era is far higher hence players get more fatigued. That's why comparing era's I feel is always pointless.
 
ashwin, jadeja, bumrah, shami, kohli and pujara. if Qadir can be considered an ATG then so can ashwin and jaddu bhai based on stats alone.

It's all names. Their careers aren't over yet. People are just too nostalgic about the past. The advent of t20 format has taken some shine away from tests. Only difference being players' workloads in the modern era is far higher hence players get more fatigued. That's why comparing era's I feel is always pointless.

I am pretty sure no one within cricketing circles would call Ashwin a great, or Jadeja or Shami....

I did already mention Kohli and that is obvious.
 
I am pretty sure no one within cricketing circles would call Ashwin a great, or Jadeja or Shami....

I did already mention Kohli and that is obvious.

if Qadir is considered a great then those names are better than great.

ashwin and jaddu have phenomenal stats. Let them finish their careers first. There are many legends who made a career out of being SENA bullies. If they can be considered great then so can ashwin and jaddu. Shami is a great bowler. As impressive as Mitchell Johnson.

Johnson had a 2 year green patch. That's about it. What's his record in Asia? yea....
 
In India or aussie roads I will take Virat's team any day.

On any other pitch, I would take IK's team.

Infact, on any other pitch, I would take most teams over Virat's team, they are just too garbage on juicy pitches.
 
dint beat several teams away from.home and lost to a weak indian team in 89-90.

Not good enough. wins is respected not draws.

Virat's india is ahead because they dominated at home alone by crushing teams. All you can say is imran travelled better.

ganguly's india travelled even better.



Kindly shed light on which universe this took place in since Imran never lost a test to India, not even a single one as a skipper!

If you don't know much about that era, then stop taking other poster's comments and doing a copy over by saying oh not enough wins, in those days...in that era, draws in many cases were just as good as a win especially against a dominant side as WI or drawing a game in England/Australia/NZ due to difficult conditions, something India finds difficult to do a lot of times (hence so many losses) :-)

As for Kohli's India, we all know how many they have lost, if wins are such a big deal in this era, then losses should be looked down even more for this 'World Beating Indian Team' (in Indian fan's minds)
 
Kindly shed light on which universe this took place in since Imran never lost a test to India, not even a single one as a skipper!

If you don't know much about that era, then stop taking other poster's comments and doing a copy over by saying oh not enough wins, in those days...in that era, draws in many cases were just as good as a win especially against a dominant side as WI or drawing a game in England/Australia/NZ due to difficult conditions, something India finds difficult to do a lot of times (hence so many losses) :-)

As for Kohli's India, we all know how many they have lost, if wins are such a big deal in this era, then losses should be looked down even more for this 'World Beating Indian Team' (in Indian fan's minds)

draws are not as good as win. In what universe were draws ever as good as win. You need to win matches. Draws is just saying you competed well enough to come away without a loss. draw will not equate to a win.
imran's team is not good enough to warrant GOAT Asian status. Poor record overall.
India lost to England and n.z due to lack of county practice unlike in the past where touring teams had plenty of county practice. That's the only reason why imran's team had a good record vs England and n.z.

Virat's team plays not games than any other team So they don't have the time to plan ahead for county practice. Otherwise Virat's team would win in swing conditons too.
 
Kindly shed light on which universe this took place in since Imran never lost a test to India, not even a single one as a skipper!

If you don't know much about that era, then stop taking other poster's comments and doing a copy over by saying oh not enough wins, in those days...in that era, draws in many cases were just as good as a win especially against a dominant side as WI or drawing a game in England/Australia/NZ due to difficult conditions, something India finds difficult to do a lot of times (hence so many losses) :-)

As for Kohli's India, we all know how many they have lost, if wins are such a big deal in this era, then losses should be looked down even more for this 'World Beating Indian Team' (in Indian fan's minds)

they lost to a weak Sri Lanka and drew with one of the weakest indian teams of all time. That's enough to count them.out.
 
I think "a drawn test match" has to be defined in two ways (especially in the past eras!) There are two kinds of draws!

One is drawing a test match by trying to save from defeat and the other is by unfortunately missing out winning the match due to stubborn opposition/conditions! For e.g., Team A has scored like 522/7 and declared! Team B has scored like 328 & followed on and ended up at 240/6 in the 2nd innings on 5th day! Given the slow run rates in the past eras, scoring even this many runs seem to be difficult! So in this case Team B has escaped a certain defeat (if it were a timeless test match!) But the result is draw (equal parity) for both the sides!

So Team A has actually got a "Winnable Draw" (WD) to their credit and Team B got a "Losable Draw" (LD)...

So it will be interesting how many WDs & LDs have team registered in those eras (e.g., Imran's team). Because today most WDs = Wins, LDs = Loss due to improved run rates, less patience among batsmen, etc! Someone should compile all the scorecards and assess actual match contexts (if they belonged to that era!) and convert all those plain draws into WDs & LDs. Then we can start comparing with today's Wins/Losses (Draws today are basically due to absolute flat pitches or rain/light disturbance! Used to happen even in the past - and yes in such cases they can be termed as "absolute/pure/plain draws" or when the teams have played with at least 60-40 competitiveness! In Ranji we still decide winners based on 1st innings lead during draws!)
 
In other threads there are active arguments as to which is the greatest Asian Test team of all time.

For those of us who consider it to be Imran Khan's Pakistan after her returned to the captaincy in 1985, we tend to value undefeated series and away results most highly, especially against Superpowers like the GOAT West Indies team. For me a drawn series with the West Indies was worth ten times as much as a series win over Australia.

For those who opt for Kohli's India, there tends to be a belief that the sign of a strong team is winning convincingly at home.

So I have decided to tabulate their respective results against their four strongest rivals, and you can decide.

Pakistan 1985-92 at home
Drew 1-1 with the West Indies
Drew 1-1 with the West Indies
Beat England 1-0 (without Imran)
Beat Australia 1-0 (without Imran)
Drew 0-0 with India

Pakistan 1985-92 away
Drew 1-1 with the West Indies
Won 1-0 in England
Won 1-0 in India
Lost 1-0 in Australia

HOME: Played 5 series, Won 2, Drew 3, Lost 0
AWAY: Played 4 series, Won 2, Drew 1, Lost 1
OVERALL: Played 9 series, Won 4, Drew 4 Lost 1
Using the 2 points for a win and 1 for a draw which prevailed at the time, Played 9 series, 12 points.

India under Kohli at home
Beat Australia 2-1
Beat South Africa 3-0
Beat England 4-0
Beat New Zealand 3-0

India under Kohli away
Lost 2-0 in Australia
Won 2-1 against an under-strength Australia
Lost 4-1 in England
Lost 2-1 in South Africa
? in New Zealand

HOME: Played 4 series, Won 4 series
AWAY: Played 4 series, Won 1 series, Lost 3 series
OVERALL: Won 5 series, Drew 0 series, Lost 3 series
Played 8 series, 10 points.

I guess which team you consider the stronger depends upon two main things.

Firstly, do performances against the GOAT West Indies team count for more than Test performances against Haseeb Hameed or Aaron Finch?

Secondly, do home wins outweigh away defeats? I was brought up to view the summit of the Test cricket world as being like being a heavyweight champion of the world - being unbeaten, or beaten as rarely as possible - counts most. It didn't matter how many Mexican roadsweepers an up and coming boxer beat on the way to the top, what counted was not losing. Which is why Mike Tyson is remembered more for James "Buster" Douglas and Evander Holyfield than he is for demolishing Michael Spinks.

highlighted red text is wrong and disingenous. Dhoni was the captain for the series. Kholi only stood in for 2 games. after dhoni retired, kholi drew the test so actually it should be 0-0 in australia after kohli permanently became captain
 
Last edited:
draws are not as good as win. In what universe were draws ever as good as win. You need to win matches. Draws is just saying you competed well enough to come away without a loss. draw will not equate to a win.
imran's team is not good enough to warrant GOAT Asian status. Poor record overall.
India lost to England and n.z due to lack of county practice unlike in the past where touring teams had plenty of county practice. That's the only reason why imran's team had a good record vs England and n.z.

Virat's team plays not games than any other team So they don't have the time to plan ahead for county practice. Otherwise Virat's team would win in swing conditons too.

This is just a horrible excuse. It's not the first time India has lost series in NZ and eng. The record books are full of India's losses in those countries. Pakistan on the other hand has consistently done well in those conditions.
 
This is just a horrible excuse. It's not the first time India has lost series in NZ and eng. The record books are full of India's losses in those countries. Pakistan on the other hand has consistently done well in those conditions.

That logic goes out when you talk about Australia :))

Atleast we have series wins in those countries in our history
 
This is just a horrible excuse. It's not the first time India has lost series in NZ and eng. The record books are full of India's losses in those countries. Pakistan on the other hand has consistently done well in those conditions.

I am not wrong though. Pakistani players always played county. Indian players rarely do. If Virat's team practiced some county games then I am certain they will pump teams like n.z away as well. When india won in 07 it was because they practiced county games prior to playing that series.
 
That logic goes out when you talk about Australia :))

Atleast we have series wins in those countries in our history

Pakistan has numerous series wins in New Zealand and multiple in England.
 
I would actually award Chamoionship points as follows:

Home series win: 2 points
Home series draw: 1 point
Away series win: 6 points
Away series draw: 3 points

That would foster much better cricket.
 
so are you. when you are harping about australia.

australia C team without smith and warner...lets see how you win in australia next time.

that C team would run through all teams at home. They aren't weak at home without them 2. They would still annihilate every team.not named india in australia.

with smith and warnee it would be harder for india but india too had C team openers for those conditions when india played them in the last tour. So it evens out.
 
so are you. when you are harping about australia.

australia C team without smith and warner...lets see how you win in australia next time.

We've won tests and drawn series in previous tours as well.When did last Pak win a Test in Australia?
 
Back
Top