The greatest Asian Test team of all time

[TheSultan]

It’s true. Lots of tests were drawn in those days because batters would dig in and bat all day, It was hard to get a win. In 1987 Pakistan had Imran, Wasim and Qadir yet could only beat Goochless England in one match. On the last day of the series, chasing an innings victory with 700 runs at their back, they took just one wicket as Gatting and Botham dropped anchor.

I was at the ground for that final day in 87 at the oval with my dad. So much expectation but that was a perfect example of batsmen digging in even when they under the cosh.

The only two eventful things that happened were ijaz ahmed taking a serious blow to the head fielding at short leg, and Wasim Akram going down with appendicitis half way through the day.

2 Pakistan players in hospital and only one England wicket falling!

 

[Buffet]

It’s true. Lots of tests were drawn in those days because batters would dig in and bat all day, It was hard to get a win.

The draw was surely high, but not high enough to have just 1-2 wins for any good team.

All tests in WI, Aus, Eng and NZ in 80s

169 tests - 100 tests with results. ( 60% of games resulted in win or loss)

60% was just average, good teams should do better than average.

 

[Muhammad]

I was at the ground for that final day in 87 at the oval with my dad. So much expectation but that was a perfect example of batsmen digging in even when they under the cosh.

The only two eventful things that happened were ijaz ahmed taking a serious blow to the head fielding at short leg, and Wasim Akram going down with appendicitis half way through the day.

2 Pakistan players in hospital and only one England wicket falling!

I was there for days 2 and 3, was a great atmosphere as Pakistan piled on the runs.

Regarding day 5 there was also a notable moment right at the start of the day when Salim Malik (who had fielded brilliantly that summer) dropped a straightforward slip catch given by Gatting off Imran.

Regarding Robert’s earlier point you have to remember the first two tests were ruined by the weather and Pakistan only just got out of jail after a batting collapse on the last day of the 4th, though ended up not too far from victory themselves.

 

[TheSultan]

Excuses, excuses. It is not about understanding cricketing history; it is about the fact that some people suffer from chronic nostalgia and cannot let go of the past.

Everything was better in the past time - batting, bowling, fielding, umpiring, coaching, match referring etc. etc., and the standards magically dropped for some reason.

We are told that modern batsmen are inferior because of flat pitches, short boundaries, big bats and favorable rules. However, when you apply the same logic to the bowlers, they get uncomfortable.

If the modern batsmen is inferior because of these XYZ rules, then the modern bowlers are superior because they are handicapped by the same rules.

If Miandad is a better batsman than Kohli because Kohli is benefiting from flat pitches, short boundaries, big bats and favorable rules, then Cummins is a better bowler than Imran Khan because Imran Khan benefited from bowling-friendly pitches, big boundaries, small bats and unfavorable rules.

These nostalgia merchants fail to see the irony and logical fallacy in their argument - when you point it out to them, they start making excuses and strawman arguments.

Furthermore, the reality is that a Test captain with 14 Test wins cannot be compared to a captain who would probably end up with 50+ Test wins as captain, no matter how many cross-era adjustments and arbitrary ho ha you do.

In addition, Imran lost a Test to the weakest team of the 80’s in Asian conditions, thus surrendering their claim as the GOAT Asian Test team tag.

You cannot lose a Test match in Asia to Sri Lanka in 1985 and then call yourself the GOAT Asian Test team.

As far as Gatting is concerned, well “schoolboy” Root is thrice the batsmen he ever was. He is way more talented and skillful, and has a much better, organized batting brain. So perhaps he is a better captain as well.

I wasn’t making excuses - I was schooling you.

The straw-man arguments are by yourself. And very amateurish too. I was just laying down some facts and knowledge to you. Try and take it in next time.

Your argument “well if batsmen are worse now then the bowlers are better”? How exactly? If the batsmen are worse now, then it’s easier for bowlers to get wickets. Which means the bowlers don’t face as much of a challenge as they did then! I mean come on give me something challenging man!

This era has positives no doubt - the level of hitting is mind blowing, but that also means batsmen can’t knuckle down when it comes to saving a test match. Which is exactly why you had more drawn series before and today’s test matches have results. In some ways that’s good for the watching public. Depends what you prefer.

And your last paragraph “oh root is a better batsman so he must be a better captain” that is as amateur as it gets. Anyone who knows 2 cents about cricket knows the two don’t equate.

You write a lot for someone who just expresses irate opinions because I dunno maybe your last visit to Pakistan was not a great experience. Be concise and make a coherent argument backed by some knowledge. Let go of the bitterness.

 

[street cricketer]

I've always been amazed by this thread. It's as if becoming the GOAT asian side is a very difficult achievement. I think I've said this before but the benchmark for asian sides isn't really great. Asian sides historically have been lions at home and lambs abroad.

The only two sides worth considering in the debate are Imran's (& Miandad) side during the 80s and the Indian side of the 2000s. I've compared the current Indian side to both of those sides and the Indian side of 2000s and Pakistan of 80s compare very similarly with each other. But both fall short in stats at home and away from home compared to the current Indian side both in terms of win loss ratios and achievements outside asia.

The series won outside asia by Imran and Miandad's Pakistan were:

Two series wins in England and a series win in New Zealand - 3.

They drew two series one in Windies and one in NZ - 2.

The series won by the Indian side of 2000s were

Two series wins in the Caribbean, one in England and one in NZ - 4.

They also drew a series in Aus and SA - 2.

This current Indian side under Kohli and Rahane have already won two series in Australia, two series in the Caribbean and are leading this series 2-1 in England. So that's 5 series won or being led outside asia. And they aren't yet finished as a side. They tour South Africa next where they have a decent chance of winning too.

The biggest difference between the current Indian side and the Pakistani side of 80s and Indian side of 2000s is that the current side is very attacking and rarely draws series - it either wins or loses which is partly responsible for its more series wins outside asia and it also has a higher win loss ratio outside asia compared to the other two. Imran's side was a great side but it was defensive and played in a manner to not lose rather than to win which is why they have a high amount of draws, the Indian side of noughties were great but while they brought their best against the great Australian side, they weren't as dominant overall and were at best the third best side during that era after Aus and SA.

The current Indian side is far more attacking than the former two which points to its higher win loss ratio and their home record is unmatched by any other side in test cricket history. They're easily better than any other Asian side to have played the game and are currently competing with the Saffer side of the late 2000s and early 2010s from a legacy pov. They can better their legacy if they tick the box in South Africa too by winning there later this year. Of course the GOAT teams are the Windies and the Australian sides.

 

[TheSultan]

I was there for days 2 and 3, was a great atmosphere as Pakistan piled on the runs.

Regarding day 5 there was also a notable moment right at the start of the day when Salim Malik (who had fielded brilliantly that summer) dropped a straightforward slip catch given by Gatting off Imran.

Regarding Robert’s earlier point you have to remember the first two tests were ruined by the weather and Pakistan only just got out of jail after a batting collapse on the last day of the 4th, though ended up not too far from victory themselves.

The 4th test was a great finish. England needed 123 off 18 overs or something. Both sides going for the win. Remember it well.

England certainly weren’t a pushover in those days, far from it and would have been interesting to see how the first 2 tests went with better weather.

Yea I completely forgot that drop by malik on the final day!

 

[Buffet]

I've always been amazed by this thread. It's as if becoming the GOAT asian side is a very difficult achievement. I think I've said this before but the benchmark for asian sides isn't really great.

+1

It's a low benchmark.

 

[NishanKonar]

GOAT Asian side should be the side that won test series in SENA countries

No Asian side has achieved it so far. This Indian side is halfway on that path - won Australia & England. But needs to win in South Africa & New Zealand

 

[TheSultan]

I've always been amazed by this thread. It's as if becoming the GOAT asian side is a very difficult achievement. I think I've said this before but the benchmark for asian sides isn't really great. Asian sides historically have been lions at home and lambs abroad.

The only two sides worth considering in the debate are Imran's (& Miandad) side during the 80s and the Indian side of the 2000s. I've compared the current Indian side to both of those sides and the Indian side of 2000s and Pakistan of 80s compare very similarly with each other. But both fall short in stats at home and away from home compared to the current Indian side both in terms of win loss ratios and achievements outside asia.

The series won outside asia by Imran and Miandad's Pakistan were:

Two series wins in England and a series win in New Zealand - 3.

They drew two series one in Windies and one in NZ - 2.

The series won by the Indian side of 2000s were

Two series wins in the Caribbean, one in England and one in NZ - 4.

They also drew a series in Aus and SA - 2.

This current Indian side under Kohli and Rahane have already won two series in Australia, two series in the Caribbean and are leading this series 2-1 in England. So that's 5 series won or being led outside asia. And they aren't yet finished as a side. They tour South Africa next where they have a decent chance of winning too.

The biggest difference between the current Indian side and the Pakistani side of 80s and Indian side of 2000s is that the current side is very attacking and rarely draws series - it either wins or loses which is partly responsible for its more series wins outside asia and it also has a higher win loss ratio outside asia compared to the other two. Imran's side was a great side but it was defensive and played in a manner to not lose rather than to win which is why they have a high amount of draws, the Indian side of noughties were great but while they brought their best against the great Australian side, they weren't as dominant overall and were at best the third best side during that era after Aus and SA.

The current Indian side is far more attacking than the former two which points to its higher win loss ratio and their home record is unmatched by any other side in test cricket history. They're easily better than any other Asian side to have played the game and are currently competing with the Saffer side of the late 2000s and early 2010s from a legacy pov. They can better their legacy if they tick the box in South Africa too by winning there later this year. Of course the GOAT teams are the Windies and the Australian sides.

The asterix vs Kohli’s side is there is no ATG / GOAT team in this era. Every side is fallible. The Aussies have good players but are very brittle. Same with England. South Africa have lost a lot of great players and are brittle too. SL and Pakistan are probably the weakest they’ve been this millennium. West Indies have been poor for a while with no light at the end of the tunnel. NZ are fairly solid and india haven’t beaten them away.

So the value of beating Aus in Aus - a sound achievement of course - cannot be categorised as a great one.

 

[TheSultan]

GOAT Asian side should be the side that won test series in SENA countries

No Asian side has achieved it so far. This Indian side is halfway on that path - won Australia & England. But needs to win in South Africa & New Zealand

It’s not as simple as that. There is quality missing from the SENA teams - especially South Africa so it doesn’t fit in for me as a great achievement even if they do beat them.

I’ve expressed my assessment of their victory in Australia.

As I’ve said before. Kohli’s India are a fine side. I rate them as a very good team. But don’t get in to GOAT territory because there are many factors at play that just cannot be quantified.

If you believe it, believe it but you can’t prove it

 

[jnaveen1980]

As an Indian fan i cannot bring myself to call a side that has Rahane a GOAT side. Greatest fast bowling unit? By some distance. When you combine them with Ashwin/Jadeja in spin department, this is a GOAT bowling unit. Even in the batting department India won recently mainly due to Pant, Thakur, Sundar, Ashwin, Shami, Bumrah 's batting. I cannot give any credit to the diabolical batting team we have, Pujara did play a role in one series. Besides that they went missing in several series.

 

[street cricketer]

The asterix vs Kohli’s side is there is no ATG / GOAT team in this era. Every side is fallible. The Aussies have good players but are very brittle. Same with England. South Africa have lost a lot of great players and are brittle too. SL and Pakistan are probably the weakest they’ve been this millennium. West Indies have been poor for a while with no light at the end of the tunnel. NZ are fairly solid and india haven’t beaten them away.

So the value of beating Aus in Aus - a sound achievement of course - cannot be categorised as a great one.

Some sides have always been weak in cricket. You say England are brittle now. But they were near minnowesque in the 80s and 90s. New Zealand were decent with the likes of Hadlee granted and winning there was a good achievement by Pak. But India were terrible too in those days. SL were proper minnows in the 80s than they're now and from memory, Imran's side failed to beat that Lankan side once and it failed to beat a terrible Indian side once at home as well (Manjrekar was the star batsman for India in that series lol).

Every side has its drawbacks and the current Indian side is by no means perfect. The batting of the current Indian side is not a patch on the batting line up of the Indian side of 2000s, but what this side has is clutch game play. It plays its best game when its backs are against the wall when I've seen a lot of other past sides lie down and roll over in those situations.

And it's not necessary that every era should have a GOAT team. I mean, it's called GOAT for a reason, if the best side of every era is called the GOAT side, that demeans the tag of the GOAT. Besides, the Pak team of the 80s never beat the GOAT Windies team once, even at home. At least the Indian side beat that GOAT Aus side once at home, as did Vaughan's England in the 2005 Ashes. "Not losing" is not a high point for a team that's competing for the GOAT side category even if it's within asia.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Some sides have always been weak in cricket. You say England are brittle now. But they were near minnowesque in the 80s and 90s. New Zealand were decent with the likes of Hadlee granted and winning there was a good achievement by Pak. But India were terrible too in those days. SL were proper minnows in the 80s than they're now and from memory, Imran's side failed to beat that Lankan side once and it failed to beat a terrible Indian side once at home as well (Manjrekar was the star batsman for India in that series lol).

Every side has its drawbacks and the current Indian side is by no means perfect. The batting of the current Indian side is not a patch on the batting line up of the Indian side of 2000s, but what this side has is clutch game play. It plays its best game when its backs are against the wall when I've seen a lot of other past sides lie down and roll over in those situations.

And it's not necessary that every era should have a GOAT team. I mean, it's called GOAT for a reason, if the best side of every era is called the GOAT side, that demeans the tag of the GOAT. Besides, the Pak team of the 80s never beat the GOAT Windies team once, even at home. At least the Indian side beat that GOAT Aus side once at home, as did Vaughan's England in the 2005 Ashes. "Not losing" is not a high point for a team that's competing for the GOAT side category even if it's within asia.

Good point. You have to beat the opposition. Getting away with draw is barely adequate.

 

[street cricketer]

+1

It's a low benchmark.

One would think the past Asian sides have a legacy of the 80s Windies and 2000s Australian sides going by the discourse here.

 

[Ab Fan]

The current Indian team was not the best Asian Test Team ever when this thread was created. However, now, they definitely are.

New Zealand is their only bogey team and that is also because of conditions. Swing and seam is where India are weakest, they have mastered pace, bounce, spin and flat roads and contrary to it, New Zealand thrive the most when the conditions are conducive to swing and seam.

 

[Mamoon]

I wasn’t making excuses - I was schooling you.

The straw-man arguments are by yourself. And very amateurish too. I was just laying down some facts and knowledge to you. Try and take it in next time.

Your argument “well if batsmen are worse now then the bowlers are better”? How exactly? If the batsmen are worse now, then it’s easier for bowlers to get wickets. Which means the bowlers don’t face as much of a challenge as they did then! I mean come on give me something challenging man!

This era has positives no doubt - the level of hitting is mind blowing, but that also means batsmen can’t knuckle down when it comes to saving a test match. Which is exactly why you had more drawn series before and today’s test matches have results. In some ways that’s good for the watching public. Depends what you prefer.

And your last paragraph “oh root is a better batsman so he must be a better captain” that is as amateur as it gets. Anyone who knows 2 cents about cricket knows the two don’t equate.

You write a lot for someone who just expresses irate opinions because I dunno maybe your last visit to Pakistan was not a great experience. Be concise and make a coherent argument backed by some knowledge. Let go of the bitterness.

You don’t need to visit a place where you live. I live in Pakistan.

If modern batsmen are benefiting from easier rules and conditions, then the bowlers are handicapped by the same rules and conditions and thus, if you are going to downplay modern batsmen, then you should apply your own logic and downplay the older era bowlers, who were not handicapped by rules and conditions unlike modern bowlers.

I don’t think it is a difficult concept to grasp, but you are sidestepping it because exposes the fundamental flaw in your argument.

“Both batting and bowling standards have declined” is the biggest load of nonsense that I’ve heard, and anyone who subscribes to this logical fallacy knows nothing about cricket.

 

[Buffet]

One would think the past Asian sides have a legacy of the 80s Windies and 2000s Australian sides going by the discourse here.

Exactly, it is not a high benchmark.

IK team has like 1-2 test win outside of Asia and then within Asia - drawing 0-0 against a poor India team at home in 4 tests series and drawing 1-1 against SL team which had 0.1 W/L ratio in 80s.

The Indian team of the late 00s did well but did not have too many test wins outside of Asia and they were a lot less dominant than Kohli's team at home.

Some posters are making up some mythical previous Asian team without those teams having actually won a lot.

When all said and done, 5-6 years on top of ICC ranking. Most dominant performance ever by any team at home. So many series victories away and best was winning twice in a row in Aus. Now it is weird to claim that AUs is weak, this is weak or that is weak. All teams were not strong even during great WI and Aus run and this team is not even competing against ATG teams.

This team has consistently had a rating of 120+ points for the last 5-6 years. The previous Indian team did get to that range, but it was for a much shorter period. Pakistan's team of 80s was not good enough to get above 120 points any time. I am raising points because it's objective and has no bias.

I don't think that IK's team of Pakistan even belongs in this discussion. I will put early 90s Pakistan above 80s of Pakistan.

It's just the best Asian team we are talking about here and it has a pretty low benchmark. Current Indian teams have long gone past other Asian teams in terms of producing actual results. They will lose some tests and even series due to playing for a win, but that's the sign of a champion team. Batting is fragile, but again discussion is about the Asian team and the competition is not with great WI or Aus.

 

[Ab Fan]

Indian test team current rating on 10 across different conditions is :-

Spin - 10/10
Pace/Bounce - 9/10
Flat wickets - 9.5/10
Swing/Seam - 8/10( NZ are 9/10 in these conditions but about 7-8 in rest of the conditions)

So, basically India are beast in all conditions and just good in swing/seam conditions.

 

[topspin]

This test will be played again sometime next year, so before we declare India as the GOAT Asian test side let this series conclude first.

The losses in NZ, SA, WTC final and against England in previous series shows me there is more work to be done.

It is definitely the greatest T20 team of all time and the IPL has done a good job to captivate the audience with all of its buff cheerleaders. I'll give credit to India where it's due.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

One would think the past Asian sides have a legacy of the 80s Windies and 2000s Australian sides going by the discourse here.

Agreed. India are, by far the Greatest Asian side but pales in comparison with the Aussie and Windies sodes of yesteryear.

 

[street cricketer]

Exactly, it is not a high benchmark.

IK team has like 1-2 test win outside of Asia and then within Asia - drawing 0-0 against a poor India team at home in 4 tests series and drawing 1-1 against SL team which had 0.1 W/L ratio in 80s.

The Indian team of the late 00s did well but did not have too many test wins outside of Asia and they were a lot less dominant than Kohli's team at home.

Some posters are making up some mythical previous Asian team without those teams having actually won a lot.

When all said and done, 5-6 years on top of ICC ranking. Most dominant performance ever by any team at home. So many series victories away and best was winning twice in a row in Aus. Now it is weird to claim that AUs is weak, this is weak or that is weak. All teams were not strong even during great WI and Aus run and this team is not even competing against ATG teams.

This team has consistently had a rating of 120+ points for the last 5-6 years. The previous Indian team did get to that range, but it was for a much shorter period. Pakistan's team of 80s was not good enough to get above 120 points any time. I am raising points because it's objective and has no bias.

I don't think that IK's team of Pakistan even belongs in this discussion. I will put early 90s Pakistan above 80s of Pakistan.

It's just the best Asian team we are talking about here and it has a pretty low benchmark. Current Indian teams have long gone past other Asian teams in terms of producing actual results. They will lose some tests and even series due to playing for a win, but that's the sign of a champion team. Batting is fragile, but again discussion is about the Asian team and the competition is not with great WI or Aus.

I wish we have graphs for comparing the historical rating points of the respective teams like we have for ICC batting, bowling and all rounder ratings. It would provide a great picture of the quality difference.

 

[Buffet]

Indian test team current rating on 10 across different conditions is :-

Spin - 10/10
Pace/Bounce - 9/10
Flat wickets - 9.5/10
Swing/Seam - 8/10( NZ are 9/10 in these conditions but about 7-8 in rest of the conditions)

So, basically India are beast in all conditions and just good in swing/seam conditions.

Not the team, but for bowling, I will agree. Batting is not really that great in all conditions.

 

[NishanKonar]

Exactly, it is not a high benchmark.

IK team has like 1-2 test win outside of Asia and then within Asia - drawing 0-0 against a poor India team at home in 4 tests series and drawing 1-1 against SL team which had 0.1 W/L ratio in 80s.

The Indian team of the late 00s did well but did not have too many test wins outside of Asia and they were a lot less dominant than Kohli's team at home.

Some posters are making up some mythical previous Asian team without those teams having actually won a lot.

When all said and done, 5-6 years on top of ICC ranking. Most dominant performance ever by any team at home. So many series victories away and best was winning twice in a row in Aus. Now it is weird to claim that AUs is weak, this is weak or that is weak. All teams were not strong even during great WI and Aus run and this team is not even competing against ATG teams.

This team has consistently had a rating of 120+ points for the last 5-6 years. The previous Indian team did get to that range, but it was for a much shorter period. Pakistan's team of 80s was not good enough to get above 120 points any time. I am raising points because it's objective and has no bias.

I don't think that IK's team of Pakistan even belongs in this discussion. I will put early 90s Pakistan above 80s of Pakistan.

It's just the best Asian team we are talking about here and it has a pretty low benchmark. Current Indian teams have long gone past other Asian teams in terms of producing actual results. They will lose some tests and even series due to playing for a win, but that's the sign of a champion team. Batting is fragile, but again discussion is about the Asian team and the competition is not with great WI or Aus.

This is so true

Kohli's team is the first every Asian team thats winning tests consistently abroad. Imran's team won 1 test in England , 1 in West Indies and never won any test in Australia ( forget winning series )

In the past Asian teams winning a test in SENA was once in a blue moon. India did not win a tst abroad for 15 years. Pakistan has not won any test in Australia for 25 years. Even when they won it wud be just one test in the entire series.

Kohli's team is the first to do it with such regular frequency. This is the 3rd time the team won 2 tests in a SENA series in 3 years. Pakistan has done it only once ( England 2016 ) and Sri Lanka has done it once in SOuth Africa ( 2019 ) in the last 20 years

 

[Technics 1210]

A team cannot be considered the best by any stretch of the imagination if they must rely on a virus for victory.

 

[BreadPakoda]

Surely this team has surpassed India’s 2007-10 team to become the greatest ever Asian test team.

 

[Ab Fan]

Not the team, but for bowling, I will agree. Batting is not really that great in all conditions.

I meant more in terms of result with relative to other teams of this era.

The present Indian batsmsn are not the best players of spin ever but still vs pace and bounce, I think the current era Indian batsmen are just phenomenal. The 2000s Indian batters like Ganguly who went on to play 100 tests had serious issues vs short pitch stuffs but this era players like Pant, Gill or KL plays pace and short pitch stuffs very well and obviously so does Kohli and Rohit. Even Rahane is at his best when playing vs pace and bounce than spin, swing or seam.

 

[jnaveen1980]

India could have realized series win against better English side had they not succumbed to Moeen Ali and Curran.Notwithstanding 5 toss losses India had a genuine chance of winning the last series.

 

[Faiz1978]

I agree about the late eighties mob, they were awful. No bowling other than Dilley when he was fit, terrible reactive selections, and chaos regarding who was skipper.

In 1987 they won Ashes in Australia by 3-0 , they beaten India in India by 2-1 though they were not consistent .

 

[TheSultan]

You don’t need to visit a place where you live. I live in Pakistan.

If modern batsmen are benefiting from easier rules and conditions, then the bowlers are handicapped by the same rules and conditions and thus, if you are going to downplay modern batsmen, then you should apply your own logic and downplay the older era bowlers, who were not handicapped by rules and conditions unlike modern bowlers.

I don’t think it is a difficult concept to grasp, but you are sidestepping it because exposes the fundamental flaw in your argument.

“Both batting and bowling standards have declined” is the biggest load of nonsense that I’ve heard, and anyone who subscribes to this logical fallacy knows nothing about cricket.

Haha I didn’t even mention rules or conditions. I said they don’t have the ability to bat out matches. They crack at the first sign of err we’ll a crack or a bit of pressure.

You brought up rules and conditions because you have a ready made answer for that! Trying to mythically turn a debate to your benefit doesn’t work with me sunshine.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Surely this team has surpassed India’s 2007-10 team to become the greatest ever Asian test team.

Yeah I would say so.

Current India
India 2007-2011
Are the top 2 Asian test sides in that order. Especially when you consider they did it in proper competitive erasing with neutral umpires and cricket balls that didnt look dogs have chewed them and spat them out .

 

[TheSultan]

Indian test team current rating on 10 across different conditions is :-

Spin - 10/10
Pace/Bounce - 9/10
Flat wickets - 9.5/10
Swing/Seam - 8/10( NZ are 9/10 in these conditions but about 7-8 in rest of the conditions)

So, basically India are beast in all conditions and just good in swing/seam conditions.

Excuse me? Who validated these ratings?

Just making up some random ratings ain’t gonna help your cause.

 

[Zaz]

Leave it out pls india is a terrible batting unit What bowled out for 36and 78 not long ago?

Hardly the making of a greatest of all time asian side

 

[BreadPakoda]

Indian test team current rating on 10 across different conditions is :-

Spin - 10/10
Pace/Bounce - 9/10
Flat wickets - 9.5/10
Swing/Seam - 8/10( NZ are 9/10 in these conditions but about 7-8 in rest of the conditions)

So, basically India are beast in all conditions and just good in swing/seam conditions.

Excuse me? Who validated these ratings?

Just making up some random ratings ain’t gonna help your cause.

I’d say 10/10 on flat wickets but 7/10 on swing despite the once in a generation pace talent.

Latter is where the 2007-2010 India beats this team. SRT, Dravid, Lax, Gambhir - 4 very good players in all conditions. That’s why they won series in England, NZ, and drew one in SA. Although the drawn series counts less, as it’s not about being undefeated/drawing (which is hallmark of loser attitude), it’s about winning. 2007-10 comfortable second best Asian team though.

 

[Chrish]

Leave it out pls india is a terrible batting unit What bowled out for 36and 78 not long ago?

Hardly the making of a greatest of all time asian side

Correct about batting. India isn’t remotely competitive in NZ for example.

Great side at home and very good to okayish away from home depending on who they are playing against. Overall “good” side but not “great”.

 

[Ab Fan]

Excuse me? Who validated these ratings?

Just making up some random ratings ain’t gonna help your cause.

I have been around for long time to validate my ratings from my own. Just like I value only my opinions, I do not need any one else validation for any ratings.

 

[Ab Fan]

I’d say 10/10 on flat wickets but 7/10 on swing despite the once in a generation pace talent.

Latter is where the 2007-2010 India beats this team. SRT, Dravid, Lax, Gambhir - 4 very good players in all conditions. That’s why they won series in England, NZ, and drew one in SA. Although the drawn series counts less, as it’s not about being undefeated/drawing (which is hallmark of loser attitude), it’s about winning. 2007-10 comfortable second best Asian team though.

It is about team and not just batting. India just beat England in England or have been ahead by 2-1 over 4 test match series where they got a bit unlucky in that first test as they were 50/1 in 210 run chase and rain interrupted the game. If you will give India 7/10 on swing, what will you give to the current England team in their own conditions? 6/10??

 

[BreadPakoda]

It is about team and not just batting. India just beat England in England or have been ahead by 2-1 over 4 test match series where they got a bit unlucky in that first test as they were 50/1 in 210 run chase and rain interrupted the game. If you will give India 7/10 on swing, what will you give to the current England team in their own conditions? 6/10??

The blip in NZ pulls this team down to 7/10 in swinging conditions.

On the other hand NZ is 10/10 in swinging conditions and pretty much average/below average anywhere else.

And yes, England doesn’t deserve more than 6.

 

[street cricketer]

The blip in NZ pulls this team down to 7/10 in swinging conditions.

On the other hand NZ is 10/10 in swinging conditions and pretty much average/below average anywhere else.

And yes, England doesn’t deserve more than 6.

Dhoni's team did win in NZ but that team was leagues below the current NZ team which is their best ever team.

I also remember India getting knocked over for extremely low totals in 2002 in NZ with blokes like Daryl Tuffey being the chief destroyer.

 

[NishanKonar]

Dhoni's team did win in NZ but that team was leagues below the current NZ team which is their best ever team.

I also remember India getting knocked over for extremely low totals in 2002 in NZ with blokes like Daryl Tuffey being the chief destroyer.

Those pitches in 2002 were minefields. In 1 test , both teams got bowled out for less than 100 in 1st innings

 

[Robert]

The draw was surely high, but not high enough to have just 1-2 wins for any good team.

All tests in WI, Aus, Eng and NZ in 80s

169 tests - 100 tests with results. ( 60% of games resulted in win or loss)

60% was just average, good teams should do better than average.

WI would have been affecting those numbers by beating everybody at home and away.

In England:

1980 three draws
1981 two draws
1982 one draw (England had lost their rebels and batting was weak)
1983 no draws - very weak Kiwi batting
1984 one draw - WI Blackwash, but SL test drawn
1985 two draws (rebels back)
1986 three draws
1987 four draws
1988 one draw
1989 two draws

 

[Robert]

In 1987 they won Ashes in Australia by 3-0 , they beaten India in India by 2-1 though they were not consistent .

Actually the Ashes was 1-2, England lost the final test. Those were the only tests they won in the second half of the eighties.

The Gower win in India was in 1984/5 and amazing given the weakness of the side (no Gooch, no Botham, Willis retired) and the strength of the Indian batting. Fowler, Robinson and Gatting piled on the runs and outlasted India somehow.

 

[Robert]

I was at the ground for that final day in 87 at the oval with my dad. So much expectation but that was a perfect example of batsmen digging in even when they under the cosh.

The only two eventful things that happened were ijaz ahmed taking a serious blow to the head fielding at short leg, and Wasim Akram going down with appendicitis half way through the day.

2 Pakistan players in hospital and only one England wicket falling!

Wow, great story.

Botham had decided to block everything and became completely single minded. If only he had taken that approach more often.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Dhoni's team did win in NZ but that team was leagues below the current NZ team which is their best ever team.

I also remember India getting knocked over for extremely low totals in 2002 in NZ with blokes like Daryl Tuffey being the chief destroyer.

Kohli's team did win in Aus but that team was also leagues below the GOAT Aus team of 2000s.

 

[street cricketer]

Kohli's team did win in Aus but that team was also leagues below the GOAT Aus team of 2000s.

New Zealand's W/L ratio from 2005-2009: 0.647

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...2005;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

Australia's W/L ratio in the last 5 years:1.466

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...2016;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Well, that’s the point, the Aussies were not “mighty”. They had the weakest batting in their history.

India hasn’t beaten anyone good.

Warner, Smith and Labuschagne have home average of 63.20, 67.72 and 72.55 respectively. You must be joking if you think Australian batting is weak at home.

 

[NishanKonar]

Warner, Smith and Labuschagne have home average of 63.20, 67.72 and 72.55 respectively. You must be joking if you think Australian batting is weak at home.

Australia pulverized Pakistan & New Zealand at home in 2019-20 without breaking any sweat but when the same side lost to India next year- they were now a " weak " side

Anything to deny any credit to India

 

[Robert]

I was there for days 2 and 3, was a great atmosphere as Pakistan piled on the runs.

Regarding day 5 there was also a notable moment right at the start of the day when Salim Malik (who had fielded brilliantly that summer) dropped a straightforward slip catch given by Gatting off Imran.

Regarding Robert’s earlier point you have to remember the first two tests were ruined by the weather and Pakistan only just got out of jail after a batting collapse on the last day of the 4th, though ended up not too far from victory themselves.

That fourth test which seemed set for a draw then turned into a T20 in the mad final session! Imran and Wasim bowled unchanged with the PAK fielders throwing themselves about furiously. With ten overs down England were on course at 60-3, yet somehow lost their way. Botham should have opened the batting with Broad. He might have smashed a quick fifty.

England really missed Gooch that summer too.

 

[Robert]

Warner, Smith and Labuschagne have home average of 63.20, 67.72 and 72.55 respectively. You must be joking if you think Australian batting is weak at home.

I withdrew that comment in post 688 if you care to look.

 

[Robert]

Excuses, excuses. It is not about understanding cricketing history; it is about the fact that some people suffer from chronic nostalgia and cannot let go of the past.

Everything was better in the past time - batting, bowling, fielding, umpiring, coaching, match referring etc. etc., and the standards magically dropped for some reason.

We are told that modern batsmen are inferior because of flat pitches, short boundaries, big bats and favorable rules. However, when you apply the same logic to the bowlers, they get uncomfortable.

If the modern batsmen is inferior because of these XYZ rules, then the modern bowlers are superior because they are handicapped by the same rules.

If Miandad is a better batsman than Kohli because Kohli is benefiting from flat pitches, short boundaries, big bats and favorable rules, then Cummins is a better bowler than Imran Khan because Imran Khan benefited from bowling-friendly pitches, big boundaries, small bats and unfavorable rules.

These nostalgia merchants fail to see the irony and logical fallacy in their argument - when you point it out to them, they start making excuses and strawman arguments.

Furthermore, the reality is that a Test captain with 14 Test wins cannot be compared to a captain who would probably end up with 50+ Test wins as captain, no matter how many cross-era adjustments and arbitrary ho ha you do.

In addition, Imran lost a Test to the weakest team of the 80’s in Asian conditions, thus surrendering their claim as the GOAT Asian Test team tag.

You cannot lose a Test match in Asia to Sri Lanka in 1985 and then call yourself the GOAT Asian Test team.

As far as Gatting is concerned, well “schoolboy” Root is thrice the batsmen he ever was. He is way more talented and skillful, and has a much better, organized batting brain. So perhaps he is a better captain as well.

In order to be three times as good as Gatting, Root would have to average 105 in tests.

I watched Gatt a lot. At their respective peaks I would put them on a similar level, but Root’s peak has lasted longer.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Gatting averaged 35 when he gave his all to test cricket, Imagine what his avg would be if he was lured by the shorter formats and was actually an all formats player.

Comparing him to Root is definitely an insult.
Even Graham Gooch is nowhere near Root let alone Gatting.

 

[Buffet]

WI would have been affecting those numbers by beating everybody at home and away.

In England:

1980 three draws
1981 two draws
1982 one draw (England had lost their rebels and batting was weak)
1983 no draws - very weak Kiwi batting
1984 one draw - WI Blackwash, but SL test drawn
1985 two draws (rebels back)
1986 three draws
1987 four draws
1988 one draw
1989 two draws

All teams in Aus, NZ and Eng after removing WI,

47 draws in total 104 tests. Still, we get 55% of tests having results in those countries. It dropped from 60% to 55%, but 55% is still pretty high.

I am not saying that draw was not more, but if more than 50% of games were getting results then we shouldn't be saying that only having 1-2 tests wins was due to tests being draws in 80s.

 

[Faiz1978]

Gatting averaged 35 when he gave his all to test cricket, Imagine what his avg would be if he was lured by the shorter formats and was actually an all formats player.

Comparing him to Root is definitely an insult.
Even Graham Gooch is nowhere near Root let alone Gatting.

Before comparison between Gooch & Root please compare bowling attacks of both eras these days bowling standard is arguably 50 % of 70's, 80's & 90's .

 

[jnaveen1980]

In order to be three times as good as Gatting, Root would have to average 105 in tests.

I watched Gatt a lot. At their respective peaks I would put them on a similar level, but Root’s peak has lasted longer.

Are you sure? He had lot of holes in his batting. David Gower despite lack of foot work was well above Gatting. He looked inadequate against pace attack of Windies. He wasn't even the best English player of his era. Gower was the favorite. Infact India had a huge fan following for Gower at that time.l

 

[jnaveen1980]

Before comparison between Gooch & Root please compare bowling attacks of both eras these days bowling standard is arguably 50 % of 70's, 80's & 90's .

The best bowling attack in the 80s was West Indies attack. Gatting was hopeless against them.

 

[jnaveen1980]

I would put Gatting slightly below the level of David Boon. Boon got 21 centuries. Back in those days that was a lot.

 

[Ab Fan]

Gatting was basically Rahane level batsman who was smashed on nose by Marshall in 1986, which inflicted England's 0-5 humiliation to Windies. It was really a cowardly display of batting by England in that series.

Drawing tests were easy back then compared to now but England struggled to even draw one test and ended getting whitewashed 0-5 vs Windies.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

New Zealand's W/L ratio from 2005-2009: 0.647

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...2005;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

Australia's W/L ratio in the last 5 years:1.466

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...2016;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

How does it change the fact that Australian team of 2000s was a GOAT side in comparison to their current team?

 

[jnaveen1980]

Gatting was basically Rahane level batsman who was smashed on nose by Marshall in 1986, which inflicted England's 0-5 humiliation to Windies. It was really a cowardly display of batting by England in that series.

Drawing tests were easy back then compared to now but England struggled to even draw one test and ended getting whitewashed 0-5 vs Windies.

One can imagine how he would have played in that "Mitchell johnson" series. Even Kevin pietersen didn't get going there.

 

[Ab Fan]

One can imagine how he would have played in that "Mitchell johnson" series. Even Kevin pietersen didn't get going there.

Gatting was just a specialist captain like Rahane. However, he managed to captain long enough because that England team didn't had the player of Kohli calibre.

Gower was good and very stylish but he was an under-achiever. He was basically VVS Laxman level.

 

[TheSultan]

Gatting was basically Rahane level batsman who was smashed on nose by Marshall in 1986, which inflicted England's 0-5 humiliation to Windies. It was really a cowardly display of batting by England in that series.

Drawing tests were easy back then compared to now but England struggled to even draw one test and ended getting whitewashed 0-5 vs Windies.

I don’t know why this has become a discussion about gatting’s batting. It started about his captaincy and then mamoon came out with a statement saying root is a better captain because he is a better batsman *facepalm

Gatting wasn’t a great batsman but he was a great captain. So what you’re actually trying to prove I’m not sure.

And as for the draws etc. England didn’t play well but most teams didn’t against West Indies. People forget how great they were. I mean I remember india were even worse when bishen bedi refused to let his frightened team finish one of the games!

 

[Ab Fan]

I don’t know why this has become a discussion about gatting’s batting. It started about his captaincy and then mamoon came out with a statement saying root is a better captain because he is a better batsman *facepalm

Gatting wasn’t a great batsman but he was a great captain. So what you’re actually trying to prove I’m not sure.

And as for the draws etc. England didn’t play well but most teams didn’t against West Indies. People forget how great they were. I mean I remember india were even worse when bishen bedi refused to let his frightened team finish one of the games!

Those guys were tailenders.

Anderson has a greater stature than Bedi and Chandra and he too looked scared vs Bumrah and co over the past one month. Nothing wrong with that. Their job is to bowl, not bat.

As for Gatting discussion, it was after Robert asserted that they were both at same level in terms of peak although Gatting was short period. So, he was comparing their batting which is laughable comparison indeed.

 

[Ab Fan]

Those guys were tailenders.

Anderson has a greater stature than Bedi and Chandra and he too looked scared vs Bumrah and co over the past one month. Nothing wrong with that. Their job is to bowl, not bat.

As for Gatting discussion, it was after Robert asserted that <B>they</B> were both at same level in terms of peak although Gatting was short period. So, he was comparing their batting which is laughable comparison indeed.

Root and Gatting *

 

[cricketjoshila]

An era of week test teams especially Australia & SA , OP will always highlight, oh its b & c teams if Pakistan beats them but if his Indian team wins ,regardless of opponents , it’s an ATG performance, no doubt about your cricket knowledge & English grammar but your bias & trolling is next level , I still can’t figure out you nationality…

Warner Labu Smith Cummins Starc Hazlewood are weak players.

Ok.

I think pakistan beat them last time in Australia. No?

 

[TheSultan]

One can imagine how he would have played in that "Mitchell johnson" series. Even Kevin pietersen didn't get going there.

If you invert that how would the 2014 England team play against 4 Mitchell Johnsons?

It took one quick bowler bowling nasty to scare the life out of an international team. Imagine what the 4-prong windies attack do to these teams

And people say modern batsmen are better. Laughable!

 

[TheSultan]

Warner Labu Smith Cummins Starc Hazlewood are weak players.

Ok.

I think pakistan beat them last time in Australia. No?

Warner - half fit
Smith - lean patch - has been due for a while
Lambi - not the finished article
Starc - has been off the boil for a few years and is more famous for his white ball exploits
Cummins is good but doesn’t really run through teams and is a bit soft under
Hazlewood - a bit soft under pressure too.

The way they lost in headingley says much about this Aus bowling attack. They are good when on top, but under pressure they don’t have it mentally.

India caught them at the right time.

 

[Devadwal]

Warner - half fit
Smith - lean patch - has been due for a while
Lambi - not the finished article
Starc - has been off the boil for a few years and is more famous for his white ball exploits
Cummins is good but doesn’t really run through teams and is a bit soft under
Hazlewood - a bit soft under pressure too.

The way they lost in headingley says much about this Aus bowling attack. They are good when on top, but under pressure they don’t have it mentally.

India caught them at the right time.

Then Why Pakistan not caught them ? Pakistan can't even draw a single test from long long time just forget about winning a test in Australia.

 

[TheSultan]

Then Why Pakistan not caught them ? Pakistan can't even draw a single test from long long time just forget about winning a test in Australia.

Yes current Pakistan team is rubbish and the current Indian team is miles and miles better. No argument from me there.

Anything else?

 

[street cricketer]

Warner - half fit
Smith - lean patch - has been due for a while
Lambi - not the finished article
Starc - has been off the boil for a few years and is more famous for his white ball exploits
Cummins is good but doesn’t really run through teams and is a bit soft under
Hazlewood - a bit soft under pressure too.

The way they lost in headingley says much about this Aus bowling attack. They are good when on top, but under pressure they don’t have it mentally.

India caught them at the right time.

The thing is, the current Indian team doesn't need to better the legacy of the great Windies or Australian teams or even the great Saffer team to be the GOAT asian team. All it needs to do is to have a better legacy than the past asian sides, which frankly, is not really a high benchmark given asian sides mostly struggled outside asia.

I'm yet to hear one reasonable argument in favour of any past asian side to prove that they were better than the current Indian team using stats. All I'm hearing is arbitrary and intangible claims like the past era was simply better and that's largely driven by nostalgia and bias rather than hard facts and evidence. If you feel this team isn't the best, then put forth your argument on which side was the GOAT asian side using any reasonable argument to support it and we'll have a good cricketing discussion.

 

[Mamoon]

In order to be three times as good as Gatting, Root would have to average 105 in tests.

I watched Gatt a lot. At their respective peaks I would put them on a similar level, but Root’s peak has lasted longer.

No surprises there Robert.

If you could state that Thorpe was better than Root and Hoggard/Caddick were better than Anderson, I would be surprised if you don’t consider Root and Gatting at the same level.

In fact, I won’t be surprised to see you claim that Tim Robinson was better than Root, since the former opened the batting in the 80s when the quality of fast bowling was apparently miles better than what we have today.

 

[TheSultan]

The thing is, the current Indian team doesn't need to better the legacy of the great Windies or Australian teams or even the great Saffer team to be the GOAT asian team. All it needs to do is to have a better legacy than the past asian sides, which frankly, is not really a high benchmark given asian sides mostly struggled outside asia.

I'm yet to hear one reasonable argument in favour of any past asian side to prove that they were better than the current Indian team using stats. All I'm hearing is arbitrary and intangible claims like the past era was simply better and that's largely driven by nostalgia and bias rather than hard facts and evidence. If you feel this team isn't the best, then put forth your argument on which side was the GOAT asian side using any reasonable argument to support it and we'll have a good cricketing discussion.

I’m yet to hear a compelling argument that they are the GOAT Asian team. I’m sorry indians not everything can be proved by biased nerdy stats - get out of this stereotypical “nerdy Indian stats dude” personality you take on.

Good statistical analysis looks at context, background knowledge etc on top of numbers. If you are comparing vs the past you have to put in to context what happened in the past - it’s not nostalgia, batsmen batting longer, batsmen working harder in the 4th innings, more drawn matches - these are simple facts, not nostalgia.

If you find it difficult to quantify then stop comparing between eras. Why can’t the current Indian team be appreciated for being a good, possibly even a great team without starting all these useless comparisons. If you start the comparisons don’t expect everyone to sit by and not educate you.

I will close by saying if you want to believe they are the goat Asian side, then fine believe it. But you won’t convince many that it’s true and you can’t prove it.

I will resist making comparisons from now on. However, if someone posts some rubbish and needs to be educated I’ll happily oblige.

 

[sindhiboy]

For now, india can consider the england series a win.
They have won both test series in Australia and England in the same year.
They are no doubt the best test team in the world currently.

Both of the London wins were on flat pitches, bowling well on flat pitches has been a key factor in Indias success. Rohit and Rahuls recent success has elevated India even further

 

[Ab Fan]

Undoubtedly, the greatest Asian test team of all-time with winning streak of 12 series at home since 2015 and test series wins in Australia and England. Furthermore, this team has also gone down to win multiple series in Sri Lanka and West Indies. Their have been no fluke wins and all have been hard earned wins, not considering the bad luck with tosses or rain calling off the fifth day of the test.

All credit goes to their maestro batsman, Rohit( Oval) and Rahul( Lords) for England series and Pant( Sydney, Brisbane) for Australia series. In the bowling department, the credit goes to Bumrah( Melbourne, Oval), Siraj( Brisbane, Lords) and Shardul (Brisbane, Oval) in this order. No wonder we have been extremely benefitted by the exposure of IPL and can go anywhere in the world and win test matches.

The only weaknesses right now are Rahane, Pujara and Ishant but they don't play IPL and hopefully, a couple of years investment in IPL in them will bring the best from them too.

The next challenge to look forward is test series win in South Africa. Their team is not at their best but a lot of their players have been around for quite some time now and gained a lot more experience compared to 1.5-2 years ago.

 

[Devadwal]

This team can win a test series in South Africa also when India tour later this year .no doubt this is Greatest Asian team of all time.

 

[Faiz1978]

The best bowling attack in the 80s was West Indies attack. Gatting was hopeless against them.

I mentioned about Gooch not Gatting .

 

[Robert]

Gatting averaged 35 when he gave his all to test cricket, Imagine what his avg would be if he was lured by the shorter formats and was actually an all formats player.

Comparing him to Root is definitely an insult.
Even Graham Gooch is nowhere near Root let alone Gatting.

Strange comment given that Gatt played ODIs.

 

[Robert]

No surprises there Robert.

If you could state that Thorpe was better than Root and Hoggard/Caddick were better than Anderson, I would be surprised if you don’t consider Root and Gatting at the same level.

In fact, I won’t be surprised to see you claim that Tim Robinson was better than Root, since the former opened the batting in the 80s when the quality of fast bowling was apparently miles better than what we have today.

I’d say Thorpe and Root are on about the same level. Thorpe averaged fifty in tests when he settled at #5, facing the excellent fast bowlers and spinners of the nineties.

On a flat where Anderson is powerless I would prefer Gough and Caddick who had other attributes. Had they come up in the central contracts era I have little doubt that they would have 500+ test wickets apiece.

Robinson was very good against spin and medium pace but was exposed against the WI of ‘86, but then to be fair so was everyone including Gooch, who came home from that tour looking like he didn’t want to play cricket any more. I honestly doubt that Root would have done much either.

 

[Robert]

The best bowling attack in the 80s was West Indies attack. Gatting was hopeless against them.

Well, thereby hangs a tale.

Gatt took a long time to get established at test level. He was dropped every time England lost, like his team mate Ramprakash later on.

Then when he got his mind right, for about three years he was England’s best batsman, piling on big centuries. He missed that ‘86 Windies series through injury. He came back to win the Ashes and two ODI tournaments on one tour. He scored two centuries against Imran, Wasim and Qadir in 1987. Then he fell foul of politics and a tabloid honey-trap and was sacked as skipper during the 1988 Windies series, and dropped himself, and then got banned for going to SA and that was his test career, by-and-large. He had one more test hundred in the tank, in Australia, commenting humbly that he owed skipper Atherton a few runs.

 

[Muhammad]

Well, thereby hangs a tale.

Gatt took a long time to get established at test level. He was dropped every time England lost, like his team mate Ramprakash later on.

Then when he got his mind right, for about three years he was England’s best batsman, piling on big centuries. He missed that ‘86 Windies series through injury. He came back to win the Ashes and two ODI tournaments on one tour. He scored two centuries against Imran, Wasim and Qadir in 1987. Then he fell foul of politics and a tabloid honey-trap and was sacked as skipper during the 1988 Windies series, and dropped himself, and then got banned for going to SA and that was his test career, by-and-large. He had one more test hundred in the tank, in Australia, commenting humbly that he owed skipper Atherton a few runs.

Yes a very fine batsman in the mid 80’s. Took him about 6 years to score a test hundred and then really took off. He also had to deal with the traumatic experience of getting hit in the face by Marshall and then the Shakoor Rana incident, there was rarely a dull moment for him during that period.

Then on comeback he played reasonably well on the disastrous 93 tour to India, then met Shane Warne and was harshly dropped during that Ashes series (with Hick).

No doubt he himself was partly responsible but trouble and misfortune did seem to follow him around.

I’ve just remembered he took one in the face from Javed as well during the 1987 WC

 

[Robert]

Yes a very fine batsman in the mid 80’s. Took him about 6 years to score a test hundred and then really took off. He also had to deal with the traumatic experience of getting hit in the face by Marshall and then the Shakoor Rana incident, there was rarely a dull moment for him during that period.

Then on comeback he played reasonably well on the disastrous 93 tour to India, then met Shane Warne and was harshly dropped during that Ashes series (with Hick).

No doubt he himself was partly responsible but trouble and misfortune did seem to follow him around.

I’ve just remembered he took one in the face from Javed as well during the 1987 WC &#55357;&#56838;

Probably surprised Gatt - Javid was actually quite sharp when he felt like it.

When he came back from his ban I suspect his eyes had gone a bit, and he was never the same player, though still a terror of County bowlers.

I think he didn’t understand the politics circling him. He wasn’t really astute enough to be England skipper, though he was a fine sergeant to Gower.

 

[sindhiboy]

This team can win a test series in South Africa also when India tour later this year .no doubt this is Greatest Asian team of all time.

India should win against South Africa quite easily.