How seriously should we take India’s current Test achievements compared to ATG teams in the past?

[Suleiman]

You have an uneven contest between bat and ball. India has 10x the cricketing resources (coaches, facilities, nutrition, etc) of the other countries which comes down to $$$.

If any other country had these same tools, wouldn’t they have the same success? Especially since pitches worldwide are more or less the same except for 1-2 major differences.

It’s much different than being a top 2 team in the 70s, 80s or 90s where playing in each of the different parts of the world gave a unique challenge, and one board alone wasn’t calling all the shots nor had the financial advantage to invest in their cricket at a greater degree than anybody else. Not to mention the level of sheer talent in all the top 5-6 teams.

I still see 2000s Australia or 80s WI as the greatest test squads of all time, with all due respect. It will take India a lot to prove their worth if it’s just going to be about hammering mediocre teams in this present era.

Australia and WI had to compete with the best of the best to be crowned kings of tests in their time.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

They are still behind the mighty Aussies and the WIndies in my eyes.

However its not really Indias fault that they are hammering medicore teams, nor should we hold their wealth against them when it comes to comparing teams across eras.

You can only play whats infront of you and India have dominated everyone that has been put infront of them ( obvious blip is the WTC).

The fact that other teams are mediocre is their own fault, why should we blame India for it?

 

[jnaveen1980]

Australia and WI had to compete with the best of the best to be crowned kings of tests in their time.

I don't think Australia/England were the greatest teams back then. India drew the series in Australia 1980/81. Completely dominated Australia in 1985/86. Also India dominated England in England in 1986. Basically they just had to do well against India/Pak/NZ. NZ had one good bowler one good batsman. Not that Windies dominated them. They won one series each and drew the other one. India had just one seam bowler. So they were no match either. They drew a couple of series with Pakistan won one. WHat is the big deal. THey basically beat up three average teams.

 

[Savak]

England has practically the same resources and is number two on the ICC revenue distribution table and comes from a strong economy.

What is England's excuse for not winning enough in comparison to India?

 

[Savak]

Biggest difference for me is India's complete bowling attack for all conditions, they have every base covered as far as pace, swing, spin is concerned.

However the batting is still suspect and weak and there have been moments ie vs New Zealand in NZ and the World Test Championship final where the bowlers couldn't make up for the insipid batting

 

[Aman]

The quality of Test teams is at a low.

England and SA have fallen, Aus, NZ and India are more or less at the same level.

LOIs are great as the gap is a lot smaller between the top teams and the quality between the top and middle isn't major.

 

[dildilpak]

What a thread to undermine somebody’s hard earned achievements

 

[Afzal_K]

More than anything I think its the determination, their team has no Sehwag, Sachin, Laxman, Ganguly and Dravid - they played with even tougher teams but you can only beat what's in front of you

Same could be said for Windies and Australia, they played lower level teams but then that's how it is - you beat your opposition. If you took them seriously then India should be taken too

But I still feel Pakistan could given a run for their money, we missed out and will miss out on great players clashing. It sucks

 

[RajBan]

I don't think Australia/England were the greatest teams back then. India drew the series in Australia 1980/81. Completely dominated Australia in 1985/86. Also India dominated England in England in 1986. Basically they just had to do well against India/Pak/NZ. NZ had one good bowler one good batsman. Not that Windies dominated them. They won one series each and drew the other one. India had just one seam bowler. So they were no match either. They drew a couple of series with Pakistan won one. WHat is the big deal. THey basically beat up three average teams.

Australia was actually at ordinary level in early 80s . They had some good players but not a great team. Their resurgence started with Border in late 80s and then under Taylor in 90s, with pinnacle under Waugh and Ponting between 98-2006.

 

[Cover Drive Six]

Australia and WI had to compete with the best of the best to be crowned kings of tests in their time.

How many best teams were there during Australia and WI time. Lol
WI had compete with minnow teams like lanka, india, nz and Pakistan.

 

[Mp812]

.India's convincing win came despite a whole day's play lost to rain and more showers expected on the final day.
The win in Australia came with a second string side and a chase that was incredible achievement for even a clive llyod era west indian team

 

[Buffet]

The quality of Test teams is at a low.

Not true at all. You are never going to have 5-6 gun teams in test format any time. It has never happened in history, but the quality of bowling is pretty high right now.

Ind, Aus, NZ, and Eng have bowlers who will make it into their all-time XI. Bowling units of these 4 countries are very high class and one of the best in their history. SA is also decent despite not having experience. Pakistan is looking better with Afridi. WI has a good bowling unit as well.

Since so many countries have good bowling units, batting is not so easy in this era and we often forget that. We also don't see too many flat pitches.

 

[jnaveen1980]

In 1994 bouncer limitation was implemented. After that Windies won a few series due to Ambrose. Won't say dominating till end of 2000. Because Windies was blanked 0-3 in Pakistan and 0-5 in South Africa. INdia should have won a series in Windies. But so many deliberately bowled noballs by West Indian bowlers not called. Some of them were very big noballs. That was one strategy Windies used to adapt. Overstepping and intimidating. Umpires were too lazy to spot noballs. Even now umpires miss a lot of noballs. But technology catches it.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Not true at all. You are never going to have 5-6 gun teams in test format any time. It has never happened in history, but the quality of bowling is pretty high right now.

Ind, Aus, NZ, and Eng have bowlers who will make it into their all-time XI. Bowling units of these 4 countries are very high class and one of the best in their history. SA is also decent despite not having experience. Pakistan is looking better with Afridi. WI has a good bowling unit as well.

Since so many countries have good bowling units, batting is not so easy in this era and we often forget that. We also don't see too many flat pitches.

Apart from Srilanka/BD/Ireland/Zimbabwe all the teams have bowling average less than 30 in the last 5 years. Highly competitive. India has the best with 24.12. Back in the 80s Windies bowling average was 25. Next best was New zealand with 30. 80s had great bowlers. But Now we have great bowling units


Anderson/Broad/Robinson/Stokes/Wood

Cummins/Starc/Hazlewood/Lyon

Bumrah/Shami/Siraj/Ishant/Ashwin/Jadeja

Boult/Southee/Wagner/Jamieson/Ajaz patel

Rabada/Nngidi/Olivier/Nortje/Maharaja, Jansen

Lot of teams have great bowling UNITS. Having one great bowler and few trundlers was the 80s trend.

 

[Buffet]

Apart from Srilanka/BD/Ireland/Zimbabwe all the teams have bowling average less than 30 in the last 5 years. Highly competitive. India has the best with 24.12. Back in the 80s Windies bowling average was 25. Next best was New zealand with 30. 80s had great bowlers. But Now we have great bowling units


Anderson/Broad/Robinson/Stokes/Wood

Cummins/Starc/Hazlewood/Lyon

Bumrah/Shami/Siraj/Ishant/Ashwin/Jadeja

Boult/Southee/Wagner/Jamieson/Ajaz patel

Rabada/Nngidi/Olivier/Nortje/Maharaja, Jansen

Lot of teams have great bowling UNITS. Having one great bowler and few trundlers was the 80s trend.

Fans often have a romantic view of the past era. Many teams have fantastic bowling units right now. As fans, we should appreciate what we have right now.

With just one good bowler, you could see off one and then cash in against others for big scores. It is much harder to do when entire bowling unit is a good one.

 

[Buffet]

Anyway, India is yet to win the series in SA. Let them win first.

Even if they don't win, Indians have played fantastic cricket in recent years and I will give credit to Kohli for encouraging pacers.

 

[sam_ahm]

Not true at all. You are never going to have 5-6 gun teams in test format any time. It has never happened in history, but the quality of bowling is pretty high right now.

Ind, Aus, NZ, and Eng have bowlers who will make it into their all-time XI. Bowling units of these 4 countries are very high class and one of the best in their history. SA is also decent despite not having experience. Pakistan is looking better with Afridi. WI has a good bowling unit as well.

Since so many countries have good bowling units, batting is not so easy in this era and we often forget that. We also don't see too many flat pitches.

This could also be put down to batters not being good enough. Perhaps due to T20 exposure and flawed techniques and lack of temperament.

The pitches in South Africa, Australia, England have always been like this, earlier batters used to play well on such wickets only, nothing has changed. I don't buy into this 'tough' pitches argument at all. Just the incapable batsmen. Including Indian batters.

 

[RamLakhan]

During the WI domination, all teams were minnow including Australia! So why do you call that WI team as mighty one??? Still India won one series in West Indies during that time and also surprised them in 1983 World Cup! Sri Lanka surprised Australia during their start of domination in 1996. India competed really well against Australia during their dominating era!

Even India didn't have resources back then and their board was not rich... Some cricketers had to depend on Government jobs in India and county matches in England for their survival. I don't think this is the case with even smaller boards these days. I hope ICC supplies enough money to everyone from what they might have earned from "Indian" matches! So it is up to the other teams to compete well (For e.g., Bangladesh should win world cup like how Sri Lanka & India won when they were termed as minnows! This is the fair environment!)

Please stop these blame games. Every achievement is hard earned one and every success should be appreciated aptly!

 

[Suleiman]

For those that missed the boat, this is NOT an insult to India. If anything it’s a complement since, as I much as I hate to do this as a Pakistani, I’m comparing India to 80s WI and 2000s Aussies indirectly. With all due respect ofc.

 

[Suleiman]

How many best teams were there during Australia and WI time. Lol
WI had compete with minnow teams like lanka, india, nz and Pakistan.

WI and Pak were rivals. Not sure what you are smoking, but it must be good. India was a nobody, which is why their WC victory was applauded since no one expected it.

 

[someone21]

Cricket is a struggling sport. Other than WC, everything is personal goals and statistics. It doesn’t matter.

This India team would be a failure if it fails to win 2023 WC at home. The pressure is much bigger than Brazil 2014 Football.

 

[James]

India are definitely the second best team of this century behind Waugh and Ponting’s Australia, and they could well be the third best team that I have seen in Test cricket relative to the eras that they have played in.

By barely even dropping a home Test in many years and let alone a series, by winning in Australia and England, and probably South Africa next, imo India some time ago went past England in the early 2010s (who were dominant at home, won the Ashes away from home, and also triumphed in a Test series in India)…

 

[Nikhil_cric]

WI and Pak were rivals. Not sure what you are smoking, but it must be good. India was a nobody, which is why their WC victory was applauded since no one expected it.

Not even close. Look at the W/L records of WI and Pakistan in the 80's. Windies were far ahead of the rest.

 

[street cricketer]

I don't think even the most dedicated Indian fans compare this Indian team to the Windies of 80s or the Aussies of early 2000s. They are easily the two GOAT sides in Test cricket.

But this Indian team is making a legitimate case for being the 3rd best ever side in Test cricket history.

 

[ravisurya]

I think the Aussies let India win by not playing Scott Boland against them while playing the useless Hazlewood.

 

[Buffet]

This could also be put down to batters not being good enough. Perhaps due to T20 exposure and flawed techniques and lack of temperament.

The pitches in South Africa, Australia, England have always been like this, earlier batters used to play well on such wickets only, nothing has changed. I don't buy into this 'tough' pitches argument at all. Just the incapable batsmen. Including Indian batters.

Nah, those belter pitches have been not frequent in recent days. Remember those pitches where Lara was going for record instead of trying to win games. Those pitches were more frequent.

Sure, T20 impact is there, but bowling quality can be judged by simply the naked eye and it's really fantastic for so many teams.

 

[Unbiased-Fan]

Same seriously we take Babar and Shaheen's inflated stats. Lol

 

[Buffet]

Not even close. Look at the W/L records of WI and Pakistan in the 80's. Windies were far ahead of the rest.

Away W/L of teams in 80s,

WI - 3.5
....
....
...
...
...
Aus/NZ/Pak - 0.5
Rest

 

[jnaveen1980]

DRS, neutral umpiring has addressed a lot of issues. No-ball over-ruling is such a vital progress in Test cricket

 

[silentkiller187]

as the old adage goes you can only beat what is put in front of you, This India team have done that very well so deserve to be discussed amongst the greats

 

[Corridor of Uncertainty]

No one should try and take any credit away from this Indian team - whether citing resources, problems with other team or anything else.

They have been the form team for years now and have had an exceptional year this year too. A genuinely good team.

 

[Chrish]

Not an ATG team.. Has the potential to be as good as 2010s SA team if they can resolve their middle order issues (rahane/ Kohli/ Pujara).

 

[Chrish]

India are definitely the second best team of this century behind Waugh and Ponting’s Australia, and they could well be the third best team that I have seen in Test cricket relative to the eras that they have played in.

By barely even dropping a home Test in many years and let alone a series, by winning in Australia and England, and probably South Africa next, imo India some time ago went past England in the early 2010s (who were dominant at home, won the Ashes away from home, and also triumphed in a Test series in India)…

2010s SA team didn’t loose away series for like a decade when all other teams were getting white washed. They definitely were a better team compared to current India when they had Kallis, Abdv, Amala, Smith, Steyn and Philander.

 

[James]

2010s SA team didn’t loose away series for like a decade when all other teams were getting white washed. They definitely were a better team compared to current India when they had Kallis, Abdv, Amala, Smith, Steyn and Philander.

That SA team was good but it accrued a lot of drawn series. They struggled to “win” series home and away consistently.

 

[Majid Khan]

I wouldn’t take them that seriously to be frank - I’ll trust my eyes and own judgement on cricket - to me, there’s no doubt the Australian team of 90s/2000s era under Steve Waugh and later Ponting were a great team. The late 70s/80s West Indies team under Clive Lloyd needs no introduction, every player was a legend and match winner. Pakistan team of the 80s was a fighting unit under Imran, and the 90s Pakistan team had all the talent at their disposal to be a great team but they failed for various reasons.

Moving on to India, the teams under Ganguly and later Dhoni were fighting teams who made the most of their abilities and did well. Kohli’s team performed and reached another level in terms of professionalism for a subcontinental team - I’ll give them that. But are they a truly great team up there with the great Windows or Aus teams ? Not in my view, they just don’t have enough match winners and recognised world class players to be bracketed with them.

They have done well in this era where the overall standard of world cricket is quite mediocre to say the least.

Some day test cricket will be played by teams with players no better than those in the current Zimbabwean first class system, and they day even a team of the standard of the current Zimbabwe national team will boast an unbeaten 15 year run with Bumrah like fast bowlers averaging 20 odd, but would you rank that team alongside the great teams of all time? Statistics might well do, but I certainly won’t. Sorry count me as spoilt but I’ve seen some great great cricketers in the eras gone by play at their peak.

 

[Last Monetarist]

This Indian team is the second greatest team I have had the privilege of watching over the last three decades. There's no doubt in my mind that they are one of the greatest teams to have played Test cricket.

 

[Ted123]

India are definitely the second best team of this century behind Waugh and Ponting’s Australia, and they could well be the third best team that I have seen in Test cricket relative to the eras that they have played in.

By barely even dropping a home Test in many years and let alone a series, by winning in Australia and England, and probably South Africa next, imo India some time ago went past England in the early 2010s (who were dominant at home, won the Ashes away from home, and also triumphed in a Test series in India)…

South Africa under Smith are clearly better. This Indian team got whitewashed in NZ.

Smith's SA didn't got whitewashed anywhere and also the opposition quality was much superior during Smith's SA time than current Indian side. For example, compare that England team of 2009-12 to current England team, the difference is so farcical.

 

[Srtfan]

Ted123 smith sa got whitewashed in home against aus in 2006. South Africa also lost lot of home series during smith captaincy

 

[jnaveen1980]

South Africa under Smith are clearly better. This Indian team got whitewashed in NZ.

Smith's SA didn't got whitewashed anywhere and also the opposition quality was much superior during Smith's SA time than current Indian side. For example, compare that England team of 2009-12 to current England team, the difference is so farcical.

SA got whitewashed at home by Australia. India played Australia pretty well home and away during the same period. They didn't get thrashed by Australia like SA was in 2000. This is NZ ATG side led by possibly one of the best NZ captain ever. Their main bowler comes back from an injury. Toss favored them too.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Ted123 smith sa got whitewashed in home against aus in 2006. South Africa also lost lot of home series during smith captaincy

If we strictly talk about performance against Australia in 2000s India >>> South Africa at that time. They lost a series in Srilanka.

 

[Ted123]

Ted123 smith sa got whitewashed in home against aus in 2006. South Africa also lost lot of home series during smith captaincy

I took the phase from 2008-14 for that SA side. What phase are you taking for this India side?

Either way, that Aus side was legendary one, you can't compare them to the current NZ side.

 

[Ted123]

If we strictly talk about performance against Australia in 2000s India >>> South Africa at that time. They lost a series in Srilanka.

Yes because India got to pummel vs Australian side that didn't had McGrath and Warne lol

 

[jnaveen1980]

Yes because India got to pummel vs Australian side that didn't had McGrath and Warne lol

We did beat them 2001 series with Mcgrath and warne lol

 

[Srtfan]

Ted123 sa lost home series against medicore aus in 2009.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Away W/L of teams in 80s,

WI - 3.5
....
....
...
...
...
Aus/NZ/Pak - 0.5
Rest

I rest my case

 

[jnaveen1980]

I took the phase from 2008-14 for that SA side. What phase are you taking for this India side?

Either way, that Aus side was legendary one, you can't compare them to the current NZ side.

SA Lost against England/Pakistan/Srilanka/India under smith in atleast one series. Lost 3 or 4 series against Australia. Drawn many series. They were 6-5 against India under smith. So they didn't dominate India either. They were above average side. But they were nowhere close to the best side of that era forget about dominating the world. On the other hand India lost one series in NZ. For India to beat NZ/Australia/England/SA is like SENA countries dominating in Asia. Did SA dominate the subcontinent teams? No. Lost a series in India/Srilanka/Pakistan under smith.

 

[Ted123]

Srtfan, India got beaten by mediocre England and SA side in 2018, let us not forget that and whitewashed in NZ 2-0. They also lost test to a mediocre England side this year only.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Ted123 sa lost home series against medicore aus in 2009.

They like to bully subcontinent sides by rolling out pacy pitches. Once they are up against kookaburra merchants from Australia they go wimping. We have great respect for their side. But they were a defensive side. Always first thought was to draw tests in India. I remember them blocking like they were going to save test match on day 1 of a test. Australia current India are always in quest of wins first. They don't even think about draw. 2000 SA team was very happy to draw matches despite being blessed with outrageously talented players.

 

[Srtfan]

[MENTION=146057]Ted123[/MENTION]
South Africa 2008-2014
Match 64 won-35 lost-13 draw-16 W/L-2.69
India 2015-2021
Match-72 won-44 lost-15 draw-13 W/L-2.93

 

[jnaveen1980]

Srtfan, India got beaten by mediocre England and SA side in 2018, let us not forget that and whitewashed in NZ 2-0. They also lost test to a mediocre England side this year only.

You keep dodging the fact SA got whitewashed at home. GIve an example where INdia got whitewashed at home lol You should atleast eke out a draw if you are really that good.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Srtfan, India got beaten by mediocre England and SA side in 2018, let us not forget that and whitewashed in NZ 2-0. They also lost test to a mediocre England side this year only.

SA also got whitewashed in Srilanka lol

 

[Markhor]

In 1994 bouncer limitation was implemented. After that Windies won a few series due to Ambrose. Won't say dominating till end of 2000. Because Windies was blanked 0-3 in Pakistan and 0-5 in South Africa. INdia should have won a series in Windies. But so many deliberately bowled noballs by West Indian bowlers not called. Some of them were very big noballs. That was one strategy Windies used to adapt. Overstepping and intimidating. Umpires were too lazy to spot noballs. Even now umpires miss a lot of noballs. But technology catches it.

I've watched a lot of WI Test series on YouTube from the 80s and 90s, and was expecting bouncer barrages based on the stories we hear, but most wickets I've seen were pitched up deliveries !

It definitely was an effective changeup but they didn't bowl five or six bouncers per over as legend would have us believe. Despite tales of "hard glassy pitches where you could almost see your reflection" - tracks at venues like in Guyana and Trinidad were always slow and low, so bowling short would be pointless.

Home umpiring was their 12th man in crunch moments like it was for most teams of that era for sure, as were uneven pitches. In the 1997 Barbados Test vs India you saw balls rear off a length or literally peashooting along the floor. But the real reasons for their decline, apart from useless administrators, were threefold:

a) The production line of great fast bowlers ending and a new generation failing to live up to potential (Franklyn Rose, Reon King, Merv Dillon, Corey Collymore etc).

b) Not replacing Greenidge and Haynes. The next set of openers (Sherwin Campbell, Clayton Lambert, Phillo Wallace, Devon Smith, Daren Ganga etc) were seriously mediocre and put too much pressure on their middle order bats like Lara and Shiv.

c) Brian Lara's captaincy, and making life hell for the captains he played under.

 

[Ted123]

SA also got whitewashed in Srilanka lol

Doubt if current Indian team is capable of beating Murali's Sri Lanka given your batters inability to play spin lol.

Mahela, Sanga and Dilshan at their peak woudl probably make a mockery of your spin attack like how Cook KP made in 2012-13.

 

[jnaveen1980]

I've watched a lot of WI Test series on YouTube from the 80s and 90s, and was expecting bouncer barrages based on the stories we hear, but most wickets I've seen were pitched up deliveries !

It definitely was an effective changeup but they didn't bowl five or six bouncers per over as legend would have us believe. Despite tales of "hard glassy pitches where you could almost see your reflection" - tracks at venues like in Guyana and Trinidad were always slow and low, so bowling short would be pointless.

Home umpiring was their 12th man in crunch moments like it was for most teams of that era for sure, as were uneven pitches. In the 1997 Barbados Test vs India you saw balls rear off a length or literally peashooting along the floor. But the real reasons for their decline, apart from useless administrators, were threefold:

a) The production line of great fast bowlers ending and a new generation failing to live up to potential (Franklyn Rose, Reon King, Merv Dillon, Corey Collymore etc).

b) Not replacing Greenidge and Haynes. The next set of openers (Sherwin Campbell, Clayton Lambert, Phillo Wallace, Devon Smith, Daren Ganga etc) were seriously mediocre and put too much pressure on their middle order bats like Lara and Shiv.

c) Brian Lara's captaincy, and making life hell for the captains he played under.

It all started in the late 70s. India had to declare an innings at 306/6 in order to protect their tailenders from getting injured. They did bowl bouncers entire over when needed. There was one instance Syed Kirmani Indian wicket keeper received barrage of bouncers. Every single ball was a bouncer. They even asked him to hook. He wasn't budging. There were incidents where players had to be taken out in a stretcher.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Doubt if current Indian team is capable of beating Murali's Sri Lanka given your batters inability to play spin lol.

Mahela, Sanga and Dilshan at their peak woudl probably make a mockery of your spin attack like how Cook KP made in 2012-13.

"would" if i use that "would" i can say India will bowl that SA side for checap scores. Even guys like Wasim Jaffer/Dinesh Karthik made runs against that side. If they were going to be rolled over by Sreesanth under 100 runs, what are their chances agianst Bumrah & Co.

 

[jaisan]

"would" if i use that "would" i can say India will bowl that SA side for checap scores. Even guys like Wasim Jaffer/Dinesh Karthik made runs against that side. If they were going to be rolled over by Sreesanth under 100 runs, what are their chances agianst Bumrah & Co.

Sanga in his last test series was ashwin s bunny. Mahela wont score many outside then ssc graveyards and dilshan was average in tests. Samaraveera could have milk ashwin and jadeja but our current pacers are better than what he faced then.

 

[MenInG]

Word of advice for some looking to contribute to this thread - Only add an opinion if you have a proper argument/view about the question asked.

 

[Sidilicious]

Doubt if current Indian team is capable of beating Murali's Sri Lanka given your batters inability to play spin lol.

Mahela, Sanga and Dilshan at their peak woudl probably make a mockery of your spin attack like how Cook KP made in 2012-13.

The coulda shoulda woulda is not what classifies a team. Only results and that too in the following order
1. Away Result in Alien condition (SENA for asian countries, Asia for SENA)
2. Overall away Record
3. Home Record


A team only beats what's in front of them. If you start putting asterisk on Indian wins, why aren't there asterisk on SA wins when they drew with India without 2 of its main batsmen (as you did for India's win in Australia)

When comparing SA of 2008-14 (your criteria) and India of 2018 end-2022, here are the results
1. Away in alien conditions
SA - SL + Ind + Pak (UAE) - 5 series - 1 win, 4 draws. W/L 1.33
Ind - SENA - 5 series - 2 wins, 1 loss, 2 ongoing (Eng + SA), 1 WTC Final loss - W/L - 1.16

2. Overall away Record
SA - Series Wins - 10 series - 6 wins, 4 Draws. W/L - 2.6 (excluding Bangladesh)
Ind - Series wins - 6 series - 3 wins, 1 loss, 2 ongoing (Eng + SA), 1 WTC Final loss. W/L - 1.5

3. Home Record
SA - 12 series - 7 wins, 3 draws, 2 losses - W/L - 2.25
Ind - 5 Series - 5 wins, 0 draws, 0 losses - W/L - 11

After this analysis I am happy to conclude the following
1. SA of 2008 - 2014 is slightly ahead of India of end 2018 - current.
2. The time period (no. of series and tests etc) is also small for India
3. India rarely draws series. Its either a win or a loss
4. India and SA are nearly as strong in alien conditions. If India is to win the current series in SA and in Eng, they would clearly be ahead due to a superior series wins. This alone will put India ahead of SA altogether
5. SA have a superior overall away record - If India can sustain a good away record for the next year or 2 (they should have a tour to SL& WI planned soon), they will come very close to SA
6. There is absolutely no comparison in home records with India smashing any team that enters its shores.

So, in summary - If India can win the away series in SA and England, they would be ahead of SA. At this point, only the overall Away record of SA will be slightly superior, which India can overcome by maintaining a winning away record for the next 1-2 years. This obviously assumes that India does not drop any series at home.

I am happy to change the criteria for dates for SA if you like.

 

[RamLakhan]

Doubt if current Indian team is capable of beating Murali's Sri Lanka given your batters inability to play spin lol.

Mahela, Sanga and Dilshan at their peak woudl probably make a mockery of your spin attack like how Cook KP made in 2012-13.

Sri Lanka never won a single test match in India in any era with any kind of players!

 

[BreadPakoda]

Sri Lanka never won a single test match in India in any era with any kind of players!

Aravinda De Silva
Ranatunga
Jayasurya
Sanga
Dilshan
Mahela

These guys never played together but consider this line up. Everyone at their peak, playing together. They would demolish Ashwin / Jadeja. This is what Teddy is trying to say.

 

[MenInG]

Word of advice for some looking to contribute to this thread - Only add an opinion if you have a proper argument/view about the question asked.

No need to lecture people here.

Reminder.

 

[Robert]

This India couldn’t compete with Lloyd’s West Indies or Waugh’s Australia. Test match standards have collapsed. Almost nobody can bat long against good bowling any longer.

WI, England, Pakistan, SL and SA are all shadows of themselves of ten to twenty years ago. Admittedly, NZ have perhaps their best ever side.

 

[redmaverik84]

Test matches now cant be compared with those played 2- 3 decades back. Its more viewer friendly and cricketer friendly now. Playing conditions have vastly changed, the intensity has reduced and you are only as good as the opposition in from of you. Never a good idea to compare eras. West Indies and Aussies have had their perch, it is India and NZ fighting for the top spot now.

 

[Thulsa]

This India couldn’t compete with Lloyd’s West Indies or Waugh’s Australia. Test match standards have collapsed. Almost nobody can bat long against good bowling any longer.

WI, England, Pakistan, SL and SA are all shadows of themselves of ten to twenty years ago. Admittedly, NZ have perhaps their best ever side.

Happy new year first and foremost.

And I respectfully disagree - I’m quite ‘seasoned’ and have lived long enough to have been there to see these teams - live versus the bulk of many here relying on videos and hand-me-down stories. And the one thing that has changed is the relativity.

Is the current Indian team as good as the Windows team of the 80’s or the two incarnations of the Australians? No. But, and this is the key, the other countries are nowhere near as bad as they were back then.

It is easier to stand out from the rest, if the rest are woeful. So today, I agree 100% with you in that the overall standard has declined - but the gap between countries is smaller then it was back then in these 2 aforementioned eras.

The other aspect that has altered the landscape drastically is the growth of data science in sport. Would these great players of yesteryear been as impactful if every aspect of their game was under forensic scrutiny to identify tells, weaknesses, gaps etc? What about the drastically greater standards in umpiring now versus then?

So in one sense, yes things were harder back then and so prolific opening batsman were very potent. But then again it’s harder to remain at the to- of the food chain now given the narrowing gap between teams and tools/technology at disposal.

 

[CrIc_Mystique]

You have an uneven contest between bat and ball. India has 10x the cricketing resources (coaches, facilities, nutrition, etc) of the other countries which comes down to $$$.

If any other country had these same tools, wouldn’t they have the same success? Especially since pitches worldwide are more or less the same except for 1-2 major differences.

It’s much different than being a top 2 team in the 70s, 80s or 90s where playing in each of the different parts of the world gave a unique challenge, and one board alone wasn’t calling all the shots nor had the financial advantage to invest in their cricket at a greater degree than anybody else. Not to mention the level of sheer talent in all the top 5-6 teams.

I still see 2000s Australia or 80s WI as the greatest test squads of all time, with all due respect. It will take India a lot to prove their worth if it’s just going to be about hammering mediocre teams in this present era.

Australia and WI had to compete with the best of the best to be crowned kings of tests in their time.

We had the same amount of $$ and resources or lesser than most other countries 30 years back.
Did you ever try to find out how did India get the $$ , how did Indian economy improve?
How about giving some credit to the spirit of entrepreneurship, innovation, risk taking abilities, a fantastic level of intellectual ability that sees Indian climbing the ranks in any organization in the top 500 in the world, world wide?
How about giving some credit to the spirit of 'Vasudhaivo Kutumbakam' which means- 'the world is my family' under which we had the 'vaccine maitri abhiyaan' in which we supplied indian made vaccines to about 50 countries including cricket playing nations like windies, afg, bd? for Free?
Its so easy to sit back and say 'oh they have the money and the resources' - did u ever try to analyse how 'those money and resources' were utilized to get India the success especially in test cricket that we are enjoying?
Why don't those nations who find vindiction in the whole 'its all one board's fault, one nation's fault, look at them-so much money / resources" - self introspect, look inwards and try to earn that 'money and resources' if that is the only thing responsible for india's success?
Is'nt a bit of looking oneself in the mirror and self introspection lacking?

I am not for a moment suggesting we are some kind of ATG test playing team, we are far from the all conquering Windies of 80's or aus of 90's/early 2000's or aus of 1940'setc. but going by the framework we have, the set up we have -we are on our way - watch out world! Not only in cricket, but in most sports.
And going by the same logic , if only $$ and resouces were responsible , how about giving some credit to the times we won - say 20-30 years back, when we had nothing....
but you wont comment on that, the reason being - the narrative of big 3 and bcci= icc is so convenient to sweep your own shortcomings under the carpet.
Ireland has enough $$, a relatively small populace which has access to most facilities for most sports, a favourable climate-defo better than india to play outdoor sports.
Can you explain why they aint producing world beating champs in every sport that was invented?

 

[James]

This India couldn’t compete with Lloyd’s West Indies or Waugh’s Australia. Test match standards have collapsed. Almost nobody can bat long against good bowling any longer.

WI, England, Pakistan, SL and SA are all shadows of themselves of ten to twenty years ago. Admittedly, NZ have perhaps their best ever side.

This is a bowling friendly era as well, which must be taken into account. Most pitches around the world were flat as roads (including in England) until 8 years ago or so. Low scoring Tests were a novelty throwback to the days of uncovered pitches for a long time, but they are now much more common. This isn’t just because of the batters, it’s also due to the conditions.

 

[Forward Defensive Push]

India is not as strong as anyone thinks. Their middle order is filled with passengers. The one thing that works for them is that they now have 3 bowlers who walk into their all time 11 without fretting. Any decent side from the past like the Pakistan of 80s and 90s, Sri Lanka of 90s - let alone the legendary teams - would rip apart this Indian team. They're very lucky to be playing in an era where none of the other teams are strong and they conveniently also don't play against the one team which can defeat them in home and away conditions with ease.

 

[Thulsa]

India is not as strong as anyone thinks. Their middle order is filled with passengers. The one thing that works for them is that they now have 3 bowlers who walk into their all time 11 without fretting. Any decent side from the past like the Pakistan of 80s and 90s, Sri Lanka of 90s - let alone the legendary teams - would rip apart this Indian team. They're very lucky to be playing in an era where none of the other teams are strong and they conveniently also don't play against the one team which can defeat them in home and away conditions with ease.

Complete nonsense. Valuing a team based on what they are doing NOW and have done NOW versus what COULD have happened (which btw I disagree with - all the questionable practises bowlers of that era, including the ones from Pakistan, would never be allowed to pass now) is a farcical argument.

Equally the current teams could have obliterated the ‘greats of the past’ because they have more tools at their disposal to exploit their weaknesses. But we can never know and that in itself makes such devaluation of current teams pointless.

 

[Mesozoic]

India is not as strong as anyone thinks. Their middle order is filled with passengers. The one thing that works for them is that they now have 3 bowlers who walk into their all time 11 without fretting. Any decent side from the past like the Pakistan of 80s and 90s, Sri Lanka of 90s - let alone the legendary teams - would rip apart this Indian team. They're very lucky to be playing in an era where none of the other teams are strong and they conveniently also don't play against the one team which can defeat them in home and away conditions with ease.

That one team capitulates to Sommerville ,Ajaz Patel, Dilruwan, Bishoo etc but somehow they'll handle Jadeja, Ashwin and Axar "with ease" that too home and away...

Pass the stuff brother.

 

[sweep_shot]

ATG teams in the past were better.

A lot of the teams (including South Africa and England) are declining in Test. Australia of 2000's and West Indies of 1980's faced better oppositions.

 

[Markhor]

This is a bowling friendly era as well, which must be taken into account. Most pitches around the world were flat as roads (including in England) until 8 years ago or so. Low scoring Tests were a novelty throwback to the days of uncovered pitches for a long time, but they are now much more common. This isn’t just because of the batters, it’s also due to the conditions.

Conditions have tilted more in favour of bowlers, the effect of DRS is also massively underrated. However I feel defensive techniques have deteriorated too. We see many batsmen pushing at the ball away from their body with hard hands, partly as a consequence of large volumes of white ball cricket, and few willing to tough it out in adverse conditions.

The likes of Pujara show it's not impossible. He took some fearsome blows in the 20-21 Australia tour, but he played a crucial role in wearing down the Aussie quicks allowing the lower-order dashers like Pant to counterattack. He wasn't bothered about being seen to be "positive" - another overused cliche. He trusted his defence, and while you don't want a lineup full of Pujara-style blockers, you need 1 or 2.

On the flipside, you see someone like Ollie Pope and how ridiculously frenetic he looks against spin. Some modern batsmen have this cowardly mindset of "I better play my shots before a ball has my name on it" - that basically means I don't trust my defensive technique and I'm not gonna bother even trying to stick around.

 

[kumjsr]

India is not as strong as anyone thinks. Their middle order is filled with passengers. The one thing that works for them is that they now have 3 bowlers who walk into their all time 11 without fretting. Any decent side from the past like the Pakistan of 80s and 90s, Sri Lanka of 90s - let alone the legendary teams - would rip apart this Indian team. They're very lucky to be playing in an era where none of the other teams are strong and they conveniently also don't play against the one team which can defeat them in home and away conditions with ease.

I guess, you're claiming that they would rip apart current Australian team in Australia also.

Pakistan of 80s and 90s, Sri Lanka of 90s could play a series against Cummins, Starc, Hazelwood, Lyon, Smith, Warner, Labuchagne and defeat them 5-0 in a test series in Australia.

 

[Forward Defensive Push]

I guess, you're claiming that they would rip apart current Australian team in Australia also.

Pakistan of 80s and 90s, Sri Lanka of 90s could play a series against Cummins, Starc, Hazelwood, Lyon, Smith, Warner, Labuchagne and defeat them 5-0 in a test series in Australia.

Not sure about sri lanka but Pakistan of the 90s would have definitely thumped the current Australian side. Do you really think the current Aussies would stand a chance against Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib, Saqlain, Azhar and Razzler? We had a relentless attack and very good batsmen in saeed, Inzi, and others.

 

[Markhor]

Not true at all. You are never going to have 5-6 gun teams in test format any time. It has never happened in history, but the quality of bowling is pretty high right now.

Ind, Aus, NZ, and Eng have bowlers who will make it into their all-time XI. Bowling units of these 4 countries are very high class and one of the best in their history. SA is also decent despite not having experience. Pakistan is looking better with Afridi. WI has a good bowling unit as well.

Since so many countries have good bowling units, batting is not so easy in this era and we often forget that. We also don't see too many flat pitches.

Just an addendum to my previous post about weaker defensive techniques - this point should be acknowledged too.

Not only are pitches becoming more sporting, but there has been an uptick in the quality and depth of bowling attacks. Even change bowlers are averaging less. CricViz's ball tracking data shows since their records began in 2006, no team has bowled as quickly and as accurately in a 3+ Test series as Australia have in the ongoing Ashes.

India's current era of success is built on a remarkably consistent record of taking 20 wickets, especially outside Asia, which they struggled to do previously. So while I accept there's only so much batsmen can do against such relentless attacks, I'm also however seeing some weird and overly simplistic analysis online recently.

Again using the Ashes as an example, there's an Indian statistician on Twitter (you may know his name) who keeps arguing that England's batsmen are blameless given Australia's bowling quality and their failure to compete with Australia is entirely due to their bowling - despite stats showing England's Test batting is at a 131 year low. My argument is surely both England's weak batting and their inability to take 20 wickets in Australia (in stark contrast to India) are to blame ?

These binary arguments where numbers are posited without context, and the lack of standardised playing conditions (imagine the effect of DRS on historical performances) and opponents across cricketing history (India have not played Pakistan in this era; the world boycotted South Africa in the 70s/80s) makes these cross-era comparisons completely futile. Can we not just enjoy the cricket we see without putting down current or previous eras ?

 

[uppercut]

You have an uneven contest between bat and ball. India has 10x the cricketing resources (coaches, facilities, nutrition, etc) of the other countries which comes down to $$$.

If any other country had these same tools, wouldn’t they have the same success? Especially since pitches worldwide are more or less the same except for 1-2 major differences.

Actually its not the cricketing riches but a country's overall economic prosperity that in turn encourages a sports culture which will drive the participation levels at lower levels which in turn results in a bigger talent pool. For way too long India's modest economic conditions meant that vast majority of Indians never give a serious consideration for cricket as a means of livelihood ( This has changed only recently since IPL ) . Only those fanatics with a backup career plan and a secure financial status could afford to take up cricket as a full time . This is not the case in Western countries where even if you fail to graduate to Pro-Levels it is much easier to shift course and move into a traditional job. This is much more difficult to do in India. Vast majority of the population will never let their kids even consider any sport as a career option. Unless this changes no amount of BCCI riches is going to make any difference to India's cricketing talents. These things take time and the Western countries will always have a huge advantage.

It’s much different than being a top 2 team in the 70s, 80s or 90s where playing in each of the different parts of the world gave a unique challenge, and one board alone wasn’t calling all the shots nor had the financial advantage to invest in their cricket at a greater degree than anybody else. Not to mention the level of sheer talent in all the top 5-6 teams.

In the 80s and early 90s there was no SL, SA and NZ were not as competitive as todays NZ also AUS had a unusual low period in the 80s. Whereas today there are many more top quality teams and we certainly play a heck of a lot of Test cricket than ever before.

Back then it was a duopoly ( Eng + Aus ) which meant that Asian teams were treated like dirt. They had veto powers and the letter "I" in ICC stood for Imperial.

I still see 2000s Australia or 80s WI as the greatest test squads of all time, with all due respect. It will take India a lot to prove their worth if it’s just going to be about hammering mediocre teams in this present era.

Eng, AUS, SA and NZ are by no means mediocre teams. The extreme nostalgia driven romanticism of the past era's artificially elevates the aura of those players and teams. If you watch footage of the 70s and 80s Cricket it is underwhelming. Yes the Aussies of the late 90s to mid 2000's was a exceptional team but that is considered a modern team.

Australia and WI had to compete with the best of the best to be crowned kings of tests in their time.

Not true. SA and SL were not playing, NZ was not as good as it is today and teams did not visit Asian countries as regularly as they do today. Aus played a total of 13 tests in India over a 30 year period between 70 to 2000 whereas in the next decade they played 11 tests. WI played a sum total of just 9 tests in Pakistan in the 20 years between 70s and 80s and won a grand sum of 2 Tests drew 6 and lost 1 ... how is that enough sample size to make any assessment?

In contrast India won 4 tests in 2 series in Aus just in the span of one year. ( Should have won 2 more at Sydney but for Weather and Injuries).

 

[uppercut]

This India couldn’t compete with Lloyd’s West Indies or Waugh’s Australia.

Beg to differ, Steve Waugh never won a Test Series in India. Couldn't do it even when Anil Kumble and Javagal Srinath missed the entire 2001 Test series and rookie bowlers like Harbhajan and some other one time wonders won the series for India. The only bowler from that series that can get into the current lineup is Harbhajan.

Test match standards have collapsed. Almost nobody can bat long against good bowling any longer.

This is not true at all. Here is the stat that clearly shows you why

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...ew=bowl;template=results;type=team;view=match


Criteria: 100+ overs faced in the 4th innings since 1970

There are 147 entries in total and the 70s,80s,90s all put together do not add upto the modern decades ( last 21 years )


Modern day Test cricket is several notches better than what it used to be back in the supposedly glory days.

Reasons:
1. Fitness ( Which means players can maintain the intensity for longer periods )
2. Exceptional fielding standards
3. Improved tailender batting
4. DRS !!
5. Rules and regulation changes ( time made up for bad light )
6. ODI and T20 Cricket - players have found out the value in attacking batsmanship.

 

[Chrish]

That SA team was good but it accrued a lot of drawn series. They struggled to “win” series home and away consistently.

Early 2010s England was pretty good too. Won ashes 3-1 in Australia, series in Africa and even series in India!

Also, it’s not clear if current Indian team is necessarily better than current NZ team. I mean I know NZ lost recent series but keep in mind they have destroyed India every time India has toured there in last decade. Current NZ is their best team ever. Problem is they barely play any test cricket because of financial reasons.

 

[kumjsr]

Early 2010s England was pretty good too. Won ashes 3-1 in Australia, series in Africa and even series in India!

Also, it’s not clear if current Indian team is necessarily better than current NZ team. I mean I know NZ lost recent series but keep in mind they have destroyed India every time India has toured there in last decade. Current NZ is their best team ever. Problem is they barely play any test cricket because of financial reasons.

Australian team played 5 test series against India from 1998 to 2004 and they lost 2 away series in India. They even failed to win one series at home. Finally won a series in India in 2004 and one may that they were lucky that rained washed out 2nd test.

While they were always competitive and never got outplayed like Indian team in NZ, Aus was considered great team even in 2003 even after failing against India. No one would have removed ATG team tag from even if they had drawn 2004 series and thus had no series wins in India at all.

 

[Buffet]

Early 2010s England was pretty good too. Won ashes 3-1 in Australia, series in Africa and even series in India!

Also, it’s not clear if current Indian team is necessarily better than current NZ team. I mean I know NZ lost recent series but keep in mind they have destroyed India every time India has toured there in last decade. Current NZ is their best team ever. Problem is they barely play any test cricket because of financial reasons.

Nah, it is clear.

NZ in the last 10 years - ZERO test wins in Aus, Ind, and SA. Not even series, just a single test win has been out of reach for NZ.

SA is not doing that great right now, but in the last 10 years Ind, SA, and Aus have been the top teams. You got to win some tests if not a series against the top 3-4 teams.

Even the home record is inferior for NZ - getting whitewashed by Aus at home.

How it is not clear? Just because NZ won against India? That's hardly a yardstick to be better. Yardstick is always overall performance.

 

[Giannis]

Idk, I'm still not impressed, there's just something about team India I don't like