Adam Gilchrist, Matthew Hayden, Ricky Ponting vs Rohit Sharma, Shikhar Dhawan and Virat Kohli

[BunnyRabbit]

Definitely a comparison worth making. Both are the best top 3 of their respective eras (arguably).

Australian top 3 helped them win 2 Word Cups, (In the CT06, they had Watson in place of Hayden)

This Indian top order has so far not been able to win them a major tournament like WC yet, but that could very well be changed next year in 2009.

Just considering the top 3 and you could choose the no. 4-11 yourself, who would you pick?

Obviously there are/were competitions for both top 3's, Australia of early noughties had Tendulkar,Sehwag/Ganguly,Dravid who were also amazing.
Plus South Africa also had a formidable top 3 from 2003-2007 with Smith,Gibbs,Kallis.

At the moment, no top3 comes closer to indian counterpart except maybe England's. Roy,Bairstow/Hales,Root. England's top 3 may not be as good as Indian top 3 because England's team is composed of solid aggressors from top till bottom which compensates for the consistency factor of top 3.

As a neutral, I am asking, Which of the top 3 do you think is better? Indian current top3 or Australian 2000s top3

It's brutally close for me to pick one, but I might go with Australian one because of their openers better adaptability(subjective).

 

[Swashbuckler]

Australian top 3 in high pressure matches and pitches with lateral movement. Indian top 3 otherwise.

 

[Rana]

I’m tempted to say the Indian top 3, but the Aussie Top 3 are 2-3 time World Cup winners

 

[CricVet]

Comparing the bowling standard of Pak, Eng, S.A in the 90s and early 2000s Vs now, a neutral would call comparison a joke and automatically go with AU in a heart beat. AU top 3 was never disgraced like Indians in CT 2017 and was equal to WI of 80s perhaps.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

I’m tempted to say the Indian top 3, but the Aussie Top 3 are 2-3 time World Cup winners

Similarly for it's a very difficult choice. Kohli's neverending brilliance tilts it slightly in India's favour, while that top 3 is a 3 time WC winner but that definitely had a lot to do with the performance of other 8 guys as well, but then again Ponting and Gilchrist have centuries in finals.

 

[the_outsider]

Until the Indian top 3 win their team a WC, it will have to be the Australian trio.

 

[Sanzcool]

Comparing the bowling standard of Pak, Eng, S.A in the 90s and early 2000s Vs now, a neutral would call comparison a joke and automatically go with AU in a heart beat. AU top 3 was never disgraced like Indians in CT 2017 and was equal to WI of 80s perhaps.

Comparing with one game lol; If so, the 2003 WC Semis, their top 3 just got 40 runs. People tend to forget easily they also had a brilliant set of bowlers to back them up.

 

[the_outsider]

Similarly for it's a very difficult choice. Kohli's neverending brilliance tilts it slightly in India's favour, while that top 3 is a 3 time WC winner but that definitely had a lot to do with the performance of other 8 guys as well, but then again Ponting and Gilchrist have centuries in finals.

Not 3 time. 2 time WC winners. Hayden wasn't in the team in '99.

 

[the_outsider]

Comparing the bowling standard of Pak, Eng, S.A in the 90s and early 2000s Vs now, a neutral would call comparison a joke and automatically go with AU in a heart beat. AU top 3 was never disgraced like Indians in CT 2017 and was equal to WI of 80s perhaps.

English bowlers of the 90s have such a high reputation? This is news to me.

 

[shah_1]

Australia trio have done special things in two WC finals

 

[Swashbuckler]

Hayden>Dhawan
Gilchrist>Rohit
Kohli>Ponting

2-1 Aussies

 

[Bhaijaan]

Comparing the bowling standard of Pak, Eng, S.A in the 90s and early 2000s Vs now, a neutral would call comparison a joke and automatically go with AU in a heart beat. AU top 3 was never disgraced like Indians in CT 2017 and was equal to WI of 80s perhaps.

That's your ignorance because there were just enough and equal instances of Aussie top order being taken out of the equation. They did have a far better lower order to take care of things though. Besides their ATG bowling line up ensured they won even when they put up tiny totals like 220 odd.

Few instances i can think of when Aussie top order was taken out :-

* During Pakistan's 2-1 thrashing of Aussies in their home in 2002. Wasim destroyed them with the new ball.
*Pakistan again in 2003 world cup - Symonds brought them right back in the game
* In same world cup New Zealand. Shane Bond destroyed the top order.
* Again same world cup, by Sri Lanka. That's 3 teams in 1 world cup alone. How they bailed themselves out of those 3 matches is insane and goes to show the incredible depth they had in that side.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Hayden>Dhawan
Gilchrist>Rohit
Kohli>Ponting

2-1 Aussies

Nothing but insecurity complex would have you put Gilchrist over Sharma as an ODI opener.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Hayden>Dhawan
Gilchrist>Rohit
Ponting>Kohli

3-0 Aussies

Fixed.

 

[ipl_fan]

Still riding the CT wave

 

[Swashbuckler]

Nothing but insecurity complex would have you put Gilchrist over Sharma as an ODI opener.

Gilchrist in a much much tougher batting era had 36/97 stats with 16 100s. Most importantly he took on the best head on and almost always gave his team a flier. Rohit sucks all momentum at the start and cashes in against mediocre bowling on flat pancakes and miniature grounds. Contrast Gilly's record against Wasim, Akhtar, Waqar, Pollock, Vaas, Gough, Srinath (90s-mid 00s pitches) vs Rohit's achievements against Steyn, Rabada, Amir, Starc, Boult (2010s pancakes) etc.

Rohit is limited in the sense that he can't do much unless the pitch is flat. Literally a dud who wafts at thin air the minute ball doesn't follow linear path. Remember what the likes of Steyn, Amir and Kulasekara have done to him when there was lateral movement available. Gilchrist may not have scored blazing 100s on tricky pitches but not many are capable of making fools of themselves like the Hitman.

Gilchrist scored 2 rapid 50s and an almost 150 in the 3 WC finals he featured in, as mentally tough as they come. No one else has such a dazzling record in the WC final stage. In ICC KOs Rohit has only bashed Bangladesh.

In fact all 3 of those Aussie stalwarts flourished in the grand stage (WC, CT) which only makes the contest more lopsided.

 

[Ab Fan]

Sharma is overrated as hell. Failed in three biggest match of his career- CT 2013, CT 2017 and WC15 semis.

And Gilly the opposite delivered in three biggest match of his career.

 

[cricketindiafan]

Gilly, Haydos and Punter from 2001-2006 were an unbeatable force. Bigger the stage, better they all played. Just for the two WCs they won, no other trio can come close without repeating that feat.

Rohit, Dhawan and Kohli, for all their successes have been below par in finals.

 

[Proactive_]

Gilchrist >> Rohit
Ponting >>> Kohli

Dhawan vs Hayden is an interesting case. Dhawan is an absolute beast in ODI Tournaments and always ups his game on the big stage. Hayden has been very good in Tournaments as well. I'd say Hayden takes this but not my much.

Overall this is a laughable comparison. Rohit Sharma is a tailender against any semblance of swing or seam, and Kohli is the master choker in ODI Tournament Knockouts.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Gilly, Haydos and Punter from 2001-2006 were an unbeatable force. Bigger the stage, better they all played. Just for the two WCs they won, no other trio can come close without repeating that feat.

Rohit, Dhawan and Kohli, for all their successes have been below par in finals.

Luck and an overall well balanced squad with huge depth and caliber helped along the way.

1999 wc final - They weren't even playing the final if not for the silly run out tie in semis.
2003 wc final - Lankans just needed to score 220 odd runs. The same Aussie battign fell apart in the semis. The Lankans could not take make it count.
2007 - Yes thats one tournament they totally dominated


Now for Indians :-

CT final 2013 - Seaming conditions, low scoring match. The batting dominated throughout the tournament.
2015 semi - Up against a QUALITY Aussie bowling line up. Not that India complely fell apart, up till Dhawan departed we were in the hunt. Dhawan was SPECTACULAR that day.
2016 T20 semi - Kohli came into his own. Not his fault the bowling couldn't contain Windies.
2017 CT final - Chasing 340. It happens. When the the Aussie big 3 have to chase down 340 in a final and got past it?


Don't be harsh on Indian trio.

Yes, stature wise a few of the names are not up there but they have been amazing.

 

[Mamoon]

Would take the Indian trio, collectively and individually. This is the greatest top three in ODI cricket history.

 

[Swashbuckler]

The apt comparison will be Hayden/Gilchrist/Ponting vs Greenidge/Haynes/Viv. Don't go by stats alone because different era. That WI top 3 was so far ahead of its time and especially compared to the peers that I feel it will be too close to call. Viv the ODI GOAT alone is a weapon that is way beyond Ponting's league.

 

[Ab Fan]

Rohit Sharma really needs to step up his game on big occasions. He is in danger of becoming another Hashim Amla. Scoring runs against Bangladesh or West Indies in ICC tournaments is fine but to become one of the greats of the game, he has to deliver as a big match player.

Shikhar is good and he is matchable to Hayden but Haydos is weakest of trio.

Kohli should surpass Ponting as well and can go down as greatest ever.So, it is Sharma that lets this trio down in front of the three Australian legends.

 

[BaankeJi]

To say that Aussie trio won world cup for Australia is flawed. They won it with help of others
This argument has to vanish from people's minds. It is one of the most nonsenical argument. Ever.
Nobody can win or lose his team a game on his own.

 

[Sam99]

Sharma is overrated as hell. Failed in three biggest match of his career- CT 2013, CT 2017 and WC15 semis.

And Gilly the opposite delivered in three biggest match of his career.

Virat & Dhawan too failed? Rohit has century in quarter finals of 2015 wc which none of current indian player has.

 

[Hasan123]

Would take the Indian trio, collectively and individually. This is the greatest top three in ODI cricket history.

Our fans are guilty of overhyping no doubt but you are also equally guilty.

Pandya surpassing Kapil
Buttler as good as ABD
Bishoo having more ability than Yasir
De Kock surpassing Gilchrist

I mean these claims are way over the top and just as bad as Pakistan fans overhyping players.

Rohit is a good ODI player but do you honestly see him scoring against the greatest bowling attacks of all time ? Same with Dhwaan. I am one of the first to admit that batsmen can only score what's in front of them but when you see quality of bowling Gilchrist and Hayden faced and see how Rohit struggles on bowling friendly pitches it's wrong to say he's a part of the greatest top 3 in history.

Usually to consider someone great, it would mean they would excel in any era. Whilst Kohli might excel in any era I doubt Rohit and Dhwaan would.

I have no issue with you saying they are better than the Australian trio. But calling them the greatest ODI trio in history, give me a break.

 

[Wahid1234]

This is close contest but if I had to bet on my life I'll take take the Indian top trio.

 

[gazza619]

Excellent thread. I think I would take India top 3 as well because you can count on them to make double hundreds. Kohli alone is enough for me.

 

[the_outsider]

Our fans are guilty of overhyping no doubt but you are also equally guilty.

Pandya surpassing Kapil
Buttler as good as ABD
Bishoo having more ability than Yasir
De Kock surpassing Gilchrist

I mean these claims are way over the top and just as bad as Pakistan fans overhyping players.

Rohit is a good ODI player but do you honestly see him scoring against the greatest bowling attacks of all time ? Same with Dhwaan. I am one of the first to admit that batsmen can only score what's in front of them but when you see quality of bowling Gilchrist and Hayden faced and see how Rohit struggles on bowling friendly pitches it's wrong to say he's a part of the greatest top 3 in history.

Usually to consider someone great, it would mean they would excel in any era. Whilst Kohli might excel in any era I doubt Rohit and Dhwaan would.

I have no issue with you saying they are better than the Australian trio. But calling them the greatest ODI trio in history, give me a break.

While I don't want to comment on comparing Rohit with any of the Aussies I do want to say that you're being too harsh on Rohit.

I've seen him score a 50 on one of the greenest pitches in Johanesburg in the 2007 T20 WC against Pollock, Ntini and co. I've seen him score 50s in Australia against Lee, Johnson, etc in 2008 in Australia. All of those innings before he crossed 20 years of age.

Since then I've seen him score hundreds against the likes of Starc, Johnson, Hazlewood in Australia. He scored a hundred against Rabada, Morkel and Ngidi in SA and a 150 against them plus Steyn in India. And he has a century against Boult and Southee. And against Malinga too.

And these are just the pacers. We never talk about spinners. It's like we assume that they aren't any threat to batsmen at all.

So it's unfair to say that Rohit can't play quality bowling or that he can't score on bowling pitches. .

 

[Sachin136]

Our fans are guilty of overhyping no doubt but you are also equally guilty.

Pandya surpassing Kapil
Buttler as good as ABD
Bishoo having more ability than Yasir
De Kock surpassing Gilchrist

I mean these claims are way over the top and just as bad as Pakistan fans overhyping players.

Rohit is a good ODI player but do you honestly see him scoring against the greatest bowling attacks of all time ? Same with Dhwaan. I am one of the first to admit that batsmen can only score what's in front of them but when you see quality of bowling Gilchrist and Hayden faced and see how Rohit struggles on bowling friendly pitches it's wrong to say he's a part of the greatest top 3 in history.

Usually to consider someone great, it would mean they would excel in any era. Whilst Kohli might excel in any era I doubt Rohit and Dhwaan would.

I have no issue with you saying they are better than the Australian trio. But calling them the greatest ODI trio in history, give me a break.

How many times has Rohit failed on bowling friendly pitches in ODIs?

Gilchrist average in the mid 30s. That's simply not good enough to be compared with someone like Rohit who averages 20 points more as an opener. I feel Gilchrist gets overhyped due to those 2 innings. Even Amla is a better opener.

 

[Rana]

Would take the Indian trio, collectively and individually. This is the greatest top three in ODI cricket history.

I used to like reading your posts but of late you’ve sort of lost the plot a bit. Mind you, your judging this top 3 due to red hot forms of late and that too with their bludgeoning of teams like Pakistan, Sri Lanka, West Indies and the occasional bashing of decent teams at home.

 

[the_outsider]

I used to like reading your posts but of late you’ve sort of lost the plot a bit. Mind you, your judging this top 3 due to red hot forms of late and that too with their bludgeoning of teams like Pakistan, Sri Lanka, West Indies and the occasional bashing of decent teams at home.

Don't forget the 5-1 in SA from earlier this year.

 

[Hasan123]

While I don't want to comment on comparing Rohit with any of the Aussies I do want to say that you're being too harsh on Rohit.

I've seen him score a 50 on one of the greenest pitches in Johanesburg in the 2007 T20 WC against Pollock, Ntini and co. I've seen him score 50s in Australia against Lee, Johnson, etc in 2008 in Australia. All of those innings before he crossed 20 years of age.

Since then I've seen him score hundreds against the likes of Starc, Johnson, Hazlewood in Australia. He scored a hundred against Rabada, Morkel and Ngidi in SA and a 150 against them plus Steyn in India. And he has a century against Boult and Southee. And against Malinga too.

And these are just the pacers. We never talk about spinners. It's like we assume that they aren't any threat to batsmen at all.

So it's unfair to say that Rohit can't play quality bowling or that he can't score on bowling pitches. .

I was a bit harsh on Rohit. Of course he has scored on difficult pitches and against quality bowling but let's be honest most of his best innings have been absolute roads.

Whilst I think he is fantastic LO opener, to say call someone greatest means they would have to excel in any era. Rohit would fail mode often than not against the bowlers of the 90s.

He will finish his career as a brilliant LO opener but better than Gilchrist,Sannath,Greenedige,Ganguly? Not for me.

 

[Hasan123]

How many times has Rohit failed on bowling friendly pitches in ODIs?

Gilchrist average in the mid 30s. That's simply not good enough to be compared with someone like Rohit who averages 20 points more as an opener. I feel Gilchrist gets overhyped due to those 2 innings. Even Amla is a better opener.

Gilchrist revolutionized the way openers and wicket keepers are thought of.

He was playing against a higher quality of bowling, whilst he might be overhyped his overall standing in the game isn't.

 

[the_outsider]

I was a bit harsh on Rohit. Of course he has scored on difficult pitches and against quality bowling but let's be honest most of his best innings have been absolute roads.

Whilst I think he is fantastic LO opener, to say call someone greatest means they would have to excel in any era. Rohit would fail mode often than not against the bowlers of the 90s.

He will finish his career as a brilliant LO opener but better than Gilchrist,Sannath,Greenedige,Ganguly? Not for me.

But there isn't any definte indication of that, statistically. That's kind of my point. He has scored hundreds against the best pacers of his era. And against spin he is an absolute beast.

I don't want to compare across such vast time spans so I have no idea about Greenidge.

Gilchirst was not just an opening batsman but also the best modern-day ODI wicketkeeper so overall I would certainly rate him over Rohit. Same thing with Jayasurya who is an all-rounder with 300+ wickets and again with Ganguly because he also brought his captaincy to the table - and I believe he is one of the finest captains of all time. So as overall cricketers all of them are ahead of Rohit in my books.

But purely as an opening batsman is Rohit Sharma better than Jayasurya, Gilchirst and Ganguly? In my opinion, yes. And that's coming from a Bengali who is a die-hard Ganguly fan.

 

[Ab Fan]

Since we can't compare both trio due to difference in generation, it can be better if we rate them individually.

Ponting and Gilly are odi ATGs while Hayden is an odi great.

Dhawan and Rohit are odi greats while Kohli is an ODI ATG. Rohit can become an ATG if he continues his good form and plays a terrific inning in WC 2019 against a top team while Kohli will become a GOAT after he has a prolific World Cup in 2019. So, the upcoming WC will decide on quite a few things of the current trio.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Pound for Pound the Indian top 3 will give any top 3 in odis history a run for their money.

But winning trophies is something thats entirely another thing.

The aussies had s bowling line up of Lee Mcgrath Gillespie Warne Tait. India doesnot have thst kind of bowling. In future though Bumrah Chahal and Kuldeep can be lethal.

So pound for pound the top 3 is right up there.

 

[Wahid1234]

Pound for Pound the Indian top 3 will give any top 3 in odis history a run for their money.

But winning trophies is something thats entirely another thing.

The aussies had s bowling line up of Lee Mcgrath Gillespie Warne Tait. India doesnot have thst kind of bowling. In future though Bumrah Chahal and Kuldeep can be lethal.

So pound for pound the top 3 is right up there.

Totally agree Pound for Pound the Indian top 3 are the best ever in the history of cricket. Lethal combo

 

[jnaveen1980]

Gilchrist >> Rohit
Ponting >>> Kohli

Dhawan vs Hayden is an interesting case. Dhawan is an absolute beast in ODI Tournaments and always ups his game on the big stage. Hayden has been very good in Tournaments as well. I'd say Hayden takes this but not my much.

Overall this is a laughable comparison. Rohit Sharma is a tailender against any semblance of swing or seam, and Kohli is the master choker in ODI Tournament Knockouts.

In what world Ponting >>> Kohli lol

 

[jnaveen1980]

Gilchrist never put a price on his wicket. That is not the luxury that other openers could do. Reason was Australia could afford to do that. His job was to go after bowling regardless of the situation. If we are talking about hunting down big totals i would pick Rohit/Dhawan/Kohli over Ponting/Hayden/Gilchrist any day. If it is setting i would pick them.

 

[jnaveen1980]

If we strictly talk about aesthetics Rohit/Kohli/Dhawan would trump Australians hands down. From Australia guys like Damien Martyn, Mark Waugh were elegant. Not these guys. Although i like Gilchrist's flourish when he hoicks over midwicket.

 

[Hasan123]

But there isn't any definte indication of that, statistically. That's kind of my point. He has scored hundreds against the best pacers of his era. And against spin he is an absolute beast.

I don't want to compare across such vast time spans so I have no idea about Greenidge.

Gilchirst was not just an opening batsman but also the best modern-day ODI wicketkeeper so overall I would certainly rate him over Rohit. Same thing with Jayasurya who is an all-rounder with 300+ wickets and again with Ganguly because he also brought his captaincy to the table - and I believe he is one of the finest captains of all time. So as overall cricketers all of them are ahead of Rohit in my books.

But purely as an opening batsman is Rohit Sharma better than Jayasurya, Gilchirst and Ganguly? In my opinion, yes. And that's coming from a Bengali who is a die-hard Ganguly fan.

My main point was to say that Indian top 3 isn't the greatest in history due to the opening pair.

I don't rate Rohit higher than Sannath,Gilly, and Ganguly. But I respect your opinion.

 

[gazza619]

Please no personal attacks and/or abuse guys. Banter can be done within limits

 

[the_outsider]

My main point was to say that Indian top 3 isn't the greatest in history due to the opening pair.

I don't rate Rohit higher than Sannath,Gilly, and Ganguly. But I respect your opinion.

I don't think this Indian top 3 is the greatest in history. I think it's one of the best but certainly not the best.

Gilly, Haydos and Ponting were definitely better. Now, if this Indian side can win a WC then I think a strong case can be made. But as of now, it's definitely the Aussies.

But of course I respect your opinion too.

 

[the_outsider]

Please no personal attacks and/or abuse guys. Banter can be done within limits

I thought I was just being funny. Sorry.

 

[par]

Since we can't compare both trio due to difference in generation, it can be better if we rate them individually.

Ponting and Gilly are odi ATGs while Hayden is an odi great.

Dhawan and Rohit are odi greats while Kohli is an ODI ATG. Rohit can become an ATG if he continues his good form and plays a terrific inning in WC 2019 against a top team while Kohli will become a GOAT after he has a prolific World Cup in 2019. So, the upcoming WC will decide on quite a few things of the current trio.

Gilchrist is an ATG because he was a great keeper-batsman, not as pure batsman.

 

[giri26]

Well Hayden, Ponting and Gilly were a scary ODI top 3 and what made that combination even more brilliant is the batting which followed them. Australia had a gun middle order during that time which comprised of Symonds, Damien Martyn, Michael Hussey. MG Bevan, S Waugh, D Lehmann et all before that. India don't have that luxury, these three are great but what follows them is horrible. So extra bit of pressure on them. In spite of that they have been churning out amazing scores knowing very well that if they get out, their chances of winning drops by 60%.

 

[Gullycricket]

I cannot believe some posters here especially Mr Mamoon seriously believe current Indian top 3 to be better than an ATG top 3.Look at the bowling at that time they had to face and you will understand.No powerplay gimmicks,no free hits etc.Sehwag, Ganguly, Tendulkar trio were better than current lot.
We saw how Indian top 3 has failed consistently in pressure situations.Barring Kohli Right now England top order is the best.Thats whom they should be compared with.

 

[Slog]

laughable comparison right now

what is it? 8 WC medals to 1?

 

[CricVet]

That's your ignorance because there were just enough and equal instances of Aussie top order being taken out of the equation. They did have a far better lower order to take care of things though. Besides their ATG bowling line up ensured they won even when they put up tiny totals like 220 odd.

Few instances i can think of when Aussie top order was taken out :-

* During Pakistan's 2-1 thrashing of Aussies in their home in 2002. Wasim destroyed them with the new ball.
*Pakistan again in 2003 world cup - Symonds brought them right back in the game
* In same world cup New Zealand. Shane Bond destroyed the top order.
* Again same world cup, by Sri Lanka. That's 3 teams in 1 world cup alone. How they bailed themselves out of those 3 matches is insane and goes to show the incredible depth they had in that side.

Lol. Are you not the one who predicted India would embarrass England in England? Talk about ignorance and knowledge of cricket.

Getting back to the subject, your ignorance of cricket and comprehension shows when you failed to read what I typed. Comparing batting against today's set of fast bowlers on roads vs past great bowlers of AU top order era is a joke. On top of it, you picked up examples of bowlers which are among the best ever. If your Indian top order had faced the bowling of Wasim, Bond, Vaas, and Murali ( although he was a chucker granted) in a high profile tournament playoffs, their stats would not be even as good as tendular & ganguly combined.

Oh well...I look forward to you creating a new thread of India embarrassing AU in AU soon LOL

 

[Sunny_majoka]

Rohit = Gilchrist
Dhawan< hyden
Kohli > ponting
But i will take Australian trio they are 2 tine worlcup winners. Indian trio has lot to prove and i am sure at the end of their careers they will surpass the Australians

 

[Harshu814]

Lol. Are you not the one who predicted India would embarrass England in England? Talk about ignorance and knowledge of cricket.

Getting back to the subject, your ignorance of cricket and comprehension shows when you failed to read what I typed. Comparing batting against today's set of fast bowlers on roads vs past great bowlers of AU top order era is a joke. On top of it, you picked up examples of bowlers which are among the best ever. If your Indian top order had faced the bowling of Wasim, Bond, Vaas, and Murali ( although he was a chucker granted) in a high profile tournament playoffs, their stats would not be even as good as tendular & ganguly combined.

Oh well...I look forward to you creating a new thread of India embarrassing AU in AU soon LOL

So by your logic, all of those pakistanis who predicted pak will humiliate india in asia cup and virat kohli ran away from amir ...has no cricket knowledge?nice one
-thats what fans di they support thier teams ,wtever is in front
-People keep compairing different era players is plain stupid and also assuming theyll roll over ....
1)just like how murli was very less effective in modern times against indians..so was bret lee when this people started playing ,one can argue its due to age or i can argue its coz of modern barting talent

How ofter did we see scoop shots,reverse sweeps,late cuts and playing outside offstump balls towards legstumps? Moder era made batsmen think in way they hardly did before.

Yes there are cases of better bats but one has to admit it could be that easy that had many of current modern era players played in 90s or even 2000 era they may have excelled !!
One just gives thier fav bowlers and batsmen greats and ATG status as they like and thats what cricket is

-if pitches were roads then why didnt opposition scored better? Coz if u come to think of it even on road without talent u cant out score opposition let alone make 200s

-in old days there werent any detailed review of pitches or any relarive statistical data for this kind of compairision
-in those days if batsman scored 100-150 or even 183 nooone would critisize pitch,theyll be given tag as great knocks while nowdays if anyone score 100or more people say eh its on a road.

Have u even seen 1992 worldcup highlights? Compare it with batting today, its not like bowling was really hard at that time i rather find batsmen lacked technique

In those days india and pakistan both teams were relatively weaker and less skilled( pak team was supirior to rest asia in those days that they have lost now) yes u read it right
Fans always hype up thier playes of old ,no doubt they were good but they too had many flaws which noone talks about.
This scenario is like just imagining case of bangladesh for them right now india,eng,aus are big birds ,if days come when bangladesh dominates world cricker with good bunch of cricketers ,people will still compare them with the ones they used to watch during thier minnow days and come up with unrealistic theories like they wouldnt have scored againsr this bowlers that bowlers ,they couldnt bat as well as this one and that one , but in reality they dont know , they might would have excelled if they are sent to those time periods (or may be not) but thing is this kind of comparision is pointless

Besides australia had atg side not just players ,just like how when pakistam wins against india. Ct 17 people forgot how bad amir has dont before and afyer CT but he was hailed as if he was most succesful and so were many players

Its normal for one to leave out flaws and bad perfomance when team wins ,and that is why all those matches where aus top 3 failed but thier middle order and bowlers saved them and yet they werent critisied that much as much as indian top3 are when they dont score and middle order as usual just sinks the team

Just answer this question
What do u think old times had better?

Batting? Coz if its so how come runs scored in this era are considered on roads when likes of pointing,hayden,gilchrist never faced bumrah,bhuvi,ashwin&jaddu in tests could they have survived ? I really doubt!! The excelled mostly due to rest of teams being mediocre as a unit

-bowling? If so how come likes of anderson became highest wicket taker in tests coz according to ur logic teams score on roads now days and by that logic bowling isnt good enough but then again modern day have many bowlers breaking reocrd s of fastest 50-100-150 wickets !!

So u cant play it both ways either batsmen in this era is better or bowlers are coz somethinng has to othewise both batsmen and bowlers cant breake these many records!!

 

[Mamoon]

[MENTION=141114]Hasan123[/MENTION]
[MENTION=147699]Gullycricket[/MENTION]

Let me clarify a few things first - I did not say that Pandya and Buttler will surpass Kapil and de Villiers; I said that they have the ability to reach their level based on the talent that they possess.

As far as Gilchrist is concerned, there is no doubt that he is was the greatest wicket-keeper batsman of all time in Tests, and he was a legend in ODIs as well and certainly among the top ODI openers of all time.

However, purely as an ODI batsman, he gets overrated a lot because of his exploits in World Cup finals, and we cannot take that away from him of course, but we need to have some perspective as well.

With all said and done, he has only 16 hundreds playing for the best team by a country mile, with the luxury of not having to face bowlers from his team.

The likes of Rohit and de Kock have surpassed/matches his hundreds tally in spite of playing over a 100 innings less. That is a damning fact that cannot be balanced by any hypotheticals. (i.e. pitches, bowlers, conditions etc.)

For all the remarkable talent that Gilchrist had, he underachieved a lot in ODIs, and should have scored 25-30 tons.

Let’s put his knockout performances into context as well. Yes has three 50+ scores in three World Cup finals including a mammoth hundred which is great, but he failed in the following big matches:

1999 World Cup semifinal
2003 World Cup semifinal
2004 Champions Trophy seminal
2006 Champions Trophy semifinal
2007 World Cup semifinal
2007 World T20 semifinal

He failed in every semifinal that he played (6), but Australia only lost one of those semifinals, and that is the luxury that you get when you play for the greatest team of all time.

In spite of choking so much, his team was able to carry him to three World Cup finals and one of them was won by the bowlers (1999).

If you have the luxury of playing a dozen knockout matches, it is not a big deal if you perform in one or two. Gilchrist did not perform any miracle, he was bound to do well eventually - any quality batsman will eventually score in a knockout game if he gets to play so often.

He also failed in the 2006 Champions Trophy Final, but I have excluded that because Australia were chasing a low total like the 1999 World Cup.

Do you think someone like Rohit can afford to flop in 6 semifinals and still have the luxury of playing three finals and winning titles?

If an Indian, South African, English or Pakistani batsman fails in all the 6 semifinals of his career, he will retired with no trophies and will be dubbed a choker.

It is about time people stop underrating Rohit in ODIs. He is a phenomenal batsman who has an extra gear that no other batsman has. The consistency with which he converts his 100s into 150s and 200s is mind-boggling, and he weathered the storm in tough conditions many times, and I am sure he can do well in a couple of knockouts if his team helps him play a dozen.

There is no objective basis for putting Gilchrist as an ODI opener at a higher level than Rohit. They are different players in their approach, and who is more or less valuable depends on the team composition and strengths.

For a team like Australia with a great middle and lower-order, an explosive opener like Gilchrist worked wonders. They could afford to have throw his wicket away after 10-15 overs as long as he got them off to a flier.

However, for this Indian team that has a weak middle and lower-order, they need an opener like Rohit who can play through the innings consistently and score big.

I am focusing on Gilchrist because he was brought up in comparison to Rohit, but the likes of Hayden and Ponting have failed in various knockouts but the overall superiority of their team carried them through.

As far as the pitches are concerned, again, it is a myth that the Australian top three playing on minefields. ODI pitches have been flat since the 90s, and 2000s saw plenty of big scores as well. 330+ was getting common, and 400 was breached twice (in the same game) in 2006 not 2016.

The average score has gone up in the 2010s, but it has more to do with the improvement in power hitting rather than the conditions, and even if concede that it is the latter, this Indian lineup will not struggle to post 300+ consistently in the 2000s.

When it comes to the bowlers, the bowling was great in the 90s, but in the 2000s, most of the great 90s bowlers were a shadow of their former selves and on the brink of retirement. Wasim and Waqar were pretty much done by 2001.

Ambrose and Walsh were gone, Donald and Pollock were about to retire and New Zealand have a better bowling attack today. It was all Bond or nothing back then, and he reduced the Australian top three to mediocrity pretty much every time they played against him.

England’s bowling was better than today because of Gough, but it was not a great attack by any means. Sri Lanka had Muralitharan, but Malinga is better than Vaas.

Pakistan’s attack was better though, in spite of the decline of Wasim and Waqar. Shoaib was in his peak and he won a series for Pakistan in Australia in 2002.

The best bowling attack was of course the Australian one, which they had the luxury of not facing. I highly doubt that Gilchrist’s indiscipline with the bat and high risk shots would have fared well against the metronomic accuracy and precision of McGrath.

People conveniently forget that it was the Australian bowling attack and the middle/lower-order that bailed the highly acclaimed Australian top three on so many occasions, especially in the 2003 World Cup before they came good in the final.

You put Rohit, Dhawan and Kohli in the team and take Gilchrist, Hayden and Ponting out, and they will still win everything.

 

[Mamoon]

I used to like reading your posts but of late you’ve sort of lost the plot a bit. Mind you, your judging this top 3 due to red hot forms of late and that too with their bludgeoning of teams like Pakistan, Sri Lanka, West Indies and the occasional bashing of decent teams at home.

You got it the other way round. The Indian top 3 have actually underperformed against weak teams. Their averages against the likes of Bangladesh, West Indies etc. are below their career averages.

Their averages are inflated because of bashing the top teams.

 

[Mamoon]

Gilchrist revolutionized the way openers and wicket keepers are thought of.

He was playing against a higher quality of bowling, whilst he might be overhyped his overall standing in the game isn't.

Gilchrist did not revolutionize anything in ODIs. Sri Lanka changed the roles of ODI openers before Gilchrist made his debut with Jayasuriya and Kaluwitharana (wicket-keeper batsman).

 

[rudra]

Gilly and sehwag have dissapointed their team a lot of times. Innumerous time they will get out of quickfire 20-30.
Even if they went past 50 they will still throw away.
But not with rohit he is a rarity, an opener who plays throughout the innings without breaking sweat.

 

[ind_win]

Gilchrist did not revolutionize anything in ODIs. Sri Lanka changed the roles of ODI openers before Gilchrist made his debut with Jayasuriya and Kaluwitharana (wicket-keeper batsman).

What about Kris Srikanth, he used play with same daredevilry for those 20s-30s and more importantly with greater strike rates than his peers which were ok for the 1980s ?

 

[Mamoon]

What about Kris Srikanth, he used play with same daredevilry for those 20s-30s and more importantly with greater strike rates than his peers which were ok for the 1980s ?

He did not achieve much success which is why he is largely forgotten. I think he has only 2-3 hundreds.

Jayasuriya not only scored fast but scored big when other openers were busy seeing off the new ball, which is why he gets more credit and fanfare than the aggressive openers before him.

 

[Hasan123]

[MENTION=141114]Hasan123[/MENTION]

[MENTION=147699]Gullycricket[/MENTION]

Let me clarify a few things first - I did not say that Pandya and Buttler will surpass Kapil and de Villiers; I said that they have the ability to reach their level based on the talent that they possess.

As far as Gilchrist is concerned, there is no doubt that he is was the greatest wicket-keeper batsman of all time in Tests, and he was a legend in ODIs as well and certainly among the top ODI openers of all time.

However, purely as an ODI batsman, he gets overrated a lot because of his exploits in World Cup finals, and we cannot take that away from him of course, but we need to have some perspective as well.

With all said and done, he has only 16 hundreds playing for the best team by a country mile, with the luxury of not having to face bowlers from his team.

The likes of Rohit and de Kock have surpassed/matches his hundreds tally in spite of playing over a 100 innings less. That is a damning fact that cannot be balanced by any hypotheticals. (i.e. pitches, bowlers, conditions etc.)

For all the remarkable talent that Gilchrist had, he underachieved a lot in ODIs, and should have scored 25-30 tons.

Let’s put his knockout performances into context as well. Yes has three 50+ scores in three World Cup finals including a mammoth hundred which is great, but he failed in the following big matches:

1999 World Cup semifinal
2003 World Cup semifinal
2004 Champions Trophy seminal
2006 Champions Trophy semifinal
2007 World Cup semifinal
2007 World T20 semifinal

He failed in every semifinal that he played (6), but Australia only lost one of those semifinals, and that is the luxury that you get when you play for the greatest team of all time.

In spite of choking so much, his team was able to carry him to three World Cup finals and one of them was won by the bowlers (1999).

If you have the luxury of playing a dozen knockout matches, it is not a big deal if you perform in one or two. Gilchrist did not perform any miracle, he was bound to do well eventually - any quality batsman will eventually score in a knockout game if he gets to play so often.

He also failed in the 2006 Champions Trophy Final, but I have excluded that because Australia were chasing a low total like the 1999 World Cup.

Do you think someone like Rohit can afford to flop in 6 semifinals and still have the luxury of playing three finals and winning titles?

If an Indian, South African, English or Pakistani batsman fails in all the 6 semifinals of his career, he will retired with no trophies and will be dubbed a choker.

It is about time people stop underrating Rohit in ODIs. He is a phenomenal batsman who has an extra gear that no other batsman has. The consistency with which he converts his 100s into 150s and 200s is mind-boggling, and he weathered the storm in tough conditions many times, and I am sure he can do well in a couple of knockouts if his team helps him play a dozen.

There is no objective basis for putting Gilchrist as an ODI opener at a higher level than Rohit. They are different players in their approach, and who is more or less valuable depends on the team composition and strengths.

For a team like Australia with a great middle and lower-order, an explosive opener like Gilchrist worked wonders. They could afford to have throw his wicket away after 10-15 overs as long as he got them off to a flier.

However, for this Indian team that has a weak middle and lower-order, they need an opener like Rohit who can play through the innings consistently and score big.

I am focusing on Gilchrist because he was brought up in comparison to Rohit, but the likes of Hayden and Ponting have failed in various knockouts but the overall superiority of their team carried them through.

As far as the pitches are concerned, again, it is a myth that the Australian top three playing on minefields. ODI pitches have been flat since the 90s, and 2000s saw plenty of big scores as well. 330+ was getting common, and 400 was breached twice (in the same game) in 2006 not 2016.

The average score has gone up in the 2010s, but it has more to do with the improvement in power hitting rather than the conditions, and even if concede that it is the latter, this Indian lineup will not struggle to post 300+ consistently in the 2000s.

When it comes to the bowlers, the bowling was great in the 90s, but in the 2000s, most of the great 90s bowlers were a shadow of their former selves and on the brink of retirement. Wasim and Waqar were pretty much done by 2001.

Ambrose and Walsh were gone, Donald and Pollock were about to retire and New Zealand have a better bowling attack today. It was all Bond or nothing back then, and he reduced the Australian top three to mediocrity pretty much every time they played against him.

England’s bowling was better than today because of Gough, but it was not a great attack by any means. Sri Lanka had Muralitharan, but Malinga is better than Vaas.

Pakistan’s attack was better though, in spite of the decline of Wasim and Waqar. Shoaib was in his peak and he won a series for Pakistan in Australia in 2002.

The best bowling attack was of course the Australian one, which they had the luxury of not facing. I highly doubt that Gilchrist’s indiscipline with the bat and high risk shots would have fared well against the metronomic accuracy and precision of McGrath.

People conveniently forget that it was the Australian bowling attack and the middle/lower-order that bailed the highly acclaimed Australian top three on so many occasions, especially in the 2003 World Cup before they came good in the final.

You put Rohit, Dhawan and Kohli in the team and take Gilchrist, Hayden and Ponting out, and they will still win everything.

I rate Pandya but him matching Kapil is a hillairious statement. And you see Buttler playing some of the knocks ABD did in tests? I am a Buttler fan and I can say he won't reach AB level in tests unfortunately. LO is a different story though.


You never answer my point conveniently throughout your whole post. To consider someone the greatest of all time , they would have to excel in any era. You honestly think Rohit would have lasted against the 90s bowlers in there peak regardless if the pitches were flat?

 

[Hasan123]

Gilchrist did not revolutionize anything in ODIs. Sri Lanka changed the roles of ODI openers before Gilchrist made his debut with Jayasuriya and Kaluwitharana (wicket-keeper batsman).

Him and Sannath did revolutionize the ODI game by playing in a positive manner from the PP overs.

 

[ind_win]

He did not achieve much success which is why he is largely forgotten. I think he has only 2-3 hundreds.

Jayasuriya not only scored fast but scored big when other openers were busy seeing off the new ball, which is why he gets more credit and fanfare than the aggressive openers before him.

I agree to an extent.
Two things I can recall which were kris srikanth's case

1. His career between 1984-1988 was good, strike rates were great. He did not upgrade his game like Jayasuriya did.
2. The forehead injury in W.Akram's bowling in a test, if I am right, in 1989 brought his downfall as captain and player also.

To Jayasuriya's credit he was an ordinary player for 7 years after his career started but post 1996 he was like a terror to mainly our Sub-contiental teams. This is because like one poster opined on another thread most of the games he played vs Ind and Pak and in sub-continental conditions.

Anyhow, Jayasuriya over-acheived and Srikanth underachieved is my feeling.

 

[Ab Fan]

[MENTION=141114]Hasan123[/MENTION]

[MENTION=147699]Gullycricket[/MENTION]

Let me clarify a few things first - I did not say that Pandya and Buttler will surpass Kapil and de Villiers; I said that they have the ability to reach their level based on the talent that they possess.

As far as Gilchrist is concerned, there is no doubt that he is was the greatest wicket-keeper batsman of all time in Tests, and he was a legend in ODIs as well and certainly among the top ODI openers of all time.

However, purely as an ODI batsman, he gets overrated a lot because of his exploits in World Cup finals, and we cannot take that away from him of course, but we need to have some perspective as well.

With all said and done, he has only 16 hundreds playing for the best team by a country mile, with the luxury of not having to face bowlers from his team.

The likes of Rohit and de Kock have surpassed/matches his hundreds tally in spite of playing over a 100 innings less. That is a damning fact that cannot be balanced by any hypotheticals. (i.e. pitches, bowlers, conditions etc.)

For all the remarkable talent that Gilchrist had, he underachieved a lot in ODIs, and should have scored 25-30 tons.

Let’s put his knockout performances into context as well. Yes has three 50+ scores in three World Cup finals including a mammoth hundred which is great, but he failed in the following big matches:

1999 World Cup semifinal
2003 World Cup semifinal
2004 Champions Trophy seminal
2006 Champions Trophy semifinal
2007 World Cup semifinal
2007 World T20 semifinal

He failed in every semifinal that he played (6), but Australia only lost one of those semifinals, and that is the luxury that you get when you play for the greatest team of all time.

In spite of choking so much, his team was able to carry him to three World Cup finals and one of them was won by the bowlers (1999).

If you have the luxury of playing a dozen knockout matches, it is not a big deal if you perform in one or two. Gilchrist did not perform any miracle, he was bound to do well eventually - any quality batsman will eventually score in a knockout game if he gets to play so often.

He also failed in the 2006 Champions Trophy Final, but I have excluded that because Australia were chasing a low total like the 1999 World Cup.

Do you think someone like Rohit can afford to flop in 6 semifinals and still have the luxury of playing three finals and winning titles?

If an Indian, South African, English or Pakistani batsman fails in all the 6 semifinals of his career, he will retired with no trophies and will be dubbed a choker.

It is about time people stop underrating Rohit in ODIs. He is a phenomenal batsman who has an extra gear that no other batsman has. The consistency with which he converts his 100s into 150s and 200s is mind-boggling, and he weathered the storm in tough conditions many times, and I am sure he can do well in a couple of knockouts if his team helps him play a dozen.

There is no objective basis for putting Gilchrist as an ODI opener at a higher level than Rohit. They are different players in their approach, and who is more or less valuable depends on the team composition and strengths.

For a team like Australia with a great middle and lower-order, an explosive opener like Gilchrist worked wonders. They could afford to have throw his wicket away after 10-15 overs as long as he got them off to a flier.

However, for this Indian team that has a weak middle and lower-order, they need an opener like Rohit who can play through the innings consistently and score big.

I am focusing on Gilchrist because he was brought up in comparison to Rohit, but the likes of Hayden and Ponting have failed in various knockouts but the overall superiority of their team carried them through.

As far as the pitches are concerned, again, it is a myth that the Australian top three playing on minefields. <B>ODI pitches have been flat since the 90s, and 2000s saw plenty of big scores as well.</B>330+ was getting common, and 400 was breached twice (in the same game) in 2006 not 2016.

The average score has gone up in the 2010s, but it has more to do with the improvement in power hitting rather than the conditions, and even if concede that it is the latter, this Indian lineup will not struggle to post 300+ consistently in the 2000s.

When it comes to the bowlers, the bowling was great in the 90s, but in the 2000s, most of the great 90s bowlers were a shadow of their former selves and on the brink of retirement. Wasim and Waqar were pretty much done by 2001.

Ambrose and Walsh were gone, Donald and Pollock were about to retire and New Zealand have a better bowling attack today. It was all Bond or nothing back then, and he reduced the Australian top three to mediocrity pretty much every time they played against him.

England’s bowling was better than today because of Gough, but it was not a great attack by any means. Sri Lanka had Muralitharan, but Malinga is better than Vaas.

Pakistan’s attack was better though, in spite of the decline of Wasim and Waqar. Shoaib was in his peak and he won a series for Pakistan in Australia in 2002.

The best bowling attack was of course the Australian one, which they had the luxury of not facing. I highly doubt that Gilchrist’s indiscipline with the bat and high risk shots would have fared well against the metronomic accuracy and precision of McGrath.

People conveniently forget that it was the Australian bowling attack and the middle/lower-order that bailed the highly acclaimed Australian top three on so many occasions, especially in the 2003 World Cup before they came good in the final.

You put Rohit, Dhawan and Kohli in the team and take Gilchrist, Hayden and Ponting out, and they will still win everything.

This is not true. There is a reason why Tendulkar and Anwar has a poor record outside Asia in 90s but Tendulkar numbers improve drastically in 00s, even though he was better in 90s than in 00s.

 

[AMSS]

Jayasuriya and kalu get the credit because they did it successfully as a pair for a long time. It wasn't a brief flash in the pan thing like greatbatch (sp?) experiment by Crowe in WC92.

I mean Tendulkar reeled off his 84 from 44 balls way back in 1994 as an opener. And he matched Jayasurya for SR in WC96 and for the rest of the decade - along with an average that was 12 runs higher. But he didn't have a partner like Kalu to get the credit.

 

[shariqnoor]

He did not achieve much success which is why he is largely forgotten. I think he has only 2-3 hundreds.

Jayasuriya not only scored fast but scored big when other openers were busy seeing off the new ball, which is why he gets more credit and fanfare than the aggressive openers before him.

Its one of the biggest myths that Kalu and Jaya revolutionized one day batting. Prior to that WC, I'm pretty sure Tendulkar played at a higher SR than Jayasuriya. Even Anwar was probably at the same SR as Jayasuriya.

Two reasons why this myth has become sort of fact now, unfounded as it is:

1) SL opened with Kalu - a wicketkeeper: This wasn't a norm back then and this gave the impression of a specialized pinch hitter although Kalu's SR is nowhere near good. Probably was in the early 80s.

2) Tony Greig: He was an avid supporter of SL cricket and he was the first one to consistently press that they have revolutionized ODI cricket. And just after the WC '96, the ridiculous Singapore matches happened where boundaries were 40 meters square.

 

[ind_win]

For all the "things" he did off the cricket ground, azhar did execute one thing right - to give a chance to Tendulkar as opening batsman in his 74th match, if I am right. And rest ,as they say, is 'his'tory.

 

[Godhelpma]

I used to like reading your posts but of late you’ve sort of lost the plot a bit. Mind you, your judging this top 3 due to red hot forms of late and that too with their bludgeoning of teams like Pakistan, Sri Lanka, West Indies and the occasional bashing of decent teams at home.

+1.
I used to read and enjoy mamoon ‘ s posts because of his better and unbiased insight into game aspects but lately his only aim appears to criticise Pakistani team and defend Indian team / players and that too illogically .
Anyways on topic ,Rohit and dhawan ll fail like no tommorrow when comes the defining moment of any world tournament unlike the Australian trio ,Kohli is exception though .

 

[Rana]

You got it the other way round. The Indian top 3 have actually underperformed against weak teams. Their averages against the likes of Bangladesh, West Indies etc. are below their career averages.

Their averages are inflated because of bashing the top teams.

But still you are taking away many other things before making a strong judgement as such.

The 2 new ball rule means that the top order batsmen enjoy a sustained amount of time at the crease enjoying the ball coming on to the bat a lot sweeter. The vast majority of wickets across the world that are designed for run fests and OTT scorecards. Smaller boundaries, the evolution of cricket bats and the genuine lack of quality bowlers across the world. Why is it that the very same dominators of the white ball struggle to add any kind of resilience when the ball is red, the fielding and bowling restrictions are off?

You disregard the fact that Tendulkar, Sehwag and Ganguly had to battle through a much more difficult phase of world cricket. Let me name you the bowlers they have had to deal with, and that too at a time when they could not familiarise themselves to those bowlers because of the IPL and constant opportunity to face one another....

Mgrath
Akram
Waqar
Shoaib
Lee
Allan Donald
Pollock
Ntini
Dale Steyn
Gough
Flintoff
Shane Bond
Chaminda Vaas
Ambrose
Walsh

To name some of the spinners who have also been very instrumental during their time in ODI cricket,

Warne
Murali
Saqlain
A bit of Ajmal (pre ban)
Vettori

All of these names are huge and yes there are great bowlers today as well but not as many as we see. And once again I reiterate that Sachin, Sehwag and Ganguly and you can also add Dravid in this top 3 also, when they were playing alongside the great Australian top 3, they did not have the opportunity to get used to a bowler as deadly as Mgrath because there was no IPL.

 

[Srtfan]

[MENTION=2016]Rana[/MENTION] how many matches sehwag played against Ambrose,walsh,akram,waqar ,doland & warne,and which universe vettori,flintoff,gough,ntini & vaas better than strac,hazalwood,malinga ,tahir ,rabada ,morkel,johnson & boult.rohit scored 150 against styen

 

[Rana]

[MENTION=2016]Rana[/MENTION] how many matches sehwag played against Ambrose,walsh,akram,waqar ,doland & warne,and which universe vettori,flintoff,gough,ntini & vaas better than strac,hazalwood,malinga ,tahir ,rabada ,morkel,johnson & boult.rohit scored 150 against styen

My brother, I purposely added Dravid's name in that list also. India's top 4 were by far the most versatile top 4 I have ever seen in the history of cricket. You could easily have Dravid and Ganguly open with Sachin deciding to bat at number 3 or 4 if they wanted. Ganguly has opened, batted at 3 and 4. Same as Dravid.

So yes its more of a comparison between India's current top 3 versus India's old top 3-4. I would have to give my vote to the older top 3/4 because of the serious quality of bowlers. Once again you are failing to understand the main point of the argument which is simply that this current indian side and cricketers play so much cricket throughout the year that they get enough opportunity to play all of those big names as mentioned on a regular basis. This wasnt the case before the IPL

 

[Pakhs]

Indian trio are one of the best but have not won anything yet together or not enough anyway. While the Australian trio won just about everything that came in front of them. The Australian trio were better by far its not just that they won but everybody actually knew they will win is what set them apart.

 

[Pakhs]

The more interesting comparison would be this current top 3 Vs previous Indian top 3 of Sachin, Shewag and Gambhir/Ganguly.

 

[K4Kohli]

people are bringing world cup wins but you have to understand that tournament wins are 11 member team effort

 

[IndianMafia]

Hayden > Dhawan
Gilly = Rohit
Ponting < Kohli
Collectively I would take Indian trio over Aussie trio

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

People are seriously underestimating Gilly here.

Hayden > Dhawan
Gilly > Rohit
Kohli > Ponting (the way VK chases gives him a clear edge)

I'd say 2-1 to Aussies.

For me the Aussie trio is better.

 

[Swashbuckler]

2019 WC will answer many pressing questions.

 

[CricFan2012]

You can't rate until the Indian trio has retired. Then we will see who has the most games.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Indian trio are one of the best but have not won anything yet together or not enough anyway. While the Australian trio won just about everything that came in front of them. The Australian trio were better by far its not just that they won but everybody actually knew they will win is what set them apart.

To win, the rest 8 players have to do well too. India doesnt have the bowling australia had.

 

[asifp]

World Cup 2003 Final - Ponting Smashed India
World Cup 2007 Final - Gilly killed Sri Lanka

The Australian top 3 were among the top running getters in both 2003 and 2007. In 2007 they totally dominated. Yes Aussie had a great set of bowlers, but in both the the world cup final their batsman just killed off the opposition.

ODI are pretty much meaningless now days outside the big tournaments. Indian team had one chance in 2017 CT and they failed miserably. Stats wise the India top 3 is better, but they are yet to own up on the big stage and win it for them. Ask Sachin, he wanted to trade all his runs away for a world cup win, so these boys need to step up in 2019 and show they can win it all

 

[asifp]

To win, the rest 8 players have to do well too. India doesnt have the bowling australia had.

In both the finals, Australia did not need the bowling, the match was done after Australia's batting.

and now days India has Bumrah, Bhuvi, the two spiners, so there is no excuse.

 

[Srtfan]

[MENTION=1404]asifp[/MENTION] Australian bowler won both03 & 07 semifinal.