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

[Pakhs]

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

India have had some terrific batsmen batting at top 3 in ODIs for a while now, I mean we are singing praise for this current top 3 and rightly so but previous 3 consisting of Sachin, Shewag and Gambhir/Ganguly was no less. In ODIs scores have gone up generally so the current 3 are scoring more runs that's the only difference.

And Australian Trio also scored less than a lot of current top 3 in various teams now but for their era the were definitely superior because most people already knew they would do the job there was no question of their big math temperament or anything in most people mind. Also while I am at it I dont think there will ever be a team like that Australia ever again what a dream team.

 

[goran]

The AUS top 3 were arguably the best ever we have seen. They performed everywhere and against much better bowlers in different conditions. The Indian trio is the best atm but not better than the Aussies.

 

[Monsee]

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.

Great Post, this I completely agree with and def the WI trio was above and beyond anyone before and after them!

Same way, as much runs as the Indian trio has piled on and they have done quite well but they have not had any memorable Finals where one can say they just knocked the life out of other team...Aussie trio was famous for doing that!

Those voting for the Indian trio, especially the so-called neutrals are laughable because Indians I can see why they would pick their players, but any non-Indian literally have to be blind to go for them over the Aussie players

 

[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 <B>they have the ability to reach their level based on the talent that they possess.</B>

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.

Pandya's bowling don't have the ability to reach anywhere near Kapil's bowling. That guy got 434 wickets under 30 being the sole lone class bowler of his team. Pandya's bowling would at best reach Stokes/Kallis level.

Their batting are about same.

 

[MP2011]

Pandya's bowling would at best reach Stokes/Kallis level.

Pandya would give anything to reach Kallis' level as a test bowler.

 

[Mamoon]

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?

Sorry, I had missed this thread. I post from my phone and don't check notifications.

I am not sure what is the relevance of the 90s era with respect to this thread, which is about Rohit, Dhawan and Kohli vs. Gilchrist, Hayden and Ponting. Gilchrist played sporadically in the 90's and had his best years in the 2000s. Hayden only became a regular in 2000/2001 when Mark Waugh left, and Ponting was a raw middle-order batsman in the late 90's.

Whether Rohit would have succeeded in the 90's or not is an entirely different discussion which has nothing to do with the scope of this thread. Is Rohit an ATG ODI opener? Yes I believe he has reached that level - hardly any opener in history had the ability to score 150+ scores so consistently and easily.

His ability to switch gears is unrivalled even in today's era. We can debate about how crap the bowling is (which is a myth anyway) and how flat the pitches are (they have been flat for decades), but no one else today is doing what Rohit is doing. That alone puts him in elite category.

As far as Buttler is concerned, few months back, people thought he was not good enough to play Test cricket, and now he is arguably England's second best Test batsman. He is an extraordinary gifted player who can achieve anything with the bat if he puts his head to it, and yes I do think he is capable of playing some magnificent knocks in Tests.

ECB's conservatism is the major reason why he hasn't reached his peak by now. They held him back too much. It has been clear for years that he is a once in 30-40 years talent.

 

[Mamoon]

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

Opening in ODIs was revolutionized before Gilchrist was promoted up the order. He made his ODI debut in 1996 as a lower-order batsman, and he was eventually promoted as a pinch-hitter because of the Jayasuriya effect.

He was a result of the revolution, not the reason. He did not revolutionize anything in ODIs.

 

[Mamoon]

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.

Looking at two individuals does not tell us much because there are several other factors that could have influenced their numbers and not just the pitches.

Tendulkar became more conservative in the 2000s, partly because of his injuries and partly because of the emergence of the likes of Sehwag and Yuvraj. He became more of an anchor, and I think that is a bigger reason for his improved numbers than any transformation in pitches.

 

[Mamoon]

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.

There are other factors that need consideration as well. Tendulkar was more than capable of playing aggressively, but that was not his role in the team. He was a master batsman who played orthodoxly. India promoted him not because he could score quickly, but because they wanted to give their best batsman maximum overs.

They realised that it was the only way they could post competitive totals because their batting was quite weak. Similarly, Saeed Anwar was a specialist opener who played all his matches as an opener but for a few at the very beginning of his career where he batted at three.

On the contrary, Jayasuriya was a struggling lower-order batsman who was promoted as a pinch-hitter. His sole purpose was to give explosive starts and take advantage of field restrictions. He was not there to hold the innings together or play anchor; Sri Lanka had the likes of Aravinda and Ranatunga for that job.

Jayasuriya was the first success pinch-hitting opener and clearly changed the role of openers in ODIs. Other teams also tried that method and had mixed results, for example Afridi and Gilchrist.

It is not a myth that Jayasuriya was a revolutionary. It is a fact.

 

[Mamoon]

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.

So after spreading false information that the Indian top three have padded stats against weak teams, you have jumped to a completely different point. Half of the names on your list are not better than the best bowlers today - Wasim and Waqar were not the same bowlers in the 2000s, the Australian batsman never got to face McGrath, Lee and Warne, and Ntini, Gough, Flintoff, Vaas etc. were very good bowlers, but they are better than bowlers than them today.

There are no Warne and Muralitharan today, which is true, but Tahir is a better ODI spinner than Vettori and chucking Ajmal. Overall, barring a couple of names, the quality of bowling today, i.e. the 2010 era is not at a lower level than the quality of bowling in the 2000 era. However, the 90's was certainly a better era undoubtedly.

I agree that the two new balls rule has benefited the batsmen, but the Indian top three clearly possess some qualities that have allowed them to tower over the rest. Why should it be held against them?

Ponting vs Kohli is not even a debate anymore - it is pretty clear that Kohli is better. Hayden was not that great of an ODI opener anyway, he was magnificent in Tests but did not do as well as he should have in ODIs, especially when he had the luxury of playing for the strongest bowling attack. He was also unfortunate to be held back because he could not break into the team until 2000/2001.

Similarly, Gilchrist underachieved a lot in ODIs. He should have scored 25+ tons. No one has put forward any convincing argument on why the pair of Gilchrist and Hayden is better than the pair of Rohit and Dhawan, so I will stick to my assessment. The Indian trio is better both individually and collectively.

People talk about big game performances, but I as stated in a previous post, Gilchrist played 6 semifinals and flopped in all of them, but that is the luxury that you enjoy when you play for arguably the greatest team of all time. Doing well in a couple of big matches out of a dozen is not a miracle.

As far as Tendulkar, Ganguly and Dravid is concerned, I think this trio beats them as well regardless of how you pair them. Tendulkar vs Kohli? I think Kohli for sure.

Dravid vs Kohli? Kohli by a country mile.

Tendulkar/Ganguly vs Rohit/Dhawan - Tendulkar is far better than both, but Rohit and Dhawan have reached Ganguly's level and have probably surpassed him.

 

[Mamoon]

Pandya's bowling don't have the ability to reach anywhere near Kapil's bowling. That guy got 434 wickets under 30 being the sole lone class bowler of his team. Pandya's bowling would at best reach Stokes/Kallis level.

Their batting are about same.

I think Pandya's batting potential is greater than Kapil's, but his bowling is clearly vastly inferior.

Kapil's stronger suit was his bowling but Pandya's stronger suit is his batting. If he can average around 40 in both Tests and ODIs at a high strike rate, which I think he is capable of, he can bring immense value to the Indian team.

 

[Hamza_]

[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION]

Stats aside, Gilly is the greatest player to have ever played this sport.

He was my childhood hero, watching him bat and play those shots was something I can't explain.

Gilly changed the way this game was played and became a role model for many left handers.

Him and Saeed Anwar who was really an artist with bat in hands are true legends of the game, Watching them play got many like myself attracted to this sport.

 

[AMSS]

Statistically, the Indian trio are FAR more dominant than their Aussie rivals already. A WC triumph would put the lid on this debate.

 

[Hasan123]

Sorry, I had missed this thread. I post from my phone and don't check notifications.

I am not sure what is the relevance of the 90s era with respect to this thread, which is about Rohit, Dhawan and Kohli vs. Gilchrist, Hayden and Ponting. Gilchrist played sporadically in the 90's and had his best years in the 2000s. Hayden only became a regular in 2000/2001 when Mark Waugh left, and Ponting was a raw middle-order batsman in the late 90's.

Whether Rohit would have succeeded in the 90's or not is an entirely different discussion which has nothing to do with the scope of this thread. Is Rohit an ATG ODI opener? Yes I believe he has reached that level - hardly any opener in history had the ability to score 150+ scores so consistently and easily.

His ability to switch gears is unrivalled even in today's era. We can debate about how crap the bowling is (which is a myth anyway) and how flat the pitches are (they have been flat for decades), but no one else today is doing what Rohit is doing. That alone puts him in elite category.

As far as Buttler is concerned, few months back, people thought he was not good enough to play Test cricket, and now he is arguably England's second best Test batsman. He is an extraordinary gifted player who can achieve anything with the bat if he puts his head to it, and yes I do think he is capable of playing some magnificent knocks in Tests.

ECB's conservatism is the major reason why he hasn't reached his peak by now. They held him back too much. It has been clear for years that he is a once in 30-40 years talent.

The relevance to this thread is if you are calling someone the greatest of all time they should be able to score in all eras. I am not debating Rohit ability to switch gears.

I don't think you are understanding my point. I have no issue if you think Rohit is an ATG opener . I rate him as a ODI player but you have said he is a part of the greatest top 3. So how can someone who is one of the greatest not score in all eras?

 

[Hasan123]

Opening in ODIs was revolutionized before Gilchrist was promoted up the order. He made his ODI debut in 1996 as a lower-order batsman, and he was eventually promoted as a pinch-hitter because of the Jayasuriya effect.

He was a result of the revolution, not the reason. He did not revolutionize anything in ODIs.

How many times was a keeper batsmen made opener before Gilchrist and now how many teams have keepers who bat at the top of the order?

 

[Mamoon]

[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION]

Stats aside, Gilly is the greatest player to have ever played this sport.

He was my childhood hero, watching him bat and play those shots was something I can't explain.

Gilly changed the way this game was played and became a role model for many left handers.

Him and Saeed Anwar who was really an artist with bat in hands are true legends of the game, Watching them play got many like myself attracted to this sport.

Gilchrist is undoubtedly one of the greatest cricketers of all time. I would certainly have in my top five - his overall influence on the role of wicket-keeper batsmen cannot be emphasized enough. However, his ODI batting often gets overrated due to multiple reasons.

 

[Mamoon]

How many times was a keeper batsmen made opener before Gilchrist and now how many teams have keepers who bat at the top of the order?

That is not what you said. You said that Gilchrist and Jayasuriya “revolutionized the ODI game by playing in a positive manner from the PP overs”.

That statement is false because Gilchrist did not play any role in revolutionizing aggressive opening. He was a result of that revolution.

He revolutionized the role of wicket-keepers as players who made the team on their batting skills and not just wicket-keeping skills. The likes of Dhoni, de Kock, Buttler, Bairstow, Pant etc. are a result of his influence. However, he did not influence the role of openers.

 

[Mamoon]

The relevance to this thread is if you are calling someone the greatest of all time they should be able to score in all eras. I am not debating Rohit ability to switch gears.

I don't think you are understanding my point. I have no issue if you think Rohit is an ATG opener . I rate him as a ODI player but you have said he is a part of the greatest top 3. So how can someone who is one of the greatest not score in all eras?

The notion that Rohit would not score in ODIs in all eras is just an assumption. ODI wickets have been flat for decades and the ball has never swung for more than 10-15 overs. He is not as good as Tendulkar, of course not, but there are only a handful of ODI openers left who can claim to be better than him. He is definitely an ODI great in my view.

This talk of you have to score in all eras is a dangerous one because it is very hypothetical and speculative and secondly, it opens a can of worms. If that is so, you cannot put a marker on any player or batsman as a great of the game, because you can never know much the game will evolve.

Cricket might be a completely different game in a 100 years time and some of the great players of the last 30-40 years may not be able to adapt to that level. So what is the point of making all-time XIs?

No batsman can truly fulfill the criteria of “scoring in all eras”. Rohit is a great of the ODI game by any measure and all this talk of him failing in XYZ times is meaningless.

 

[Hasan123]

That is not what you said. You said that Gilchrist and Jayasuriya “revolutionized the ODI game by playing in a positive manner from the PP overs”.

That statement is false because Gilchrist did not play any role in revolutionizing aggressive opening. He was a result of that revolution.

He revolutionized the role of wicket-keepers as players who made the team on their batting skills and not just wicket-keeping skills. The likes of Dhoni, de Kock, Buttler, Bairstow, Pant etc. are a result of his influence. However, he did not influence the role of openers.

Yes that is what I meant sorry. He revolutionized the keeping role in LO cricket and I also believe his aggressive nature played a part in revolutionizing LO opening.

 

[Hasan123]

The notion that Rohit would not score in ODIs in all eras is just an assumption. ODI wickets have been flat for decades and the ball has never swung for more than 10-15 overs. He is not as good as Tendulkar, of course not, but there are only a handful of ODI openers left who can claim to be better than him. He is definitely an ODI great in my view.

This talk of you have to score in all eras is a dangerous one because it is very hypothetical and speculative and secondly, it opens a can of worms. If that is so, you cannot put a marker on any player or batsman as a great of the game, because you can never know much the game will evolve.

Cricket might be a completely different game in a 100 years time and some of the great players of the last 30-40 years may not be able to adapt to that level. So what is the point of making all-time XIs?

No batsman can truly fulfill the criteria of “scoring in all eras”. Rohit is a great of the ODI game by any measure and all this talk of him failing in XYZ times is meaningless.

Just a standard ATG I wouldn't always expect to score in all eras. But if you call someone the greatest ever they should be to excel in any era.

Yes cricket might be a different game, but the game has changed a lot in the last few years and the top players have adapted . So I'm sure if top players of there era were playing in another era they would find a way to adapt.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Statistically, the Indian trio are FAR more dominant than their Aussie rivals already. A WC triumph would put the lid on this debate.

Statistics would favor modern players anyway.

Pitches in SL, SA, WI and AUS in 90s were far far harder.

 

[salih]

This is insulting.

You're trying to compare 2 blokes who fail every time the ball spins or swings more than 2cm, or if it bounces more than hip height, with Adam Gilchrist and Matthew Hayden, who, despite technical deficiencies (Matthew Hayden vs spin, Gilly vs seam), adjusted their game to thrive in all conditions.

Kohli vs Ponting is a valid comparison though. I'd pick Kohli because of the sheer amount of runs he's scoring.

 

[shariqnoor]

There are other factors that need consideration as well. Tendulkar was more than capable of playing aggressively, but that was not his role in the team. He was a master batsman who played orthodoxly. India promoted him not because he could score quickly, but because they wanted to give their best batsman maximum overs.

They realised that it was the only way they could post competitive totals because their batting was quite weak. Similarly, Saeed Anwar was a specialist opener who played all his matches as an opener but for a few at the very beginning of his career where he batted at three.

On the contrary, Jayasuriya was a struggling lower-order batsman who was promoted as a pinch-hitter. His sole purpose was to give explosive starts and take advantage of field restrictions. He was not there to hold the innings together or play anchor; Sri Lanka had the likes of Aravinda and Ranatunga for that job.

Jayasuriya was the first success pinch-hitting opener and clearly changed the role of openers in ODIs. Other teams also tried that method and had mixed results, for example Afridi and Gilchrist.

It is not a myth that Jayasuriya was a revolutionary. It is a fact.

As a matter of fact, Imran Khan was the first person who wanted to pinch hit in the first 15 overs in the 89/90 World Series and the Australasia cup which is why he brought in Saeed Anwar into the team for. Saeed's SR during that time was well over 90 as he was used by Imran to give flying starts. Similarly Martin Crowe in the 92 world cup promoted Mark Greatbatch as a pinch hitter. Greatbatch wasn't an opener. He used to play at 4-5-6 in the batting lineup and had a SR of about 70. But when he was asked to open by Crowe in the World Cup his SR jumped to over 90.

So what Jayasuriya did wasn't anything revolutionary. It was just the fact that Kalu - a wicketkeeper opened with him which piqued interest. What is creditable to them is the fact that they did it on a consistent basis - more so than the other batting pairs at that time. Which is why they are remembered more fondly as revolutionizing the game.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Today Dhawan and Kohli were on fire.

Sharma had his moments too.


That's the thing about these 3. Any one of them on his day could take it away and play the dominant role.

 

[The_Odd_One]

In my opinion, this is the best top 3 any team ever had.

 

[zarar]

Both, In terms of consistency and class. Are top 2 for sure. Who is the better of both? Matter of opinion really.

For me? Australia.

That Australian trio helped win 2 consecutive World Cups and in both of them, Ricky Ponting and Adam Gilchrist played arguably the greatest one day innings of all time not to mention how both were in the final on the worlds biggest star.

That Indian trio has to win something other than the 2013 champions trophy. This World Cup is probably their last chance.

 

[Ab Fan]

Doing brilliantly- the top three for India.

If asked to give top 5-6 best ODI bats of this era, I am sure all three might find their way in it.

Probably the reason why this thread looks a bit different when comparing the trio is because Rohit and Dhawan don't have test legacy while Gilly, Hayden and Ponting all three are pretty much test greats/legends as well.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Masterclass today by Indian top 3

They are right up there with Aussie top 3 of 2000s

 

[bujhee kom]

India's top 3 is as good as any ever.

 

[big_gamer007]

[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] gets proven right always. Reading his old posts in this thread makes you realise how astute his cricketing analysis are compared to others on here.

 

[Mamoon]

2023 World Cup will probably be the swan song for this incredible trio. Dhawan will probably retire, while Kohli and Rohit will be at the end of their peaks.

A privilege watching these three bat, and it is incredible how quickly India were able to find them after Tendulkar, Sehwag and Ganguly.

 

[Slog]

In current day you won’t go wrong with either.

But in 2000s Aussie trio. I think they were more complete as pure batsmen

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

Sorry to bump the old thread but I was watching the Australian top 3 in crunch matches and they rarely failed in bigger matches. Never seen them crumble like the Indian top 3(in ct 2017 & Wc 19). So I would still rank the Aussie top 3 as the greatest wver as they won way more & won everywhere

 

[Hasan123]

The Australian top 3 is better but the gap isn't as big as people think.

 

[therealAB]

Do you want to win JAMODI's or WC's

 

[Mamoon]

No point comparing their trophy cabinets because the overall composition of the two sides are vastly different. If you swap the Indian top 3 for the Australian top 3 nothing will change.

Using Gilchrist’s example, I have already explained the advantages of playing for a pretty much invincible team.

He was a massive semifinal bottler but continued to get opportunities to make amends in the final because of the strength of his team.

Individually, in ODIs, Rohit and Kohli are comfortably better than Gilchrist/Hayden and Ponting.

 

[Ab Fan]

Indian top 3 with Yuvraj and Dhoni in the middle order will be a phenomenal lineup as far as Odis are concerned.

Rohit, Dhawan and Kohli as trio are clearly better than Sehwag, Gambhir and Tendulkar as trio.

 

[Mobashir]

Gilly, Hayden and Ponting are a level above.
Gilly/Hayden played at a quite similar if not better RR than Rohit/Dhawan do in a completely different Era of ODI batting.

Ponting is a level above Kohli as maybe the most complete ODI batsman ever.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Gilly, Hayden and Ponting are a level above.
Gilly/Hayden played at a quite similar if not better RR than Rohit/Dhawan do in a completely different Era of ODI batting.

Ponting is a level above Kohli as maybe the most complete ODI batsman ever.

don't you think playing with a world class middle order and bowling lineup masks a lpt of the Australian top 3's weakness though?

don't you think virat, rohit and dhawan would have performed just as well with the 2000 era Australian team ?

Not saying who is better but it would be interesting to know if people think playing in a better team helped the Australian top 3 look better than they actually are?

in saying that rohit dhawan and virat also play in a strong indian team with world class bowling. However the indian middle order post 2015 till about 2019 was either past their primes or just not existent. Not to mention rhey rarely get to bat as the front 3 were so dominating.

 

[tyron_woodley]

No point comparing their trophy cabinets because the overall composition of the two sides are vastly different. If you swap the Indian top 3 for the Australian top 3 nothing will change.

Using Gilchrist’s example, I have already explained the advantages of playing for a pretty much invincible team.

He was a massive semifinal bottler but continued to get opportunities to make amends in the final because of the strength of his team.

Individually, in ODIs, Rohit and Kohli are comfortably better than Gilchrist/Hayden and Ponting.

i agree but kohli, dhawan and rohit also play in a strong indian team with top class bowling (fast and spin). Only 2 middle order players are weak.

I would give aussie top 3 an edge purely because virat am co failed even with bumrah, shami and bhuvi who are all quality odi players. For some reason bhuvi's stats in jamodi vs tournaments are the polarizing. He is underrated though.

 

[jnaveen1980]

A thread related to this, Kohli says he doesn't mind batting at 3 so that he can have Dhawan, Rahul, Rhoit at the top 3 . What an idiotic move that would be.

 

[Hyperion66]

A thread related to this, Kohli says he doesn't mind batting at 3 so that he can have Dhawan, Rahul, Rhoit at the top 3 . What an idiotic move that would be.

If Dhawan is opening in the t20 WC, we can kiss the powerplays good bye.

 

[BaankeJi]

A thread related to this, Kohli says he doesn't mind batting at 3 so that he can have Dhawan, Rahul, Rhoit at the top 3 . What an idiotic move that would be.

I think Kohli is overdoing thinking about others before self stuff. He thinks giving others a chance is a good move. But that may backfire.

 

[TNAmarkFromIndia]

Overall figures

Partners Span Inns NO Runs High Ave Overs RR 100 50
AC Gilchrist, ML Hayden 2001-2008 114 3 5372 172 48.39 900.5 5.96 16 29
S Dhawan, RG Sharma 2013-2019 105 1 4708 210 45.26 883.5 5.32 16 13

 

[TNAmarkFromIndia]

Gilchrist-Hayden are ahead in terms of both average and scoring rate. And they've also not flopped in big matches like Dhawan-Sharma have.

 

[RajBan]

I think Kohli is overdoing thinking about others before self stuff. He thinks giving others a chance is a good move. But that may backfire.

This is incorrect. Kohli does not give a damn unless the concerned player is his pal, or part of a strong lobby. In this case Kohli knows it is difficult to drop Rahul given his performance in recent matches, but he is obliged to play Dhavan and get himself at 4 even if that means that the team composition and balance gets screwed.

 

[RajBan]

Gilchrist-Hayden are ahead in terms of both average and scoring rate. And they've also not flopped in big matches like Dhawan-Sharma have.

There is no comparison here. And the Aussie three has played against much superior bowling attacks in their days. Infact I personally keep the trio of SRT, Sehwag and Ganguly close to these two sets given that they played against outstanding bowling attacks of Aus, SA and Pak.

 

[shah_1]

Australia had Martyen/Clarke, Symond and Mike Hussey/Beven as support it is foolish to attribute all the success due to top 3 but India in recent times have only been dependent on these three , reason they haven’t won the ICC trophy in last 6 years

 

[shah_1]

Indian top 3 with Yuvraj and Dhoni in the middle order will be a phenomenal lineup as far as Odis are concerned.

Rohit, Dhawan and Kohli as trio are clearly better than Sehwag, Gambhir and Tendulkar as trio.

But 2011 was a better batting unit, they could afford to lose two quick wickets of top order.

 

[tyron_woodley]

There is no comparison here. And the Aussie three has played against much superior bowling attacks in their days. Infact I personally keep the trio of SRT, Sehwag and Ganguly close to these two sets given that they played against outstanding bowling attacks of Aus, SA and Pak.

how do you know it's a better bowling attack? pitches are much flatter now. it's harder to bowl well in current era. If anything bowlers are better now. thicker bats, drs, no ball umpires.

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

People present strange logic when they discuss the all conquering Aussie team. When you talk about their top 3, they'll say well they had a great middle order. Then when you'll say ok they had a great middle order, then people will counter it by saying well they had an amazing top 3. Similarly their bowlers are credited for their batting success & vice versa. the fact that aussie openers has a higher average & SR compared to Dhawan/Rohit proves they were better overall & not just in tournaments.

Rohit/Dhawan playing the way gilly/heyden played in 03/07 finals? I would have to see that to believe. On the other hand, place those aussie guys in any sort of team and they'll play the way they knew. With confidence to win any match in any situation. they were just insanely tough mentally

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

how do you know it's a better bowling attack? pitches are much flatter now. it's harder to bowl well in current era. If anything bowlers are better now. thicker bats, drs, no ball umpires.

Current bowlers on an average i feel are better than the 00 decade. In 00 decade, teams used to get away with playing only 4 front line bowlers and having 10 overs of part timers as it wasnt that easy to hit from 15-40 overs

 

[ManFan]

Lol’s to compare THAT Australian team with this joke of a lineup.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

Gilly was a revolutionary player. IMO only Sanga and AB can be compared to him and even they didn't keep wickets during entirety of their careers.

He is an ATG top order batsman and an ATG wicket keeper.

He smashed every bowler he faced and won matches and world cups.

He is part of the greatest ODI and the greatest Test XI (like Wasim or SRT).

Out of Indian trio only VK is better batsman than Gilly.