Current Australia vs Australia 2000’s combined line-up

[Srtfan]

Current aus already lost 2 home series within 2 year.

 

[Mamoon]

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.

Gillespie had an excellent seam presentation and did really well on dry/slow surfaces, but he wasn’t very effective in countries where they ball swung more.

He was a major reason why Australia won in India in 2004 but also a major reason why Australia lost the Ashes in 2005.

In that series, he was a rabbit in headlights without McGrath and I have never seen Hazlewood look so helpless over the course of a series.

Having watched both bowl, I will pick Hazlewood in my team because I believe he is a more skillful bowler who is capable of leading an attack in his own right.

Gillespie was an excellent support act but he benefited a lot from bowling with McGrath.

 

[Ab Fan]

Gillespie had an excellent seam presentation and did really well on dry/slow surfaces, but he wasn’t very effective in countries where they ball swung more.

He was a major reason why Australia won in India in 2004 but also a major reason why Australia lost the Ashes in 2005.

In that series, he was a rabbit in headlights without McGrath and I have never seen Hazlewood look so helpless over the course of a series.

Having watched both bowl, I will pick Hazlewood in my team because I believe he is a more skillful bowler who is capable of leading an attack in his own right.

Gillespie was an excellent support act but he benefited a lot from bowling with McGrath.

Hazelwood was terrible in SA 2018 and pretty much every away series except Ashes 2019.

 

[szrana007]

Smith's Saffers were great team between 2008-14. Aussies were a great team between 1995-2007.

Aus between 2000-2007 >>> Smith's Saffers

 

[Ab Fan]

Aus between 2000-2007 >>> Smith's Saffers

I agree. Aussies had replacements for Steve Waugh and Mark Waugh when they retired. Clarke and Martyn came in. SA didn't had any replacement for Kallis and Smith. Also, SA didn't had a Warne equivalent.

 

[Last Monetarist]

Also, SA didn't had a Warne equivalent.

Has there been any team in history that has had a Warne equivalent?

 

[Mamoon]

Hazelwood was terrible in SA 2018 and pretty much every away series except Ashes 2019.

Hazlewood averaged in the high 30s in the South Africa series.

Gillespie averaged 100+ in the 2005 Ashes.

 

[Ab Fan]

Has there been any team in history that has had a Warne equivalent?

Chucking aside, SL had Murali who performed as good as Warne.

 

[ShoaibM]

Tyron you make too many excuses man. Learn to accept things more like men should.

 

[szrana007]

I agree. Aussies had replacements for Steve Waugh and Mark Waugh when they retired. Clarke and Martyn came in. SA didn't had any replacement for Kallis and Smith. Also, SA didn't had a Warne equivalent.

Aussie bench strength was incredible. Stuart Macgill was unlucky, he would have had a great career with any other team. Same goes for Stuart Clarke, Hussey and others, they debuted too late to have a long career.

 

[Ab Fan]

Hazlewood averaged in the high 30s in the South Africa series.

Gillespie averaged 100+ in the 2005 Ashes.

He was on his last leg. At his prime, he took 7-37 in England and won them a match in 1997.

 

[Mamoon]

He was on his last leg. At his prime, he took 7-37 in England and won them a match in 1997.

There can always be excuses for every failure. He was brilliant in India only 6-7 months earlier, not much could have happened to him and his legs over that period.

England in the late 90s was a thoroughly poor side.

 

[szrana007]

There can always be excuses for every failure. He was brilliant in India only 6-7 months earlier, not much could have happened to him and his legs over that period.

England in the late 90s was a thoroughly poor side.

They beat SA in 1998, 2nd strongest team of that decade.

 

[Ab Fan]

There can always be excuses for every failure. He was brilliant in India only 6-7 months earlier, not much could have happened to him and his legs over that period.

England in the late 90s was a thoroughly poor side.

He retired in 2006, clearly that's not an excuse.

 

[szrana007]

He was on his last leg. At his prime, he took 7-37 in England and won them a match in 1997.

1997 Ashes is the best England competed against Australia in an Ashes series from 1989-2003.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Current aus already lost 2 home series within 2 year.

More credit should be given to the incredible bowling that wrecked them rather than Australia being weak.

The same bowling of saffers and current India's full strength bowling would wreck any team in seaming conditions.

 

[Mamoon]

They beat SA in 1998, 2nd strongest team of that decade.

From 1997 to 1999, England won only 1 Test series at home (South Africa) and lost 3 (Ashes, Sri Lanka and New Zealand).

They were a poor side. The weakest home team in that period along with Pakistan.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Aus between 2000-2007 >>> Smith's Saffers

Nope. Not necessarily. All pure conjectue. They faced weaker bowling lineups comapres to saffers.

Unless they played ecah other you can't say who is better.

 

[Mamoon]

He retired in 2006, clearly that's not an excuse.

That doesn’t explain why he performed so well in India in 2004. Had he failed in that series the “last legs” excused would have been used.

Last legs or not, Gillespie had no justification for his bowling in the 2005 Ashes. He was shocking, and as a senior bowler, he should have stepped up in McGrath’s absence.

 

[tyron_woodley]

They beat SA in 1998, 2nd strongest team of that decade.

Apart from Donald the bowling was weak. Hayward lol. McMillan.

You are all over the place. We are talking about 2000 era.

 

[szrana007]

From 1997 to 1999, England won only 1 Test series at home (South Africa) and lost 3 (Ashes, Sri Lanka and New Zealand).

They were a poor side. The weakest home team in that period along with Pakistan.

1997 Ashes is the best England competed against Australia in an Ashes series from 1989-2003.

 

[tyron_woodley]

That doesn’t explain why he performed so well in India in 2004. Had he failed in that series the “last legs” excused would have been used.

Last legs or not, Gillespie had no justification for his bowling in the 2005 Ashes. He was shocking, and as a senior bowler, he should have stepped up in McGrath’s absence.

Only reason he even performed was cause India missed tendu for a couple of games and Ganguly as well.

 

[szrana007]

Apart from Donald the bowling was weak. Hayward lol. McMillan.

You are all over the place. We are talking about 2000 era.

Still Saffers under Cronje are an ATG team.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Still Saffers under Cronje are an ATG team.

Doesn't matter. The more I delve into stats and the lineups faced by 2000 era Aussies, the worse it looks for the so called ATGs.

So I will stop. Era comparison is pointless anyway.

 

[Ab Fan]

That doesn’t explain why he performed so well in India in 2004. Had he failed in that series the “last legs” excused would have been used.

Last legs or not, Gillespie had no justification for his bowling in the 2005 Ashes. He was shocking, and as a senior bowler, he should have stepped up in McGrath’s absence.

Last leg does not mean he has to fail everywhere. He will still give his best. The point is regarding his struggle where the ball swings more. But that struggle was only in his final series. Before that, he did very well in England.

 

[szrana007]

Doesn't matter. The more I delve into stats and the lineups faced by 2000 era Aussies, the worse it looks for the so called ATGs.

So I will stop. Era comparison is pointless anyway.

Aussies of 2000's >>>> Smith's Saffers.

 

[szrana007]

Nope. Not necessarily. All pure conjectue. They faced weaker bowling lineups comapres to saffers.

Unless they played ecah other you can't say who is better.

Aussies destroyed Smith's Saffers in 2005/2006. Beat them 2-0 in Australia and whitewashed them 3-0 in South Africa.

 

[Srtfan]

Aussies destroyed world xi in 3 odi & single test. They had 16 match wining streak twice.

 

[Hyperion66]

http://howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerProgressBowl.asp?PlayerId=2082&Series=0515

Indian fans are trying to greatly exaggerate the current Aus team in order to make India's win in the second test look highly impressive.

I agree completely. Not all fans though, just a few hardcore, ultra passionate ones. You have your fair share of such fans as well who for example will conveniently ignore the role bottle caps played behind the ATG status of your bowlers (Not saying they became greats solely through ball tampering). My point is some fans can be a bit illogical and biased and there is nothing that anyone can do about it.

 

[Mamoon]

1997 Ashes is the best England competed against Australia in an Ashes series from 1989-2003.

Losing 3-2 at home to 1997 version of Australia doesn’t make you a strong side. That Australia lost in India and Sri Lanka in the same period (1996-97).

England lost 3 out of 4 Test series at home from 1997 to 1999. Strong teams don’t do that.

 

[szrana007]

Losing 3-2 at home to 1997 version of Australia doesn’t make you a strong side. That Australia lost in India and Sri Lanka in the same period (1996-97).

England lost 3 out of 4 Test series at home from 1997 to 1999. Strong teams don’t do that.

Still in the 1997 Ashes, the series was alive till the 5th test. In all the other Ashes series from 1989-2003, England were basically only winning dead rubbers that is if they won a match at all in a series.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Aussies destroyed Smith's Saffers in 2005/2006. Beat them 2-0 in Australia and whitewashed them 3-0 in South Africa.

Baccha Smith was a Newbie at the time.
Look at the bowling lineup.
Nel langeveldt. Yea how about no.

Ponting's Aussies never beat peak Smith's side in australia. In fact they lost in 08.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Aussies of 2000's >>>> Smith's Saffers.

They are because they played weaker bowling lineups.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Smashing south Africa with the bowling lineup of langeveldt
Nel
Nitini

Is not he same as rabada, Steyn Philander Morkel.


You kidding me. Get out of here with that rubbish.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Nehra
Zak khan
Kumble
Harbhjan
Ganguly

ROFL this was the lineup that played vs Australia on roads when India toured away.

In Aussie Condtions all those above bowlers suck.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Dominic cork
Alan mulaly
Darren Gough
Angus Fraser


Lol this was the lineup in 98. I mean it isn't bad but c'mon. Current English bowling lineup is way better. Especially with good all rounders like stokes and woakes along with Archer, broad and Andy or wood.

 

[szrana007]

Baccha Smith was a Newbie at the time.
Look at the bowling lineup.
Nel langeveldt. Yea how about no.

Ponting's Aussies never beat peak Smith's side in australia. In fact they lost in 08.

Hahaha, in 08 Smith's Saffers beat an Aussie team without Mcgrath,Warne, Langer,Martyn and Gilchrist.
Get the hell out of here.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Hahaha, in 08 Smith's Saffers beat an Aussie team without Mcgrath,Warne, Langer,Martyn and Gilchrist.
Get the hell out of here.

You get out of here back to where you belong.

Aussies under punter din't face the true top tier bowling of Smith's saffers or the di plesis version.

They feasted on weak bowling on flat Pattas pattu roads.

 

[Srtfan]

Weak Aussie thrashed peak smith saffer in South Africa.

 

[szrana007]

Weak Aussie thrashed peak smith saffer in South Africa.

Twice actually, ( 2009 and 2014) Smith Saffers thrashed in their backyard by a weak Aussie side.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Weak Aussie thrashed peak smith saffer in South Africa.

That Aussie team was stronger than overrated flat track era fodders of pre 2006.

Way better.
Also saffers thrashed them 3 times in 08, 13 etcnin Australia mate.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Twice actually, ( 2009 and 2014) Smith Saffers thrashed in their backyard by a weak Aussie side.

That was an incredibly strong Aussie team and they also get wrecked by saffers in Australia.

Steyn missed several games in South Africa hence the STRONG Aussie side could beat them.

 

[Heisenberg111]

That Aussie team was stronger than overrated flat track era fodders of pre 2006.

Way better.
Also saffers thrashed them 3 times in 08, 13 etcnin Australia mate.

How was that Aussie team stronger? AFAIK that Australian team was severely weakened by the retirement of their ATG's like Warne, Mcgrath, Gilly etc.

 

[tyron_woodley]

How was that Aussie team stronger? AFAIK that Australian team was severely weakened by the retirement of their ATG's like Warne, Mcgrath, Gilly etc.

Both never played at their best vs each other.

We don't know whether early 2000 era Aussie side would beat post 2006 Aussie side at home. Bowling attack consisted of Ryan Harris Johnson etc were strong at home. Batting was solid with Clarke Watson Rogers etc.

All conjecture.
But what we do know is pre 2006 Aussies team feasted on weak attacks in Aussie Condtions.

 

[hk031992]

Both never played at their best vs each other.

We don't know whether early 2000 era Aussie side would beat post 2006 Aussie side at home. Bowling attack consisted of Ryan Harris Johnson etc were strong at home. Batting was solid with Clarke Watson Rogers etc.

All conjecture.
But what we do know is pre 2006 Aussies team feasted on weak attacks in Aussie Condtions.

There is no justification for picking Labu over Clarke or Martyn even in Australia.

You are grossly exaggerating the current Aus team to make India look good.

The current Indian team would struggle to win a session in a test vs the 2000's Aus in Aus. They certainly wouldn't be winning a match vs them.

 

[ShoaibM]

There is no justification for picking Labu over Clarke or Martyn even in Australia.

You are grossly exaggerating the current Aus team to make India look good.

The current Indian team would struggle to win a session in a test vs the 2000's Aus in Aus. They certainly wouldn't be winning a match vs them.

Exactly this. But I'm still laughing at "everything I say is true" comment. Hindi Jesus over here. )

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

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

Please don't insult that GOAT Australian team because of 2-3 noobs.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

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 )

Exactly. Same excuse can be used by fans of each country.

 

[ShoaibM]

Exactly. Same excuse can be used by fans of each country.

India wasnt playing its best team because Gill, the guy who hasnt debut'd yet, wasnt playing. Wah Tyron Ji kya baat hai.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Exactly. Same excuse can be used by fans of each country.

No it can't because India actually genuinely din't pick it's best team and had a few injuries. That's the issue.

 

[tyron_woodley]

India wasnt playing its best team because Gill, the guy who hasnt debut'd yet, wasnt playing. Wah Tyron Ji kya baat hai.

Gill
Bhuvi injured
Jadeja
Ashwin
Don't play together.

Huge difference.


And now vs Australia missing 5 key players.

 

[Slog]

Gill
Bhuvi injured
Jadeja
Ashwin
Don't play together.

Huge difference.


And now vs Australia missing 5 key players.

Clearly someone’s losing it after being made the laughing stock of the forum

 

[tyron_woodley]

There is no justification for picking Labu over Clarke or Martyn even in Australia.

You are grossly exaggerating the current Aus team to make India look good.

The current Indian team would struggle to win a session in a test vs the 2000's Aus in Aus. They certainly wouldn't be winning a match vs them.

This current Indian bowling and Aussie lineup would ruin them and make them commit suicide if both teams are bowling is at full strength.

God. The 2000 era Aussies are so overrated

They draw with an Indian side that had the bowling of Zak agarkar and Nehra. ROFL.

They never beat a tean with a quality pace attack in Aussie Condtions.

I am talking about Aussie Condtions specifically. Huge difference.

They played vs South Africa that had a weak attack of Nel, Nitini and geraitric Pollock.

You just want to make the pre 2006 era players look speical because your favourite fodders played in that flat track cricket era.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Clearly someone’s losing it after being made the laughing stock of the forum

Laughing stock lmao? Me ? Everything I say is always true. What's wrong with what I said? I am telling the truth. New zeland din't beat us at full strength. We dint play tour games before the test series either.

Now we are missing 5 key players vs Aussies 1. Do the math.

 

[Romali_rotti]

This current Indian bowling and Aussie lineup would ruin them and make them commit suicide if both teams are bowling is at full strength.

God. The 2000 era Aussies are so overrated



.

The current full strength Indian bowling lineup of:

Ishant,
Bumrah,
Shami
Ashwin
Jadeja/Yadav

vs the early to mid 2000s Aus batting lineup would be a good fight. However, the Aussie bowling line up till Mcgrath retired from the late 90s onwards would destroy the current full strength Indian batting, it would not even be a contest..

 

[Slog]

God. The 2000 era Aussies are so overrated

They draw with an Indian side that had the bowling of Zak agarkar and Nehra. ROFL.
.

Yea that Aussie side didn’t have Warne, McGrath for whole series and Lee for large parts of it. If that was the Indian side you would claim that the series result shouldn’t even count since the best 2 Aussie bowlers didn’t play at all and Lee only came at end. Lmaoo atleast be consistent in your weird standards.

Also that Indian side was fairly good and the batting was filled with ATGs. So it was Indian batting ATGs against bowlers like Brad Williams (who became a house painter shortly afterwards), Bracken (nonexistent test career) and Andy Bichel... if situation was reversed you would claim that the series result should be struck off record books

 

[Slog]

Laughing stock lmao? Me ? Everything I say is always true. What's wrong with what I said? I am telling the truth. New zeland din't beat us at full strength. We dint play tour games before the test series either.

Now we are missing 5 key players vs Aussies 1. Do the math.

Just because someone says ‘I always tell the truth’ and keeps repeating it doesn’t make it true.. otherwise jails would be empty.

Also it’s funny that you have to point to 1-2 series from a 7-8 year period to try to trash the 2000s Aussies lol. You could point to a series every couple of years to do the same for
current Aussies or even current Indians

 

[ShoaibM]

Just because someone says ‘I always tell the truth’ and keeps repeating it doesn’t make it true.. otherwise jails would be empty.

Also it’s funny that you have to point to 1-2 series from a 7-8 year period to try to trash the 2000s Aussies lol. You could point to a series every couple of years to do the same for
current Aussies or even current Indians

He IS the truth damn it! )

 

[MMHS]

Chucking aside, SL had Murali who performed as good as Warne.

MUCH better than Warne - a lone fighter. Stats like 68 5fors and 23 10fors are unreal. It’s unimaginable even 100 years back when game was bowling dominant.

 

[MMHS]

This current Indian bowling and Aussie lineup would ruin them and make them commit suicide if both teams are bowling is at full strength.

God. The 2000 era Aussies are so overrated

They draw with an Indian side that had the bowling of Zak agarkar and Nehra. ROFL.

They never beat a tean with a quality pace attack in Aussie Condtions.

I am talking about Aussie Condtions specifically. Huge difference.

They played vs South Africa that had a weak attack of Nel, Nitini and geraitric Pollock.

You just want to make the pre 2006 era players look speical because your favourite fodders played in that flat track cricket era.

Relax bro - u r getting senti.

What Aussies of 2000, I’m telling you that India of 2020 with full squad won’t beat India of 2000 anywhere in world in a 5 Test series - it’s up to you to take or not.

I have seen both sides closely. And current Indian bowling is over hyped because of the quality of opponents - Australia poor batting unit, NZ decent at most, Poms are good in ODI but not that much in Test. While WIN, SAF, SRL and PAK have declined massively - particularly PAK and Srilanka are shadows of their 2000-05 batting power...... yes, you can say Bangladeshi batting of 2019 was better than 1999......

You can ask senior Indian posters here - Viru or SIF or G2 .... and check this. Zak, Srinath, even Agarkar, Pathan were quite good actually, not to mention Kumble & Bhajji - but they looked ordinary in comparison to Wasim, Shoaib, Ambi, Walshi, Donald, Pollock, Bond, Makhya, Gough, Hoggard, Harmisson, Caddick and those frightening Aussies.

And have you noticed the decline of overall cricket? Going beyond stats, only current bowlers that’ll make a combined XI will be Bumrah - that too because of his uniqueness. Do you really think Ishant was better than Srinath or Shami over Zak.... while Kumble & Bhajji were at different level all together.

I’m not even touching batting here ....

And I’m serious bro - leave Australia 2000; compare India of 2000 v 2020 and see how many you get in your side.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Yea that Aussie side didn’t have Warne, McGrath for whole series and Lee for large parts of it. If that was the Indian side you would claim that the series result shouldn’t even count since the best 2 Aussie bowlers didn’t play at all and Lee only came at end. Lmaoo atleast be consistent in your weird standards.

Also that Indian side was fairly good and the batting was filled with ATGs. So it was Indian batting ATGs against bowlers like Brad Williams (who became a house painter shortly afterwards), Bracken (nonexistent test career) and Andy Bichel... if situation was reversed you would claim that the series result should be struck off record books

You are a product of your time. Modern teams would adapt to the different standards set out for pre T20. That's why you fail to understand.

Indian batsmen at the time are vastly overrated and have vastly inflated stats tbh. So we're the Aussies who feasted on mediocre pathetic, languid and very limited pace attacks especially from subcontinent. That is the truth.

Lee was always a mediocre bowler overall. Starc is miles better than Lee. Current Aussie attack is better and more dynamic for Australian Condtions.


Indian side from 2007-2010 was a top tier team. India side from 2000- 2004 was vastly overrated and actually a pretty average side. Their so called great batsmen weren't at their peak and they certainly din't have the bowling attack to handle Aussies who feasted on their mediocre attacks.

Aussies never truly faced an attack of current Aussies, Indians and South Africa of 2015-18 which had rabada, Morkel, Steyn and Philander.

I do not rate that scummy side. Sorry.

 

[tyron_woodley]

The current full strength Indian bowling lineup of:

Ishant,
Bumrah,
Shami
Ashwin
Jadeja/Yadav

vs the early to mid 2000s Aus batting lineup would be a good fight. However, the Aussie bowling line up till Mcgrath retired from the late 90s onwards would destroy the current full strength Indian batting, it would not even be a contest..

Again conjecture. You don't know that lol. T20 has changed the sport. Players adapt and players now have to acclimate to 3* different formats. If they were allowed to specialise in tests alone along with odi's then their tehniques would be vastly different.

Technology has advanced further. It doesn't go backwards. Modern teams will study them and work them out. Vice versa is true but you need to factor in franchize cricket, T20 internationals etc which has changed the dynamics of the modern era cricketer.

Players are more than capable of adapting to pre T20 standards of test batting.

It would be a very competitive and I don't for a second think those Aussies would butcher the modern side whastover. It will be a very even contest in Australia.

 

[tyron_woodley]

He IS the truth damn it! )

Literally every statement I made so far is spot on. I must be god. I don't know.

 

[MP2011]

To the learned posters, don't go by what these newbies say. They themselves don't know what they are blabbering about that ATG Australian team and Indian team of '00s.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Relax bro - u r getting senti.

What Aussies of 2000, I’m telling you that India of 2020 with full squad won’t beat India of 2000 anywhere in world in a 5 Test series - it’s up to you to take or not.

I have seen both sides closely. And current Indian bowling is over hyped because of the quality of opponents - Australia poor batting unit, NZ decent at most, Poms are good in ODI but not that much in Test. While WIN, SAF, SRL and PAK have declined massively - particularly PAK and Srilanka are shadows of their 2000-05 batting power...... yes, you can say Bangladeshi batting of 2019 was better than 1999......

You can ask senior Indian posters here - Viru or SIF or G2 .... and check this. Zak, Srinath, even Agarkar, Pathan were quite good actually, not to mention Kumble & Bhajji - but they looked ordinary in comparison to Wasim, Shoaib, Ambi, Walshi, Donald, Pollock, Bond, Makhya, Gough, Hoggard, Harmisson, Caddick and those frightening Aussies.

And have you noticed the decline of overall cricket? Going beyond stats, only current bowlers that’ll make a combined XI will be Bumrah - that too because of his uniqueness. Do you really think Ishant was better than Srinath or Shami over Zak.... while Kumble & Bhajji were at different level all together.

I’m not even touching batting here ....

And I’m serious bro - leave Australia 2000; compare India of 2000 v 2020 and see how many you get in your side.

India of 2015-2019 which was the prime Kohli's of kohlis indiawould wallop India of 2000 5 times in a 5 test series and probably make them bat twice in every game if the games were shceduled in India.

Current Indian bowling is not overhyped. They are darn good. Tendu and other overrated batsmen have not faced bowling of this quality from modern era Aussies or Indians or kiwis. Literally every team has top Calibre bowling attacks except the green trundlers apart from shaheen, Bangladesh. Even englund has Archer who is probably an ATg in the making.
Modern attacks are far more well rounded.

Australia currently is not a poor batting unit. They would butcher every other side. They just ran into some quality bowling. Next game is at scg. They can easily put up big scores.

Pre 2006 era, games were played mainly on roads hence the batsmen have an inflated ego. They are far too overrated for playing on absolute pancakes.

Viru is a since. I don't care about what he has to say. Lol again it's all just names.

Ambrose and Courtney initially benefitted from bouncer rules when they first started and padded up their stats.

Agarkar Pathan and sirnath din't play together. Srinath retired earlier. Agarkar Nehra Pathan is what played vs Australia in Australia and that is a sub standard attack in Australian Condtions. Still competed well with the so called goat team on roads.

Ishant is better than Zak khan anyday. Current Ishant? Post 2015 Ishant has been one of the best bowlers in the world. This is why stats aren't everything.

Donald had fodders like Hayward to support him. It's not a complete attack.

Wasim is a legend but wackqar was wack in Australia and India. Another overrated player.

Shoaib lol. He got found out rather quickly hence he had to fake some injured to make himself feel better.

Also Ambrose din't even want to tour India apparently.

Caddick Harmison etc are all average bowlers. Nothing special.


Modern bowling attacks are more complete and well rounded and hunt together as a team.

 

[tyron_woodley]

To the learned posters, don't go by what these newbies say. They themselves don't know what they are blabbering about that ATG Australian team and Indian team of '00s.

Have a look at the names of the bowling attacks they feasted on in Aussie Condtions. Come back to me. That too on freaking roads. On roads lmao. Flat track fodder era.

I would not be surprised if current Australia roll them out with relative ease.

Advent of T20 has changed the entire outlook of tests. Players don't need to prirotize tests anymore. That's a huge factor. That's why I always say don't compare era's as there are far too many variables to factor in for objective analysis.

You just don't know the truth. What you can do is judge by their ability. Current attack of Aussies look far more complete as a unit than McGrath's Aussie side.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Want me to remind you of how the goat Sachu cutie pie performed vs bonds n.z in n.z? An attack that had bond basically and bunch of nobodies like Doull etc.

99, 121,161, 154 in 2 games. Lost both games 2 0.

Shane bond
Daryl tuffey
Scott Styris

That was their attack ROFL. Apart from bond it was mediocre.

This is just one sample. All those so called great clowns struggles on spicy pitches and t20s weren't even introduced at that time.

So overrated lol.


Oh and the goats Aussies loool at home struggled to beat that attack of new zeland. had to salvage a draw by fluke.

Goat stuff.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Pakistan have always been a terribly mediocre side in bouncy Condtions. Awful team infact.

Their record shows. Their bowlers who were so cherished in the past were meek, fragile and broken when they toured Australia to play on flat roads.

That's why the goat Aussies could tear them a new one at home Condtions.

That mediocre attack is a mere nothing compared to modern Aussies in bouncy wickets who also have the GOAT batsman in Smith.

I do not believe this current Aussie side would lose to pre 2006 Aussies. It will be very close and could go either way. Their bowling alone is just brutal. Never seen a more complete attack for bouncy Condtions.

 

[Ab Fan]

India of 2015-2019 which was the prime Kohli's of kohlis indiawould wallop India of 2000 5 times in a 5 test series and probably make them bat twice in every game if the games were shceduled in India.

Current Indian bowling is not overhyped. They are darn good. Tendu and other overrated batsmen have not faced bowling of this quality from modern era Aussies or Indians or kiwis. Literally every team has top Calibre bowling attacks except the green trundlers apart from shaheen, Bangladesh. Even englund has Archer who is probably an ATg in the making.
Modern attacks are far more well rounded.

Australia currently is not a poor batting unit. They would butcher every other side. They just ran into some quality bowling. Next game is at scg. They can easily put up big scores.

Pre 2006 era, games were played mainly on roads hence the batsmen have an inflated ego. They are far too overrated for playing on absolute pancakes.

Viru is a since. I don't care about what he has to say. Lol again it's all just names.

Ambrose and Courtney initially benefitted from bouncer rules when they first started and padded up their stats.

Agarkar Pathan and sirnath din't play together. Srinath retired earlier. Agarkar Nehra Pathan is what played vs Australia in Australia and that is a sub standard attack in Australian Condtions. Still competed well with the so called goat team on roads.

Ishant is better than Zak khan anyday. Current Ishant? Post 2015 Ishant has been one of the best bowlers in the world. This is why stats aren't everything.

Donald had fodders like Hayward to support him. It's not a complete attack.

Wasim is a legend but wackqar was wack in Australia and India. Another overrated player.

Shoaib lol. He got found out rather quickly hence he had to fake some injured to make himself feel better.

Also Ambrose din't even want to tour India apparently.

Caddick Harmison etc are all average bowlers. Nothing special.


Modern bowling attacks are more complete and well rounded and hunt together as a team.

You can't compare a small period to a decade and hence you are underrating India's peak performance of 2007-2010. If we do a fair comparison,

Indian team under Kohli(2015-2019) vs India team of 2007-10:-

Indian team of 2007-10:-

1)2007 England away win
2)2008 NZ away win
3)2011 drew in SA vs ATG SA side( minus Philander but peak Steyn)
4)2007 lost 1-2 to Aus but Sydney should have been at the bare minimum a draw and series would have been 1-1
5) Lost 2-1 in SL but that team had Murli, peak Mendis, Sanga, Mahela, Samaraweera and Dilshan

Indian team under Kohli(2015-19)

1. Lost in England 4-1
2. Lost in SA 2-1
3. Lost in NZ 2-0
4. Won in Aus ( good win)
5. Won in SL( but a much much inferior SL side)

You can see that Indian side fared much better away from home with Zaheer Khan, the only bowler at its peak and their ATG batting lineup compared to current Indian team away from home.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

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.

Lol. Clarke scored 2 consecutive doubles (the second one at SR of almost 90) in Aus against SA featuring Steyn in 2012

 

[BunnyRabbit]

I would make this team from 2000s and 2010s

1. Justin Langer
2. Matthew Hayden
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Steven Smith
5. Michael Clarke
6. Steve Waugh (C)
7. Adam Gilchrist (wk)
8. Shane Warne
9. Pat Cummins
10. Ryan Harris/Jason Gillespie
11. Glenn McGrath

 

[Romali_rotti]

I would make this team from 2000s and 2010s

1. Justin Langer
2. Matthew Hayden
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Steven Smith
5. Michael Clarke
6. Steve Waugh (C)
7. Adam Gilchrist (wk)
8. Shane Warne
9. Pat Cummins
10. Ryan Harris/Jason Gillespie
11. Glenn McGrath

Ryan Harris in the same conversation as Gillespie ??? Come on now lol...

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Relax bro - u r getting senti.

What Aussies of 2000, I’m telling you that India of 2020 with full squad won’t beat India of 2000 anywhere in world in a 5 Test series - it’s up to you to take or not.

I have seen both sides closely. And current Indian bowling is over hyped because of the quality of opponents - Australia poor batting unit, NZ decent at most, Poms are good in ODI but not that much in Test. While WIN, SAF, SRL and PAK have declined massively - particularly PAK and Srilanka are shadows of their 2000-05 batting power...... yes, you can say Bangladeshi batting of 2019 was better than 1999......

You can ask senior Indian posters here - Viru or SIF or G2 .... and check this. Zak, Srinath, even Agarkar, Pathan were quite good actually, not to mention Kumble & Bhajji - but they looked ordinary in comparison to Wasim, Shoaib, Ambi, Walshi, Donald, Pollock, Bond, Makhya, Gough, Hoggard, Harmisson, Caddick and those frightening Aussies.

And have you noticed the decline of overall cricket? Going beyond stats, only current bowlers that’ll make a combined XI will be Bumrah - that too because of his uniqueness. Do you really think Ishant was better than Srinath or Shami over Zak.... while Kumble & Bhajji were at different level all together.

I’m not even touching batting here ....

And I’m serious bro - leave Australia 2000; compare India of 2000 v 2020 and see how many you get in your side.

Ashwin isn't better than Bhajji?
I have seen both of them and ashwin is atleast two levels above Singh anywhere in the world.

Secondly this aussie side has a good batting unit, Smith, Labu Warner are all world clasa players, its a knee jerk reaction to call this batting lineup bad

Also Shami anyday over zaheer and no indian bowler can be comparrd with Bumrah.

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

Nope. Not necessarily. All pure conjectue. They faced weaker bowling lineups comapres to saffers.

Unless they played ecah other you can't say who is better.

A weakened Ponting's Australia after the retirement of Mcgrath, Warne, Gilchrist, Martyn, Hayden and langer beat Smith's South africa in 2009. Dont know what you're going on about.

 

[tyron_woodley]

You can't compare a small period to a decade and hence you are underrating India's peak performance of 2007-2010. If we do a fair comparison,

Indian team under Kohli(2015-2019) vs India team of 2007-10:-

Indian team of 2007-10:-

1)2007 England away win
2)2008 NZ away win
3)2011 drew in SA vs ATG SA side( minus Philander but peak Steyn)
4)2007 lost 1-2 to Aus but Sydney should have been at the bare minimum a draw and series would have been 1-1
5) Lost 2-1 in SL but that team had Murli, peak Mendis, Sanga, Mahela, Samaraweera and Dilshan

Indian team under Kohli(2015-19)

1. Lost in England 4-1
2. Lost in SA 2-1
3. Lost in NZ 2-0
4. Won in Aus ( good win)
5. Won in SL( but a much much inferior SL side)

You can see that Indian side fared much better away from home with Zaheer Khan, the only bowler at its peak and their ATG batting lineup compared to current Indian team away from home.

Scott styris
Darryl tuffey

That was the joke n.z bowling lineup india faced to beat them.

Tsotsebe played vs India in 2011. Morkel wasn't in his prime. No philander.

England had tremelett, young andy pre prime and young finn.

No where near the same quality as now.

I can do this for Australia too. Faced joke lineups.

 

[tyron_woodley]

A weakened Ponting's Australia after the retirement of Mcgrath, Warne, Gilchrist, Martyn, Hayden and langer beat Smith's South africa in 2009. Dont know what you're going on about.

And they also lost at home to sAffers.

Thats why you can't compare the two teams. They are all about equal.

Also the post 2006 batting was really good for Australia. They had Clarke, Watson, punter, rogers and good all rounders. It was a solid team for Aussie conditions. No guarantee scummy version of pre 2006 Aussie side would beat them.

Also bowling g had Ryan Harris Johnson starc Lyon etc. It was a quality side in Australian conditions.

Australian conditions mate. I dont care about the overseas performance. In Australia they would easily challenge pre 2006 Aussies.

Also look at the joke lineup of Pakistan that faced India in 2004-2006. They had yasir Arafat and a few other dud cannon fodders with shoaib and they beat pre 2006 team at home although they did lose away ofcourse.

In home conditions its possible even for supposedly weaker sides to beat goat level teams.

 

[Ab Fan]

Scott styris
Darryl tuffey

That was the joke n.z bowling lineup india faced to beat them.

Tsotsebe played vs India in 2011. Morkel wasn't in his prime. No philander.

England had tremelett, young andy pre prime and young finn.

No where near the same quality as now.

I can do this for Australia too. Faced joke lineups.

Morkel was not at prime lol. Btw, in a same way, Australia had Marcus Harris, Khwaja, Head, Burns and Voges as their main batsman in 2018 series, it applies both ways. You compare the Australian batting lineup of 2018 to Australian batting lineup of 2003, the latter is a GOAT batting lineup while former is their worst ever.

That 2003 series had Tendulkar going through a bad patch due to tennis elbow injury concerns. When he got back into form between 2007-2011, you can see how many matches his team won. Tendulkar's peak was 1992-2002 and them 2007-2011, that's 15 years of dominance.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Morkel was not at prime lol. Btw, in a same way, Australia had Marcus Harris, Khwaja, Head, Burns and Voges as their main batsman in 2018 series, it applies both ways. You compare the Australian batting lineup of 2018 to Australian batting lineup of 2003, the latter is a GOAT batting lineup while former is their worst ever.

That 2003 series had Tendulkar going through a bad patch due to tennis elbow injury concerns. When he got back into form between 2007-2011, you can see how many matches his team won. Tendulkar's peak was 1992-2002 and them 2007-2011, that's 15 years of dominance.

He had varied peaks and troughs but doesn't change the fact that both Australia and India encountered weak bowling lineups in 2000 era.

I get the tendus elbow injury and stuff. Fair enough but he dint have that injury when india got their butts kicked by weaker new Zealand between 1999 to 2003. Infacr we even drew at home vs them at the time.

That tells me all I need to know about the goat Aussies lol and whom they feasted on. I have seen them all play and honestly current attack is way more well rounded for Australian conditions.

Doesn't matter if the batting is weaker overall, it isn't weak in Australian conditions by any means.

You only need a couple of players to score big and when you have guys like labushagne and Smith its always going to be hard for the opposition.

Just like how a strong India barely beat a weaker Pakistan side in 2000 era. Same applies to current Aussies vs pre 2006 scummy Australia. They will easily challenge them especially given how strong their bowling is currently. It will be a close affair.

People need to take off their nostalgic glasses and think about It objectively.

You are taking about names again.

Marcus Harris, khawaja etc are all great players in Australian conditions. Doesnt matter if they suck outside Australia but in Australia they are capable of facing short balls and can contribute with the bat whilst Smith and co take care of the rest.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

Ryan Harris in the same conversation as Gillespie ??? Come on now lol...

Harris was a complete bowler. Gillespie is a bigger name but Harris' consistency was amazing. Could make the ball talk everywhere.

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

And they also lost at home to sAffers.

Thats why you can't compare the two teams. They are all about equal.

Also the post 2006 batting was really good for Australia. They had Clarke, Watson, punter, rogers and good all rounders. It was a solid team for Aussie conditions. No guarantee scummy version of pre 2006 Aussie side would beat them.

Also bowling g had Ryan Harris Johnson starc Lyon etc. It was a quality side in Australian conditions.

Australian conditions mate. I dont care about the overseas performance. In Australia they would easily challenge pre 2006 Aussies.

Also look at the joke lineup of Pakistan that faced India in 2004-2006. They had yasir Arafat and a few other dud cannon fodders with shoaib and they beat pre 2006 team at home although they did lose away ofcourse.

In home conditions its possible even for supposedly weaker sides to beat goat level teams.

You're naming guys like Watson & rogers who couldn't even get into the aussie squad(forget about playing XI) of pre 2006 which you're calling scummy(which by the way is statistically the greatest side of all time. they're the bradman of team teams.)

Ryan Harris, johnson and all the mid to late 2000 guys you're naming couldn't get into pre 2007 squads. Either Aussie selectors were scumbags in not selecting them or they weren't just good enough to play in that legendary side.

Lol at Pakistani reference. Dont know what are you even saying. Pakistan of 2000 arguably had the greatest middle order of Pakistani history with Younis, Yousuf and Inzamam along with Shoaib and Kaneria yet they weren't great at home. They lost to India in 04, drew against sri lanka and south africa. by 2005-2006 though they had a great team with Younis, Inzamam, yousuf(in peak), Afridi, razzak and akmal in lower middle. Asif emerged and with Shoaib and kaneria the bowling lineup was Shoaib, Asif, Razzak, Afridi and kaneria. Most pakistani fans would take this bowling lineup over the current one easily.