What's new

Current Australia vs Australia 2000’s combined line-up

Slog

Slog

Senior Test Player
Joined
Feb 15, 2015
Runs
28,984
Post of the Week
1
A few Indian posters on the match thread are claiming that the current Australian lineup is as good or better than the 2000s lineup and would actually smash them in Aussie conditions.

So was wondering what would be your combined lineup:

My Combined Lineup would be as follows;

1. Hayden
2. Langer (Warner if you want 2 aggressive but usually for team combination you would go with a Langer type second batsman. But it could be either)
3. Ponting
4. Smith
5. Clarke
6. Martyn / Waugh / Hussey
7. Gil Christ
8. Warne
9. Cummins
10. Gillespie
11. McGrath
 
sensible-indian-fan said:
Did anyone really claim current Aussie lineup is better than 2000s lineup?
Click to expand...

Tyron and jeet guy

Tyron claims Green is better than Martyn and Labushagne better than Clarke. And current Aussie bowling lineup is slightly better than 2000s lineup
 
Whoever made the claim is wrong but the claim needs to be considered with context. As per their claim, they were talking about Michael Clarke of 2000s version who was not as great.

Marnus Labuschagne of 2019-2020 version was basically batting like Smith-esque at home.

Again, it's the version that needs to be considered.

Anil Kumble of 90s is different from Kumble of 2000s.

Ponting of late 2000s-early 10s is different from peak Ponting.

Amla of 2010-14 was different from post that.

Pat Cummins of 2017-2020 version is McGrath-esque.

Waqar post 96 was Srinath level bowler but before that, he was Marshall level.
 
Ab Fan said:
Whoever made the claim is wrong but the claim needs to be considered with context. As per their claim, they were talking about Michael Clarke of 2000s version who was not as great.

Marnus Labuschagne of 2019-2020 version was basically batting like Smith-esque at home.

Again, it's the version that needs to be considered.

Anil Kumble of 90s is different from Kumble of 2000s.

Ponting of late 2000s-early 10s is different from peak Ponting.

Amla of 2010-14 was different from post that.

Pat Cummins of 2017-2020 version is McGrath-esque.

Waqar post 96 was Srinath level bowler but before that, he was Marshall level.
Click to expand...

Clarke of 2000s won Aussies a series in India.

Ponting peak was in 2000s.

When people say 2000s they mean pre 2007 obv when all the greats Langer, Warne, McGrath were also playing

Also Labushagne has obviously done well. But the guy has played 15 tests. He hasn’t been even fully tested against all types of bowlers get so to claim he is better than Clarke who scored a debut century in India to win them a series is premature
 
Last edited:
Ofcourse its not.. but its not the weakest either as claimed by some Pak posters
 
JaDed said:
Ofcourse its not.. but its not the weakest either as claimed by some Pak posters
Click to expand...

Don’t think any poster has claimed that. Tho now that you said it I’d say the Aussie batting sans Smith and Warner is among the weakest imo.

Tbf it’s only a few Indian posters claiming current is better. Not most
 
Anyways. What is combined line up
For posters?
[MENTION=150610]tyron_woodley[/MENTION]
 
Last edited:
Slog said:
Clarke of 2000s won Aussies a series in India.

Ponting peak was in 2000s.

When people say 2000s they mean pre 2007 obv when all the greats Langer, Warne, McGrath were also playing

Also Labushagne has obviously done well. But the guy has played 15 tests. He hasn’t been even fully tested against all types of bowlers get so to claim he is better than Clarke who scored a debut century in India to win them a series is premature
Click to expand...

That win in India was great led by Martyn and Clarke but Clarke's overall performance at home or even overall wasn't all that great in 2000s decade. It was when everyone retired, he hit his peak for 2-3 years and came into his own.

Ofcourse, Ponting should be considered at peak.

Labu is not better than Clarke but if I understand the context, the comparison might be Clarke of 2000s till about 2008 to Labu of 2018-2020 and beyond.
 
Can the current Aussie team win test series in India, SL and UAE/Pakistan ? Therein lies your answer.
 
Only Smith from the current team would make it. I would not pick Warner over Hayden or Langer in tests regardless of stats. And among bowlers, Cummings.

1. Hayden
2. Langer
3. Ponting
4. S Smith
5. Martyn
6. Clarke
7. Gilchrist
8. Warne
9. Cummings
10. Gillespie
11. McGrath
 
Not even close except the bowling lineups. And even there the 2000s lineup will come up trumps.

As the poster above said , except Smith and Cummins, no other player will get into the Aus team of the mid 2000s
 
Labuschagne can be a better batsman than Clarke/Martyn/Hussey in the future.

Hazlewood is better than Gillespie. Overall, 2000’s Australia is obviously much better.
 
Australia of the 2000s is stronger. But this current Australian team is still very good.
 
Hasan123 said:
Australia of the 2000s is stronger. But this current Australian team is still very good.
Click to expand...

Yup current bowling specially for Oz conditions is as almost as good but current batting bar Smith and Warner (even though big ftb) is almost minnow level. They all are literally walking wicket vs any half decent attack, which before you point it Pak don't count even as half decent. So I guess if they have even one more quality bat they would be much better team, i am not slid on Labu, he still have a lot to prove, at this point you may count him half batsman, so Oz play with 2.5 batsman these days rest just make up numbers, and whenever 2 out of these three fail or don't play they won't even cross 200 like in current series vs any half good bowling.
 
Zeshan547 said:
Yup current bowling specially for Oz conditions is as almost as good but current batting bar Smith and Warner (even though big ftb) is almost minnow level. They all are literally walking wicket vs any half decent attack, which before you point it Pak don't count even as half decent. So I guess if they have even one more quality bat they would be much better team, i am not slid on Labu, he still have a lot to prove, at this point you may count him half batsman, so Oz play with 2.5 batsman these days rest just make up numbers, and whenever 2 out of these three fail or don't play they won't even cross 200 like in current series vs any half good bowling.
Click to expand...

Labuschange will be a top class player, this is his 1st real toug patch. He needs this to make him a better player. Cameron Green can develop into a good player and there are high hopes for Will Pucovski. Travis Head averages 40 and he has faced most of the top attacks.

They are still a good team, would be difficult to match that Australian team of the 2000s.
 
People keep saying the current bowling lineup and the 2000s bowling line up are similar level. That is not true

The pace attack is at similar level though 2000s is slightly better. But the spinner is the game changer for 2000s attack.
 
Slog said:
People keep saying the current bowling lineup and the 2000s bowling line up are similar level. That is not true

The pace attack is at similar level though 2000s is slightly better. But the spinner is the game changer for 2000s attack.
Click to expand...

The pace attack of Aus right now is really gun , and they also have a very good spinner. Of course, Warne was on another level and that's the reason the 2000s overall one will be higher.

Arguably the 3rd pacer after McGrath and Gillispie was below the third-best pacer in the current pace unit, but Warne covered more than that.


Simply said, the current Aus attack is pretty much an ATG attack, but still below 2000s Aus attack. Current batting is not really an ATG batting because it's too dependent on Smith when playing away, but at home, they have formidable batsmen in Warner and Labu. Others also score well and don't go by only the Indian series.

Cummins is a very special bowler and certain to go down as an ATG.
 
Slog said:
Tyron and jeet guy

Tyron claims Green is better than Martyn and Labushagne better than Clarke. And current Aussie bowling lineup is slightly better than the 2000s lineup
Click to expand...

Green is only young, after 4 years he will be a great of the game. But he won't get into our team of the 2000's.
 
2000 Australia was much better than most (I’m giving respect to Bradman’s 1948 Aussies or Armstrong’s 1921 Aussies from reputation, in reality cricket was joke then), Aussie teams in history, therefore it’s a bit moot comparison.

However no Aussie team is weak ever - they may suffer couple of years transition, at worst, like 1984-86 period or 1969-71 period or 1954-56 period .... that’s also because of a generation gap - when you have a dominant team for a decade, often it’s difficult to bring new talent as the seniors are not failing & kept winning; so once they retire together, you need couple of years. That was the case in mid 80s or mid 50s.

This Australian team at home isn’t weak either, rather India played brilliantly at MCG. In my lifetime, for a Test prediction, I have never been so wrong - that credit goes to Rahne’s team, otherwise these Aussies will hammer Poms at home and won’t bat twice against PAK; in-fact not sure how many times they’ll lose 10 wickets in their only innings - they are that good.
 
Buffet said:
The pace attack of Aus right now is really gun , and they also have a very good spinner. Of course, Warne was on another level and that's the reason the 2000s overall one will be higher.

Arguably the 3rd pacer after McGrath and Gillispie was below the third-best pacer in the current pace unit, but Warne covered more than that.


Simply said, the current Aus attack is pretty much an ATG attack, but still below 2000s Aus attack. Current batting is not really an ATG batting because it's too dependent on Smith when playing away, but at home, they have formidable batsmen in Warner and Labu. Others also score well and don't go by only the Indian series.

Cummins is a very special bowler and certain to go down as an ATG.
Click to expand...

Pace attacks are comparable- but that naughty blonde was unique of his own class. Cricket will never see such craft - add to that his intelligence and hunger. On top of that they were never bored of winning, never gave an inch even if it’s 4-0 by 5th Test. And, they had by far the best catching unit in history of the game, along with Lloyd’s WIN - combined all these, 2020 Aussies are no match for that frightening team.
 
MMHS said:
2000 Australia was much better than most (I’m giving respect to Bradman’s 1948 Aussies or Armstrong’s 1921 Aussies from reputation, in reality cricket was joke then), Aussie teams in history, therefore it’s a bit moot comparison.

However no Aussie team is weak ever - they may suffer couple of years transition, at worst, like 1984-86 period or 1969-71 period or 1954-56 period .... that’s also because of a generation gap - when you have a dominant team for a decade, often it’s difficult to bring new talent as the seniors are not failing & kept winning; so once they retire together, you need couple of years. That was the case in mid 80s or mid 50s.

This Australian team at home isn’t weak either, rather India played brilliantly at MCG. In my lifetime, for a Test prediction, I have never been so wrong - that credit goes to Rahne’s team, otherwise these Aussies will hammer Poms at home and won’t bat twice against PAK; in-fact not sure how many times they’ll lose 10 wickets in their only innings - they are that good.
Click to expand...

Where do you rate the Australian sides captained by Ian and Greg Chappell ? At par with 2000's Aussies or below ?
 
Heisenberg111 said:
Where do you rate the Australian sides captained by Ian and Greg Chappell ? At par with 2000's Aussies or below ?
Click to expand...

A very, very good side - undisputed best team between 1971-76. But, that team had two negatives
1. Those were the days an even better SAF team was banned. 1970 SAF beat Australia 4-0 (2 innings wins), and they would have beaten them in 1971-2 trip as well. It was a very young SAF team who could have ruled world cricket fir the decade of 1970s with several players in their early to mid 20s - at the time of ban, these were their players -
GPollock 27, BARichards 24, Procter 25, Garth Le Roux 21, Clive Rice 21, Van der Bijl 20, Barlow 29, Le Irvine 26, Dennis Lindsay 31, Tricos 23, Peter Pollock 29, Timbrom 29, George Watson 26, Hylton Ackerman 23, Ken Mcwean 19, Rupert Hanley 19.

On top of that, I’m sure Tony Greig, Keplar Wessels, Allen Lamb, Petre Kristen, Henry Fotheringham, Jimmy Cook .... would have stayed in SAF - that’s insane level of talent, could have been as good as the Aussies of 2000s

I Chappell’s team didn’t face Ali Bacher’s SAF between 1971-1976.

2. They didn’t have two unique players, who changed the landscape of modern game - Shane Warne & Adam Gilchrist.

If I make a combined team, I’ll probably go with this XI

1. Hayden
2. Langer
3. Ponting
4. Greg
5. *Ian
6. Gilchrist
7. Gilmore (surprise pick but had he not wasted his career behind booze & girls, he would have made it fav 5 all-rounders)
8. Warne
9. Lillee
10. Thompson
11. McGrath

12th: Doug Walters

That’s 6 by 5 for 2000’s team. Not much in numbers and people can argue for Walters or Redpath over Langer. So, net net very close and they had by far the better Captain.

BUT, what makes the difference for 2000’s team are those two players at 6 & 8. Those of us who actually have seen Aussies between 1999 to 2007 actually can feel what difference Gilchrist & Warne brought to Australian Test team - it’s priceless, can’t be explained by words.
 
My complete lineup as follows based on how their careers will end up and actual skillset. For Aussie Condtions:

Hayden
Warner (better than Langer. Way better)
Ponting
Smith
Labuschagne (yes better than clarke)
Gillchrist
Green or Martyn (choose either. I prefer an all rounder)
Warne
Hazelwood
Cummins
McGrath


This is their best team for Aussie Condtions.

Bowling is better now. Batting has 3 ATG level players in Aussie Condtions and one true ATG.

Hazelwood is better than Gillespie.
Also having the bonus of an extra bowler in the form of green strengthens Australia in Sena conditions.

Clarke choked vs South Africa in Australia serveral times iirc. He feasted on weak Indian, subcontinent attacks of Pakistan Etc.

The few times he met rabada I think his performance wasn't anywhere near as good. Sorry can't put him above labuschagne.
 
Zeshan547 said:
Yup current bowling specially for Oz conditions is as almost as good but current batting bar Smith and Warner (even though big ftb) is almost minnow level. They all are literally walking wicket vs any half decent attack, which before you point it Pak don't count even as half decent. So I guess if they have even one more quality bat they would be much better team, i am not slid on Labu, he still have a lot to prove, at this point you may count him half batsman, so Oz play with 2.5 batsman these days rest just make up numbers, and whenever 2 out of these three fail or don't play they won't even cross 200 like in current series vs any half good bowling.
Click to expand...

No they aren't. The same minnow level batting blasted new zelanad ATG bowlig lineup, the poms and Pakistan.

They are quality batsmen. Stop disrespecting them.

Man you guys are far too nostalgic. Get over it. Times changes. players are just as good now.
 
MMHS said:
2000 Australia was much better than most (I’m giving respect to Bradman’s 1948 Aussies or Armstrong’s 1921 Aussies from reputation, in reality cricket was joke then), Aussie teams in history, therefore it’s a bit moot comparison.

However no Aussie team is weak ever - they may suffer couple of years transition, at worst, like 1984-86 period or 1969-71 period or 1954-56 period .... that’s also because of a generation gap - when you have a dominant team for a decade, often it’s difficult to bring new talent as the seniors are not failing & kept winning; so once they retire together, you need couple of years. That was the case in mid 80s or mid 50s.

This Australian team at home isn’t weak either, rather India played brilliantly at MCG. In my lifetime, for a Test prediction, I have never been so wrong - that credit goes to Rahne’s team, otherwise these Aussies will hammer Poms at home and won’t bat twice against PAK; in-fact not sure how many times they’ll lose 10 wickets in their only innings - they are that good.
Click to expand...

This is correct. This team is top quality. It's not made to look India look better. Australia is always quality at home. Same Australia would pummel new Zealand ATg attack and poms etc.

This same team would trouble Aussies of 2000.
 
Actually they way India got handled in NewZealand tells me all I need to know about this aussie lineup. Lets not forget the pitch for the second test seemed to favor spin and Indian style of play. Will be interesting to see how the next 2 pitches are. But this team is definitely not the strongest. Warner coming back should help but depends on form.

Imagine Agarwal and co facing up to Warne and McGrath. Come on!

Tyron wishful thinking my friend.
 
ShoaibM said:
Actually they way India got handled in NewZealand tells me all I need to know about this aussie lineup. Lets not forget the pitch for the second test seemed to favor spin and Indian style of play. Will be interesting to see how the next 2 pitches are. But this team is definitely not the strongest. Warner coming back should help but depends on form.

Imagine Agarwal and co facing up to Warne and McGrath. Come on!

Tyron wishful thinking my friend.
Click to expand...

Besides n.z din't face Indias full strength team. India din't even prepare for them. Let see how they fare when India actually prep for n.z by playing tour games and picking our best players, shall we?
 
tyron_woodley said:
This is correct. This team is top quality. It's not made to look India look better. Australia is always quality at home. Same Australia would pummel new Zealand ATg attack and poms etc.

This same team would trouble Aussies of 2000.
Click to expand...

Your last line is the perfect sum-up. This team will definitely trouble 2000 teams ... BUT won’t win. This is where those two comes - imagine this, you got a top, top class team at tight corner 159/6 at Tea and planning for your batting - you won’t catch them 9 times out of 10 in that situation, this one is the 10th time - yet, suddenly one guy comes and adds another 150 with the tail in a session. And, then your are facing an attack & fielding who won’t give you a single loose ball, won’t drop catch and won’t allow you to steal even a single - on top of that entire Sydney filth is cleared through their mouth.... Even after everything, you got a target of 200 on 4th innings - now comes that blonde. He’ll torment you like Chinese water torture- every ball, and he’ll bowl for whole day relentlessly, tireless, errorless.... like a cyborg.

I can sum up what were those Aussies from one Test I saw live - Fatullah 2005.

Somehow, Shariar Nafees & Ashraful blasted their way to score to 200+ for 1/2 down by first Tea on a slow turner and ball was turning/bouncing on day 1. After Tea, first the Aussies started to unleash their mouth - from Nafees’s batting technique to bad breath, then up to his mother & sister sitting in pavilion... and the guy was unfortunate to be English medium student (means he understood every thing....) until he threw it from the filth ....... somehow Ashraful resisted (& his English skills helped, otherwise hardly any decent human being could sustain ....) and BD put ~450. On a turner, spinners made it like 141/7 ..... then this Gilchrist guy without much clue of spin, but through sheer guts & will power somehow scored 144, added 200+ with last 3 wickets at better than run a minute. Still the lead was almost 150 and the ball was turning sharp now.

Now comes the blonde - started to bowl maidens after maidens after maidens ... until Basher gave up and ran himself out, Ashraful got hold at line trying to break the shackle.

Still, the target was ~320, and ball was spinning, kicking, rolling on the turf by now. Aussies found themselves like 150 short with 3 bowlers to support Ponting this time - not the best guy against finger spin, but some how that day he added 120 of last 150 and Aussies won the Test after fifth Tea. BD’s inexperience indeed helped and fielders dropped few sitters, but that Test tells lot about Aussie juggernaut - they don’t leave the contest till death.

They were out done in their 8-9 years reign only twice, once by one single guy - some Brian Charles Lara; who single handedly had beaten those ugly, frightening Aussies twice with two majestic innings; and other time one guy named VVS Laxman, assisted by RS Dravid; otherwise they were truly invincibles.
 
tyron_woodley said:
My complete lineup as follows based on how their careers will end up and actual skillset. For Aussie Condtions:

Hayden
Warner (better than Langer. Way better)
Ponting
Smith
Labuschagne (yes better than clarke)
Gillchrist
Green or Martyn (choose either. I prefer an all rounder)
Warne
Hazelwood
Cummins
McGrath


This is their best team for Aussie Condtions.

Bowling is better now. Batting has 3 ATG level players in Aussie Condtions and one true ATG.

Hazelwood is better than Gillespie.
Also having the bonus of an extra bowler in the form of green strengthens Australia in Sena conditions.

Clarke choked vs South Africa in Australia serveral times iirc. He feasted on weak Indian, subcontinent attacks of Pakistan Etc.

The few times he met rabada I think his performance wasn't anywhere near as good. Sorry can't put him above labuschagne.
Click to expand...

Clarke has played one of the greatest innings ever played in South Africa. Lol at choking
 
Slog said:
The pace attack is at similar level though 2000s is slightly better. But the spinner is the game changer for 2000s attack.
Click to expand...

Slightly better ?.. The late 90s to mid 2000s Aus bowling is wayyy better than the current Aussie line up...
 
MMHS said:
Your last line is the perfect sum-up. This team will definitely trouble 2000 teams ... BUT won’t win. This is where those two comes - imagine this, you got a top, top class team at tight corner 159/6 at Tea and planning for your batting - you won’t catch them 9 times out of 10 in that situation, this one is the 10th time - yet, suddenly one guy comes and adds another 150 with the tail in a session. And, then your are facing an attack & fielding who won’t give you a single loose ball, won’t drop catch and won’t allow you to steal even a single - on top of that entire Sydney filth is cleared through their mouth.... Even after everything, you got a target of 200 on 4th innings - now comes that blonde. He’ll torment you like Chinese water torture- every ball, and he’ll bowl for whole day relentlessly, tireless, errorless.... like a cyborg.

I can sum up what were those Aussies from one Test I saw live - Fatullah 2005.

Somehow, Shariar Nafees & Ashraful blasted their way to score to 200+ for 1/2 down by first Tea on a slow turner and ball was turning/bouncing on day 1. After Tea, first the Aussies started to unleash their mouth - from Nafees’s batting technique to bad breath, then up to his mother & sister sitting in pavilion... and the guy was unfortunate to be English medium student (means he understood every thing....) until he threw it from the filth ....... somehow Ashraful resisted (& his English skills helped, otherwise hardly any decent human being could sustain ....) and BD put ~450. On a turner, spinners made it like 141/7 ..... then this Gilchrist guy without much clue of spin, but through sheer guts & will power somehow scored 144, added 200+ with last 3 wickets at better than run a minute. Still the lead was almost 150 and the ball was turning sharp now.

Now comes the blonde - started to bowl maidens after maidens after maidens ... until Basher gave up and ran himself out, Ashraful got hold at line trying to break the shackle.

Still, the target was ~320, and ball was spinning, kicking, rolling on the turf by now. Aussies found themselves like 150 short with 3 bowlers to support Ponting this time - not the best guy against finger spin, but some how that day he added 120 of last 150 and Aussies won the Test after fifth Tea. BD’s inexperience indeed helped and fielders dropped few sitters, but that Test tells lot about Aussie juggernaut - they don’t leave the contest till death.

They were out done in their 8-9 years reign only twice, once by one single guy - some Brian Charles Lara; who single handedly had beaten those ugly, frightening Aussies twice with two majestic innings; and other time one guy named VVS Laxman, assisted by RS Dravid; otherwise they were truly invincibles.
Click to expand...

Honestly the reason behind teams capitulating before they even played them was due to fear. It was a mental block. When that barrier was broken, Aussies of 2000 were beatable. They couldn't even beat weaker new zelanad side of 2000 at home.

They feasted on weak bowling in Australia. The moment teams started veeloping fast bowling talents they struggled.

This team is more than capable of beating them imo if Smith and Warner and labu fire.
 
tyron_woodley said:
Besides n.z din't face Indias full strength team. India din't even prepare for them. Let see how they fare when India actually prep for n.z by playing tour games and picking our best players, shall we?
Click to expand...

Lol India’s never playing it’s best teams. Or india hasn’t prepare when they lose so it shouldn’t count

Your excuses are hilarious :)))
 
tyron_woodley said:
Honestly the reason behind teams capitulating before they even played them was due to fear. It was a mental block. When that barrier was broken, Aussies of 2000 were beatable. They couldn't even beat weaker new zelanad side of 2000 at home.

They feasted on weak bowling in Australia. The moment teams started veeloping fast bowling talents they struggled.

This team is more than capable of beating them imo if Smith and Warner and labu fire.
Click to expand...

LMAOOO so all you have to point is one series they failed to win against NZ (drew btw). And you are using to point out that it was a weak team.

This way this current team will keep getting trashed on tough away tours. And struggle against India at home. Same india (actually stronger india) which got whitewashed in NZ and lose in England everytime.

Do you even see the contradictions in your own posts lol. You use one series the Aussies of 2000s failed to win as a crutch while ignoring the dozens of flaws in the current team
 
Mamoon said:
Labuschagne can be a better batsman than Clarke/Martyn/Hussey in the future.

Hazlewood is better than Gillespie. Overall, 2000’s Australia is obviously much better.
Click to expand...

Hazlewood isn't better than Gillespie

Gillespie was a major reason why Australia won in India in 04. He bowled beautifully in that series. Hazlewood has yet to do anything that significant in tough conditions.
 
Thankfully no one is claiming that Paine is better than Gilchrist yet :))
 
tyron_woodley said:
My complete lineup as follows based on how their careers will end up and actual skillset. For Aussie Condtions:

Hayden
Warner (better than Langer. Way better)
Ponting
Smith
Labuschagne (yes better than clarke)
Gillchrist
Green or Martyn (choose either. I prefer an all rounder)
Warne
Hazelwood
Cummins
McGrath


This is their best team for Aussie Condtions.

Bowling is better now. Batting has 3 ATG level players in Aussie Condtions and one true ATG.

Hazelwood is better than Gillespie.
Also having the bonus of an extra bowler in the form of green strengthens Australia in Sena conditions.

Clarke choked vs South Africa in Australia serveral times iirc. He feasted on weak Indian, subcontinent attacks of Pakistan Etc.

The few times he met rabada I think his performance wasn't anywhere near as good. Sorry can't put him above labuschagne.
Click to expand...

lol

Warner is not better than Langer. Better at home but certainly not better in swinging conditions. Saying he is "way better" is highly inaccurate.

Labu better than Clarke? This is a joke right? Clarke scored hundreds vs the likes of peak Steyn. The Indian spin attack in India was not "weak". It was a very good attack at home. No reasonable person will pick Labu over Clarke yet.

There is no reasonable person who will pick Labu over Clarke or Martyn yet.

Hazlewood is not better than Gillespie. When Hazlewood goes and has a great series against a good batting line up in tough bowling conditions like Gillespie did in 04 in India, then we can talk.

You are greatly exagerating the current Aus team due to your support for India.

Its not close. Other than Smith and Cummins, none of the current Aus players would make that team.
 
Slog said:
Thankfully no one is claiming that Paine is better than Gilchrist yet :))
Click to expand...

oh i am sure they are thinking of how to do that too :))

Speculating that Labu may turn out to be better than Clarke does not mean that he actually is right now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Slog said:
LMAOOO so all you have to point is one series they failed to win against NZ (drew btw). And you are using to point out that it was a weak team.

This way this current team will keep getting trashed on tough away tours. And struggle against India at home. Same india (actually stronger india) which got whitewashed in NZ and lose in England everytime.

Do you even see the contradictions in your own posts lol. You use one series the Aussies of 2000s failed to win as a crutch while ignoring the dozens of flaws in the current team
Click to expand...

stronger india dint get whitewashed in n.z.
bewda with his usual selection messed it up by not picking gill and bhuvi was injured. ashwin and jaddu dint play together. we dint have the left right combo to trouble n.z.
 
tyron_woodley said:
stronger india dint get whitewashed in n.z.
bewda with his usual selection messed it up by not picking gill and bhuvi was injured. ashwin and jaddu dint play together. we dint have the left right combo to trouble n.z.
Click to expand...

This way literally any team in the world can come up with excuses and claim that they didn’t really lose a given series
 
hk031992 said:
lol

Warner is not better than Langer. Better at home but certainly not better in swinging conditions. Saying he is "way better" is highly inaccurate.

Labu better than Clarke? This is a joke right? Clarke scored hundreds vs the likes of peak Steyn. The Indian spin attack in India was not "weak". It was a very good attack at home. No reasonable person will pick Labu over Clarke yet.

There is no reasonable person who will pick Labu over Clarke or Martyn yet.

Hazlewood is not better than Gillespie. When Hazlewood goes and has a great series against a good batting line up in tough bowling conditions like Gillespie did in 04 in India, then we can talk.

You are greatly exagerating the current Aus team due to your support for India.

Its not close. Other than Smith and Cummins, none of the current Aus players would make that team.
Click to expand...

I like this analysis. I note though you didn't mention this idea of picking Green over Martyn - do you agree perhaps :))
 
Slog said:
This way literally any team in the world can come up with excuses and claim that they didn’t really lose a given series
Click to expand...

They can't because we actually genuinely din't pick our best team possible. Thanks to bewda salah.

Bhuvi was injured. Ishant missed second game. We played odi and t20 before a major test series

I would love to see a rematch. I am certain we can beat them.

They are not this unbeatable side at home. Aussies pummelled them not to long ago at their home and in Australia.

Also Gill din't get picked for new Sean's when he clearly outperformed everyone in your games. No Gill, no Bhuvi, no jaddu and Ashwin together. I want a rematch now actually.

If new Zealand actually beat our full strength team then I will give them credit. They din't. Also imo you should never play short format before a Major test series without tour games.

Another overlooked factor in comparing eras.

Back then in 2000 tests were more of a priority. It is Important even now but teams have to focus on giving equal importance to all 3 formats unlike before.
 
hk031992 said:
lol

Warner is not better than Langer. Better at home but certainly not better in swinging conditions. Saying he is "way better" is highly inaccurate.

Labu better than Clarke? This is a joke right? Clarke scored hundreds vs the likes of peak Steyn. The Indian spin attack in India was not "weak". It was a very good attack at home. No reasonable person will pick Labu over Clarke yet.

There is no reasonable person who will pick Labu over Clarke or Martyn yet.

Hazlewood is not better than Gillespie. When Hazlewood goes and has a great series against a good batting line up in tough bowling conditions like Gillespie did in 04 in India, then we can talk.

You are greatly exagerating the current Aus team due to your support for India.

Its not close. Other than Smith and Cummins, none of the current Aus players would make that team.
Click to expand...
We are talking about Aussie Condtions.

Current bowling is better than 2000 era in Australian Condtions.

Previous era batting is better but Aussies have Smith and labu. It will be very close and I would not be surprised if current team wrecks them at all.

They are that good.

Clarke dint do squat vs Steyn in Australia. He performed in South Africa but Australia got hammered in Australia for like 3 straight series in a row.


I am specifically taking about Australian Condtions. It's not that hard to understand. Current Australia are just as good in Australian Condtions. They are great home bullies.
 
Again you guys are being way too nostalgic. You are failing to grasp a simple concept. T20 has changed the dynamics and importance of test cricket.

Should the current players disregard t20 and focus entirely on tests like past era players their technique would be just as good. Batsmen I mean. I don't care what you have to say but I have seen the best of both bowling attacks.

Current bowling attack of Australia Is more complete.

2000- 2004 was actually weaker India btw. We had Chopra, jaffer and a toothless fast bowling attack.

2007-2010 was the strong version.

Australia of 2000 era were lucky to not play peak Smith's team in Australia. Would have struggled vs them too.

They even struggled vs India of 2000-2003 period with a weak fast bowling attack.
 
The current Aussie lineup has some potential ATGs, like Smith.

The older Aussie lineup from the 2000s had multiple ATGs, let alone the greatest duo of McGrath and Warne.

So yeah, this team is nowhere near that. That Aussie team was a killer.
 
This side of course isn't comparable to peak Aus side of late nineties and early 2000s.

But Pakistan, NZ and SL still managed to cope a thrashing from these guys in the last year or so in Aus.

So this side is still very formidable in Australia at the least. I would say this would be the best Aussie side in the last 10-12 years.

This side looks weaker only because it has managed to run into an ATG Indian bowling lineup.
 
Australian team of 2000 would eat current team alive in any conditions. I remember a clip on YouTube where a 37 year old McGrath in a charity match was mic’ed up bowling and he described how he would get Warner out to Commentator.
Next delivery, exactly what he said happened.
 
I was simply against the notion that this current Aussie team will get rolled over by the aussies of 2000s.

We have been able to tame smith but it doesn't mean that others will do the same.
These were my claims.
1.Smith is twice the batsman Ponting was(metaphorically not mathematically)
2.Cummins>Gillespie
3.Warner>Langer in aussies conditions.
4.Starc>Lee anyday.
5.Labuschagne~Martyn(on potential and current performances.)

Also if you compare a batsman who is halfway through his career to a retired one, the former will always fall short even though he might go on to become a GOAT. That's why i kept Labu ahead of Martyn in my team.

1.Hayden
2.Warner(aussies conditions)
3 Ponting
4.Smith
5.Labuschagne
6.Clarke
7.Gilchrist
8.Warne
9.Cummins
10.Starc(better than lee)
11.Mcgrath

I haven't made any outrageous claim.
 
hoshiarpurexpress said:
Australian team of 2000 would eat current team alive in any conditions. I remember a clip on YouTube where a 37 year old McGrath in a charity match was mic’ed up bowling and he described how he would get Warner out to Commentator.
Next delivery, exactly what he said happened.
Click to expand...

Yea because 21 year old newbie Warner was in his prime facing McGrath in a T20 game in a charity event.
 
Loool
Ashish Nehra
Sourav Ganguly
Harbhjan
Kumble
Agarkar
Zak

Wah wah ATG bowling lineups on absolute flat Pattas. That's who the so called greats feasted on in Australian Condtions.

No one is denying they aren't a Great side but they won't too over current Aussie side like you guys think.

Infact it will be very very evenly contested. On flat pattu Pattas anyone can score big runs. Past isn't always better. Infact I reckon it's the opposite.

I can dig up more names but I can't be bothered.

Shoaib Yasir Arafat and some other trundlers were smashed around in Aussie Condtions.

All the stats were padded up on Pattas in Australia. Back then Asian countries put on lot of roads as well between 2000- 2009. Hence we saw huge scores like 700 plus ROFL.

Imagine what Warner and Smith would do on those Pattas along with labu.
 
MMHS said:
Pace attacks are comparable- but that naughty blonde was unique of his own class. Cricket will never see such craft - add to that his intelligence and hunger. On top of that they were never bored of winning, never gave an inch even if it’s 4-0 by 5th Test. And, they had by far the best catching unit in history of the game, along with Lloyd’s WIN - combined all these, 2020 Aussies are no match for that frightening team.
Click to expand...

Agree with this. I would have loved to see the full-strength Indian team against the current full strength Aus.

Indians have bowled extremely well so far and that is causing some underestimation of Aus batting here. I am not sure if Indians can do it in 3rd test when they have to take another new pacer. Warner coming back will make Aus stronger as well. India has competed so far based on their gun bowling, but too many are injured for 3rd/4th test.

Aus is a very strong team at home. Who is visiting Aus next?
 
jeeteshssaxena said:
I was simply against the notion that this current Aussie team will get rolled over by the aussies of 2000s.

We have been able to tame smith but it doesn't mean that others will do the same.
These were my claims.
1.Smith is twice the batsman Ponting was(metaphorically not mathematically)
2.Cummins>Gillespie
3.Warner>Langer in aussies conditions.
4.Starc>Lee anyday.
5.Labuschagne~Martyn(on potential and current performances.)

Also if you compare a batsman who is halfway through his career to a retired one, the former will always fall short even though he might go on to become a GOAT. That's why i kept Labu ahead of Martyn in my team.

1.Hayden
2.Warner(aussies conditions)
3 Ponting
4.Smith
5.Labuschagne
6.Clarke
7.Gilchrist
8.Warne
9.Cummins
10.Starc(better than lee)
11.Mcgrath

I haven't made any outrageous claim.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I said except I would swap Clarke with green in the future. Game has changed. You need a bowling all rounder who can bat to succeed in the modern era. Most top teams have one. I never said anything outrageous either.

Deep down it hurts a lot of people because their heroes are unfortunately overrated and that's the reality.
 
jeeteshssaxena said:
I was simply against the notion that this current Aussie team will get rolled over by the aussies of 2000s.

We have been able to tame smith but it doesn't mean that others will do the same.
These were my claims.
1.Smith is twice the batsman Ponting was(metaphorically not mathematically)
2.Cummins>Gillespie
3.Warner>Langer in aussies conditions.
4.Starc>Lee anyday.
5.Labuschagne~Martyn(on potential and current performances.)

Also if you compare a batsman who is halfway through his career to a retired one, the former will always fall short even though he might go on to become a GOAT. That's why i kept Labu ahead of Martyn in my team.

1.Hayden
2.Warner(aussies conditions)
3 Ponting
4.Smith
5.Labuschagne
6.Clarke
7.Gilchrist
8.Warne
9.Cummins
10.Starc(better than lee)
11.Mcgrath

I haven't made any outrageous claim.
Click to expand...

Gillespie should be there in place of Starc.
 
tyron_woodley said:
Again you guys are being way too nostalgic. You are failing to grasp a simple concept. T20 has changed the dynamics and importance of test cricket.

Should the current players disregard t20 and focus entirely on tests like past era players their technique would be just as good. Batsmen I mean. I don't care what you have to say but I have seen the best of both bowling attacks.

Current bowling attack of Australia Is more complete.

2000- 2004 was actually weaker India btw. We had Chopra, jaffer and a toothless fast bowling attack.

2007-2010 was the strong version.

Australia of 2000 era were lucky to not play peak Smith's team in Australia. Would have struggled vs them too.

They even struggled vs India of 2000-2003 period with a weak fast bowling attack.
Click to expand...
Smith's Saffers were destroyed 5-0 by Aus (home and away) in 2005/2006.
 
szrana007 said:
Aussie bowling was Stuart Clarke, Warne, Kasprowicz in the away series in SA in 2006, in which Smith's Saffers were whitewashed. SA got whitewashed at home by Aus imagine that,lol
Click to expand...

SA won in 2008 because of Smith and AB :inti
 
szrana007 said:
Smith's Saffers were destroyed 5-0 by Aus (home and away) in 2005/2006.
Click to expand...

Not to take anything away from Aus side, but Dale was new, Donald was done & Pollock was not really the same bowler as he was in 90s.

From 2003-2006 - SA lost twice against SL, One each series against Ind, Eng, and Pakistan. So it wasn't just about Aus beating them.

When people say, Smith's Saffer, they don't think about those periods.
 
Buffet said:
Not to take anything away from Aus side, but Dale was new, Donald was done & Pollock was not really the same bowler as he was in 90s.

From 2003-2006 - SA lost twice against SL, One each series against Ind, Eng, and Pakistan. So it wasn't just about Aus beating them.

When people say, Smith's Saffer, they don't think about those periods.
Click to expand...

I remember Smith declaring in the 3rd test against Aus in Sydney in 2005/2006 to level the series. He gave Aus a target of 288 to chase in the 4th innings in about 60 overs and Aus won by 8 wickets with 8,9 overs to spare,lol
 
szrana007 said:
I remember Smith declaring in the 3rd test against Aus in Sydney in 2005/2006 to level the series. He gave Aus a target of 288 to chase in the 4th innings in about 60 overs and Aus won by 8 wickets with 8,9 overs to spare,lol
Click to expand...

It was a brave call but that was beginning of something truly special. Its pretty fine if such calls go wrong on rare occasions.

Smith's Saffers drew in 2008 and 2010 series in India and if they would have met us around 2012-13, they would have probably won the series too.

Against Pakistan too, Smith's Saffers never lost a test series.

They also beat an ATG England team in England in 2012. They basically humiliated them.
 
Last edited:
tyron_woodley said:
Yea because 21 year old newbie Warner was in his prime facing McGrath in a T20 game in a charity event.
Click to expand...

umm Warner was already a T20 superstar then.. he had played IPL as well.
McGrath wil eat him out in his prime any day and age on any wicket.
In Test Match.. he will not survive 3 overs against McGrath with the new ball.
You are kidding if you think Warner will smash McGrath like he does to these modern bowlers in Australia.
 
Many current Aussie cricketers will cry back to home and leave Cricket forever if they ever played Aussies 2000s team. They are so soft, nice and are such good husbands that it is cringeworthy.to us studs and bad boys.
 
hoshiarpurexpress said:
umm Warner was already a T20 superstar then.. he had played IPL as well.
McGrath wil eat him out in his prime any day and age on any wicket.
In Test Match.. he will not survive 3 overs against McGrath with the new ball.
You are kidding if you think Warner will smash McGrath like he does to these modern bowlers in Australia.
Click to expand...

He was 21. No where near his prime. Ans it was a T20. For all we know it could have been a setup.
 
szrana007 said:
Aussie bowling was Stuart Clarke, Warne, Kasprowicz in the away series in SA in 2006, in which Smith's Saffers were whitewashed. SA got whitewashed at home by Aus imagine that,lol
Click to expand...

No bachha Iean saffers lineup that played vs Aussie bowling haha. What a joke.

Flat track era is so overrated with stat padders.
 
freelance_cricketer said:
Many current Aussie cricketers will cry back to home and leave Cricket forever if they ever played Aussies 2000s team. They are so soft, nice and are such good husbands that it is cringeworthy.to us studs and bad boys.
Click to expand...

No they won't. That scummy behaviour would end in a code of misconduct fine for old scumbag version of bogan Aussies.

Game should be played fair. Not to mention the amount of cheating that used to go on with biased umpiring etc.
 
tyron_woodley said:
No bachha Iean saffers lineup that played vs Aussie bowling haha. What a joke.

Flat track era is so overrated with stat padders.
Click to expand...

Smith's Saffers were great team between 2008-14. Aussies were a great team between 1995-2007.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Savak
Do Australian cricketers or Cricket Australia overlook losing to India at home due to the massive profits of an Indian tour?
Replies
45
Views
2K
sweep_shot
sweep_shot
jeetu
Stats: Rating players by their performance against each country
Replies
12
Views
598
jeetu
jeetu
Unbiased-Fan
Best Non Asia Test XI to travel to Asia since 2000
Replies
45
Views
4K
Cricfan4eva
Cricfan4eva
B
[VIDEOS] Australia cricket legend, Shane Warne, dies aged 52 of ‘suspected heart attack’
2 3 4
Replies
306
Views
40K
Major
M
MenInG
The Ashes: Australia reach 61/1 (124 behind) after bowling England out for 185 on Day 1 of 3rd Test
2 3
Replies
188
Views
16K
Majestic_Inzi
M
Back
Top