The greatest Asian Test team of all time

[Jadejagoat]

A reminder and this has been said before, Ambrose, Walsh, and Patterson took part in that 88’ series.

Walsh made his debut in 84’ and was already a reputable fast bowler with success all over the world.

Ambrose made his Test debut but he ripped Pakistan apart beforehand during the ODI series and would terrorize AUS and ENG away, right after the tour. It just shows that the PAK batsmen played him well when he struggled at home.

Patterson had debuted in 86’ and proved his worth by being the WI’s best bowler in IND before the tour. And he would be an enforcer (was overshadowed by Marshal and Ambrose) later on the same tours to AUS and ENG mentioned beforehand.

And Richards and Marshall DID play the series but missed the Test match that PAK won at Georgetown.

And PAK’s achievement was not losing ONE series to the WI in the 80’s. Nobody else can say that.

G.O.A.T Asian Test team. End of.

Nope.

All the main batsmen were old except Richardson. Declining team.

Wow congrats you held them to a draw at home. Oh wow. Take your E trophy.

Patterson destroyed a weak malnourished Indian side. Weak era with weak teams barring West Indies, Pakistan and maybe Australia ?

Third best team of Asia? Sure. Best? No.

2006-10 India is ahead of them as they played much tougher competition.
Virat's India is mile ahead in Asia. 29 wins in 31 games. Imran's team would kill for such a record. Besides Imran played in an era riddled with ball tampering, biased umpires, bouncer rule, poor protective gear for batsman etc.

If you transpose that team to current era, they would get flogged. All time great Asian team shouldn't lost to Sri Lanka and games to Zimbabwe. Also only beat India once convincingly. A weakened India at that.

Somehow managed to draw vs India in 1990 with one of India's weakest teams ever. Not a good look imo.

You have to dominate in Asia to be called greatest Asian team.

You are not even the greatest touring Asian side. That would be India 2006-2010.

So sad isn't it. After all that hard work by Imran, yet he only has 14 wins and numerous draws vs mediocre sides.

Not to mention it's far easier to lose in modern era especially away as most team are powerful in their home Conditions. This is a results driven era.

Imran poor fielding side plus batsmen who were average vs pace would get bamboozled in the modern era. There are also plenty of tapes now to study their proclivities and gameplan accordingly. Tendencies will be picked apart and imrans Pak will get blown away by both ganguly's India and virat's India.

 

[Mamoon]

Greatest Asian Team? Not much of an award when you are only 1 of the 3 teams. Srilanka has never been #1 (even with the retroactive model). I meant no offence to Afghanistan and Bangladesh one just started and other has still to become a force in Test cricket.

The result is what 1-1 that is not even a win. But yes the Indian test team is good and have done well to be in this spot. Pakistan twice did 1-1 against Australia in the 70s. India win a series in Australia but that was against a weakened side.

India gets to play so many tests so no doubt they will have more wins. And they will improve because they have been to Australia for far more tests. Pakistan gets half the tests (that too mostly against weaker sides ) and then they couldn't even play at home. UAE was not home. Playing in UAE produced bowlers who are Only Good in UAE like Yasir Shah etc.

And also why celebrate something that has not been decided yet?
The decisive test is yet to be played.
I agree India is much superior side now to Pakistan. But it is not a level playing field. it will years for Pakistan to Develop. International cricket is just only starting to return

And India is not much better than Pakistan in Australia because they play more often. It is just a coping mechanism by our fans. Besides, India actually plays more often because it is a more competitive team.

Pakistan struggles in Australia are not only due to the lack of quality in batting and bowling but also because they allow Australia to mess up with their heads.

Australia is a daunting place to play cricket. The stadiums have a cauldron type atmosphere and are unlike most other cricket venues. They resemble football stadiums more than traditional cricket grounds.

Moreover, they are nasty sledgers and are always chirping in your ear. Pakistani players do not have the confidence and the communication skills to get back at them.

Paine told Ashwin that he cannot wait for him to come to Gabba, and Ashwin told him that he cannot wait for Paine to come to India because it will end his career. Paine got flustered, couldn’t get back at Ashwin.

Similarly Pant got under Wade’s skin really bad and he was flushed with anger and started body shaming him.

When Pakistan toured Australia last year, Rizwan played a few dots against Lyon. Paine chirped behind the stumps that Sarfraz would have swept him for fours already, but at least Rizwan smells nice.

And what did Rizwan say? Nothing.

This is the difference between us and India. Pant or Saha would never have let that go and would have got back at Paine one way or the other.

The Australian are bullies. If you are not confident and obviously cannot back your confidence with performance on the pitch, they will devour you.

Pakistan can play 5 Tests in Australia every year and they will lose 5-0 as long as they remain a team low on talent, skill, confidence and communication skills.

 

[Jadejagoat]

And India is not much better than Pakistan in Australia because they play more often. It is just a coping mechanism by our fans. Besides, India actually plays more often because it is a more competitive team.

Pakistan struggles in Australia are not only due to the lack of quality in batting and bowling but also because they allow Australia to mess up with their heads.

Australia is a daunting place to play cricket. The stadiums have a cauldron type atmosphere and are unlike most other cricket venues. They resemble football stadiums more than traditional cricket grounds.

Moreover, they are nasty sledgers and are always chirping in your ear. Pakistani players do not have the confidence and the communication skills to get back at them.

Paine told Ashwin that he cannot wait for him to come to Gabba, and Ashwin told him that he cannot wait for Paine to come to India because it will end his career. Paine got flustered, couldn’t get back at Ashwin.

Similarly Pant got under Wade’s skin really bad and he was flushed with anger and started body shaming him.

When Pakistan toured Australia last year, Rizwan played a few dots against Lyon. Paine chirped behind the stumps that Sarfraz would have swept him for fours already, but at least Rizwan smells nice.

And what did Rizwan say? Nothing.

This is the difference between us and India. Pant or Saha would never have let that go and would have got back at Paine one way or the other.

The Australian are bullies. If you are not confident and obviously cannot back your confidence with performance on the pitch, they will devour you.

Pakistan can play 5 Tests in Australia every year and they will lose 5-0 as long as they remain a team low on talent, skill, confidence and communication skills.

And in South Africa too. Pakistan will crumble.

Pakistan only do well vs England and n.z
Oh wait? Now that players cant play county, even that is hard now hey?

That's the only reason Pakistan has a better record in England and n.z
They were allowed to play county games or chose to do so.

Indian team never sends them over for county practice.

Had India played tour games and county practice before an England series, results would be way more competitive.

In 2000 era India drew twice and won once vs England away. Why? Because they played tour games, county practice and played short format post test series games.

 

[szrana007]

And in South Africa too. Pakistan will crumble.

Pakistan only do well vs England and n.z
Oh wait? Now that players cant play county, even that is hard now hey?

That's the only reason Pakistan has a better record in England and n.z
They were allowed to play county games or chose to do so.

Indian team never sends them over for county practice.

Had India played tour games and county practice before an England series, results would be way more competitive.

In 2000 era India drew twice and won once vs England away. Why? Because they played tour games, county practice and played short format post test series games.

Welcome back [MENTION=150610]tyron_woodley[/MENTION]. We missed you

 

[ManFan]

Nope.

All the main batsmen were old except Richardson. Declining team.

Wow congrats you held them to a draw at home. Oh wow. Take your E trophy.

Patterson destroyed a weak malnourished Indian side. Weak era with weak teams barring West Indies, Pakistan and maybe Australia ?

Third best team of Asia? Sure. Best? No.

2006-10 India is ahead of them as they played much tougher competition.
Virat's India is mile ahead in Asia. 29 wins in 31 games. Imran's team would kill for such a record. Besides Imran played in an era riddled with ball tampering, biased umpires, bouncer rule, poor protective gear for batsman etc.

If you transpose that team to current era, they would get flogged. All time great Asian team shouldn't lost to Sri Lanka and games to Zimbabwe. Also only beat India once convincingly. A weakened India at that.

Somehow managed to draw vs India in 1990 with one of India's weakest teams ever. Not a good look imo.

You have to dominate in Asia to be called greatest Asian team.

You are not even the greatest touring Asian side. That would be India 2006-2010.

So sad isn't it. After all that hard work by Imran, yet he only has 14 wins and numerous draws vs mediocre sides.

Not to mention it's far easier to lose in modern era especially away as most team are powerful in their home Conditions. This is a results driven era.

Imran poor fielding side plus batsmen who were average vs pace would get bamboozled in the modern era. There are also plenty of tapes now to study their proclivities and gameplan accordingly. Tendencies will be picked apart and imrans Pak will get blown away by both ganguly's India and virat's India.

Your last sentence can be refuted by the fact that an over-the-hill late 90’s PAK team beat a prime Ganguly IND team in 2/3 Test matches in India in 98-99.

Your first sentence can also be refuted by the fact that out of the WI Top 7, only 2 players averaged less than 41. And their three best batsmen, excluding Richardson (Richards, Greenidge, and Haynes) would average at or near 50 until they retired.

The in-between of your post is utter nonsense so I won’t respond to it. Kohli has DRS, benefit of multiple camera angles to check run-outs, stumpings, catches, bigger bats, shorter boundaries, and fielding restrictions for bowlers. And NO home umpires to deal with; thanks to whom? IK.

 

[szrana007]

Your last sentence can be refuted by the fact that an over-the-hill late 90’s PAK team beat a prime Ganguly IND team in 2/3 Test matches in India in 98-99.

Your first sentence can also be refuted by the fact that out of the WI Top 7, only 2 players averaged less than 41. And their three best batsmen, excluding Richardson (Richards, Greenidge, and Haynes) would average at or near 50 until they retired.

The in-between of your post is utter nonsense so I won’t respond to it. Kohli has DRS, benefit of multiple camera angles to check run-outs, stumpings, catches, bigger bats, shorter boundaries, and fielding restrictions for bowlers. And NO home umpires to deal with; thanks to whom? IK.

He is our very own [MENTION=150610]tyron_woodley[/MENTION] back with a different handle

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

I will call this team ATG if they win/draw their next series in England and South Africa.

 

[Mamoon]

Your last sentence can be refuted by the fact that an over-the-hill late 90’s PAK team beat a prime Ganguly IND team in 2/3 Test matches in India in 98-99.

Your first sentence can also be refuted by the fact that out of the WI Top 7, only 2 players averaged less than 41. And their three best batsmen, excluding Richardson (Richards, Greenidge, and Haynes) would average at or near 50 until they retired.

The in-between of your post is utter nonsense so I won’t respond to it. Kohli has DRS, benefit of multiple camera angles to check run-outs, stumpings, catches, bigger bats, shorter boundaries, and fielding restrictions for bowlers. And NO home umpires to deal with; thanks to whom? IK.

Ganguly became Test captain in 2000. Azharuddin was captain when Pakistan beat India in 1998-1999.

Prime Ganguly team came to Pakistan in 2004 and won the series 2-1.

 

[Mamoon]

The in-between of your post is utter nonsense so I won’t respond to it. Kohli has DRS, benefit of multiple camera angles to check run-outs, stumpings, catches, bigger bats, shorter boundaries, and fielding restrictions for bowlers. And NO home umpires to deal with; thanks to whom? IK.

This works both ways. Both batsmen and bowlers enjoy little margin of error today because of DRS and high quality cameras.

Back then, batsmen would often survive clear run outs because umpires didn’t have the facility to check for replays, and someone like Miandad never got LBW’d in Pakistan.

Moreover, if you are dismissing modern batsmen for bigger bats, shorter boundaries and field restrictions, then you need to apply the same logic to bowlers as well.

The West Indian quartet, Imran etc. were bowling to batsmen with small bats, big boundaries, no field restrictions and no high quality cameras which made tampering with the ball easy.

So are you ready to follow your own logic and downplay their records?

 

[Jadejagoat]

Your last sentence can be refuted by the fact that an over-the-hill late 90’s PAK team beat a prime Ganguly IND team in 2/3 Test matches in India in 98-99.

Your first sentence can also be refuted by the fact that out of the WI Top 7, only 2 players averaged less than 41. And their three best batsmen, excluding Richardson (Richards, Greenidge, and Haynes) would average at or near 50 until they retired.

The in-between of your post is utter nonsense so I won’t respond to it. Kohli has DRS, benefit of multiple camera angles to check run-outs, stumpings, catches, bigger bats, shorter boundaries, and fielding restrictions for bowlers. And NO home umpires to deal with; thanks to whom? IK.

No sir. You are blondes by your green shades as usual. Take it off and you will be set free.

Truth will always sting. Hence the petty insipid retort, 'awww your post is utter nonsesne'.

I will tell you what is nonsense. Imrans team being better than either one of the goat Indian sides is utter nonsense.

Why are you mixing odi with tests? Bouncer rule, drs, unbiased umpire, lack of protective gear, fixing, ball tampering legends, no tapes to study opponents all benefit the oldies from 80s and 90s.

Pakistan was a good side in that era. Of you juxtapose them to current era, they would lose because they are simply not conditioned enough to compete in all 3 formats.

14 wins is all they have to show for. They will get killed in a result oriented era.

If you are saying batsmen were better back then, I can easily refute that claim by saying bowlers are better now. Don't compare era's. It would only look worse for your great teams.

I can do some digging for data analysis of you want later. Give me time till the weekend.

 

[Jadejagoat]

This works both ways. Both batsmen and bowlers enjoy little margin of error today because of DRS and high quality cameras.

Back then, batsmen would often survive clear run outs because umpires didn’t have the facility to check for replays, and someone like Miandad never got LBW’d in Pakistan.

Moreover, if you are dismissing modern batsmen for bigger bats, shorter boundaries and field restrictions, then you need to apply the same logic to bowlers as well.

The West Indian quartet, Imran etc. were bowling to batsmen with small bats, big boundaries, no field restrictions and no high quality cameras which made tampering with the ball easy.

So are you ready to follow your own logic and downplay their records?

See. Learn from mamoon. Pakistan under Imran were great but ganguly's India and virat's India were better when you factor in competition. If you talk about oversea record then ganguly's India is better.

Home record? Virat wins.

 

[Heisenberg111]

No sir. You are blondes by your green shades as usual. Take it off and you will be set free.

Truth will always sting. Hence the petty insipid retort, 'awww your post is utter nonsesne'.

I will tell you what is nonsense. Imrans team being better than either one of the goat Indian sides is utter nonsense.

Why are you mixing odi with tests? Bouncer rule, drs, unbiased umpire, lack of protective gear, fixing, ball tampering legends, no tapes to study opponents all benefit the oldies from 80s and 90s.

Pakistan was a good side in that era. Of you juxtapose them to current era, they would lose because they are simply not conditioned enough to compete in all 3 formats.

14 wins is all they have to show for. They will get killed in a result oriented era.

If you are saying batsmen were better back then, I can easily refute that claim by saying bowlers are better now. Don't compare era's. It would only look worse for your great teams.

I can do some digging for data analysis of you want later. Give me time till the weekend.

Pakistan have 36 wins in that era from 1982-1994, with a W/L ratio of 2.4 Quite impressive really.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...1982;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

 

[TheSultan]

You are confused. Over my 9 years on PP, I have seen many posters who are still stuck in the past and will try to argue that somehow, both batting and bowling standards have gone down the drain.

The reality is that if you are downplaying modern batsmen with the usual excuses that they are playing on easier pitches, shorter boundaries, bouncer restrictions, bigger bats etc., then you need to downplay the previous era bowlers because they were not handicapped by these factors.

By the same token, you need to give extra credit to modern bowlers as well.

So if you are calling Smith inferior to Miandad due to so and so reasons, then you also need to apply the same logic to bowlers and conclude that Cummins is better than Imran, but you will not do that because it goes against your beliefs, and this is where nostalgia merchants like get caught up in your own illogical premise.

The reality is that you have great players in every era, and truly great players are not restricted by the era that they play in. Smith, Cummins, Miandad, Imran etc. were all great players.

Smith and Cummins would be great in the 70s and 80s and Imran and Miandad would be great today.

However, I can guarantee you that if Miandad played today, he would not be averaging higher than Smith’s mind-boggling Test average of 62.

In the age of DRS, Miandad would no longer have the luxury of ensuring that he is never given LBW in a home Test. And before you flaunt his centuries against West Indies, don’t forget that Miandad averaged 29 against them and 26 at home in spite of the biased home umpiring, which clearly shows that he was not good enough against the best bowling attack of his time.

Smith is the best Test batsman since Don. He has an almost perfect batting brain for Test cricket and he is averaging 60+ in an era of DRS. That is phenomenal.

Similarly, Imran wouldn’t be averaging lower than Cummins today. He could be similar but definitely not significantly better. I have seen many, many great Test bowlers, and the level that Cummins is bowling at today is as good as I have seen. He is almost a perfect Test bowler.

That Headingley Test means what? Don’t forget it was the genius of Ben Stokes that won England the game, who is another all-timer. Ben Stokes is not a great bowler, but he is a better batsman than Imran and Kapil and probably on par with Botham.

Imran lost a Test match to Sri Lanka in 1985, the worst team of the era that only won 2 Tests in the entire decade. The 1985 team of Sri Lanka will get devoured by Kohli’s India, especially in Asian conditions.

Learn to respect greatness and get off your nostalgia. This is a great era for cricket with many brilliant batsmen and bowlers.

Kohli is one of the greatest batsmen of all time.

Smith is one of the greatest batsmen of all time.

Williamson is the greatest batsman New Zealand has ever produced.

Root, in spite of his slump, is a finer batsman than 99% of the batsmen England have produced since WWII.

Ben Stokes is an all-time great player and as a batsman, he is better than Imran, Kapil, Hadlee and probably on par with Botham.

Quinton de Kock is the best WK batsman South Africa have ever had.

Boult is probably New Zealand’s greatest bowler since Hadlee.

Anderson is one of England’s best bowlers ever.

Lyon is the finest off-spinner Australia have ever had.

Cummins is one of the best Test fast bowlers to come out of Australia.

Ashwin is on track to be Indian’s greatest spinner ahead of Bedi and Kumble.

Bumrah could be India’s best fast bowler ever.

Similarly, the 70s, 80s, 90s and 2000s were great as well. 2020s, 30s, 40s will be great today.

Great cricketers will continue to come and go but unfortunately some people will still be stuck in the past.

That's better, a more balanced post - I knew you could do better. Well done.

Now, your general premise is correct. It is difficult to compare eras. If that is all you said I'd say thanks - end of discussion.

But you make some fatal mistakes here - you start speaking in absolute terms when you are speculating e.g. you are "guaranteeing" me Javed won't average 62. You cannot guarantee anything. It is speculation. You then say Imran "wouldn't" average less than Cummins. If you said "may not have", I'd say your opinion, fair enough. I agree with you that Cummins is a fine bowler - he may end up being a great, but let him get there. He's not there yet.

My opinion on Imran is that he was better because he got better movement (not just with old ball, with new ball too), he was a pioneer with the old ball, he had consistency, control and great pace. He performed all over the world - Cummins hasn't even played in SL or Pakistan and even if you want to shout about his record and average, his record in Asia is very modest too. I don't like to bring Cummins down because I am a fan of his, and it is no insult to say that he is not as great as Imran.

As I said, the general premise I agree with - it's difficult to compare eras. But you started the whole "Wipe the floor" stuff. Go back and correct that post, and we can eventually agree to disagree.

 

[Jadejagoat]

Pakistan have 36 wins in that era from 1982-1994, with a W/L ratio of 2.4 Quite impressive really.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...1982;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

Imran Khan as captain only thanks.

 

[Jadejagoat]

That's better, a more balanced post - I knew you could do better. Well done.

Now, your general premise is correct. It is difficult to compare eras. If that is all you said I'd say thanks - end of discussion.

But you make some fatal mistakes here - you start speaking in absolute terms when you are speculating e.g. you are "guaranteeing" me Javed won't average 62. You cannot guarantee anything. It is speculation. You then say Imran "wouldn't" average less than Cummins. If you said "may not have", I'd say your opinion, fair enough. I agree with you that Cummins is a fine bowler - he may end up being a great, but let him get there. He's not there yet.

My opinion on Imran is that he was better because he got better movement (not just with old ball, with new ball too), he was a pioneer with the old ball, he had consistency, control and great pace. He performed all over the world - Cummins hasn't even played in SL or Pakistan and even if you want to shout about his record and average, his record in Asia is very modest too. I don't like to bring Cummins down because I am a fan of his, and it is no insult to say that he is not as great as Imran.

As I said, the general premise I agree with - it's difficult to compare eras. But you started the whole "Wipe the floor" stuff. Go back and correct that post, and we can eventually agree to disagree.

He got better movement due to tampering and cork screw shaving off ball. Bottle cap anyone ? Yea that's why. Imran isn't better than Cummins.

 

[Jadejagoat]

Pakistan have 36 wins in that era from 1982-1994, with a W/L ratio of 2.4 Quite impressive really.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...1982;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

Yea cause apart from West Indies, rest had mediocre teams.

 

[Jadejagoat]

Imran won 14
Lost 10
Drew the rest.

Pretty average considering the calibre of teams Imran faced. Very average. India were trash. Lanka trash.

Australia mediocre

Only West Indies were great. Not impressed whatsoever.

Sorry not good enough. Go cry to your momma somewhere else. Because this is a bloodbath. India's both goat teams are better.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

A reminder and this has been said before, Ambrose, Walsh, and Patterson took part in that 88’ series.

Walsh made his debut in 84’ and was already a reputable fast bowler with success all over the world.

Ambrose made his Test debut but he ripped Pakistan apart beforehand during the ODI series and would terrorize AUS and ENG away, right after the tour. It just shows that the PAK batsmen played him well when he struggled at home.

Patterson had debuted in 86’ and proved his worth by being the WI’s best bowler in IND before the tour. And he would be an enforcer (was overshadowed by Marshal and Ambrose) later on the same tours to AUS and ENG mentioned beforehand.

And Richards and Marshall DID play the series but missed the Test match that PAK won at Georgetown.

And PAK’s achievement was not losing ONE series to the WI in the 80’s. Nobody else can say that.

G.O.A.T Asian Test team. End of.

Patterson and Winston Benjamin were average bowlers. Bo need to hype them just to suit the narrative. Waksh had not even played 20 test matches and Amby was on debut.

Pakistan won a test against a Windies side that was missing their X-factor bowler and their X-factor batsman in Marshall and Viv. Windies were so weak that they opened with Phil Simmons and made Greenidge(already in decline) bat in the middle order instead. The likes of Gus Logie and Carl Hooper were average cricketers anyway .

Talk about overrating the past.

 

[Heisenberg111]

Imran Khan as captain only thanks.

In 1980's Pakistan had three captains. Imran Khan, Javed Miandad and Zaheer Abbas. Ofcourse, Javed and Zaheer only captained when Imran Khan wasn't available or was injured, but when you say 80's Pak, you have look at Pakistan's record under all these three captains. And from 1982, when Imran became captain to 1994, when Javed Miandad retired from test cricket, Pakistan was the 2nd best team in the world behind only West Indies with a very impressive W/L ratio of 2.4 as I posted above.

 

[Jadejagoat]

This is between 82-92. Imran captaincy era

Against a weaker Australia;

Lost 3 matches
Drew 5.
Won zero.zerooooo

Against Lanka ROFL ahahha
Won 1 lost 1 drew 1
Terrible

In India. The goat side lmao.

Won 1 and drew 7

In Pakistan;

22 draws lmao out of 45.


Yea sorry. Not sorry. Not good enough. Go home. I am done with this overrated team. You can gloat all you want but facts is facts. They aren't the goat test team of Asia.

It's either India of 2006-2010 or virat's India.
Bye ciao.

 

[Jadejagoat]

In 1980's Pakistan had three captains. Imran Khan, Javed Miandad and Zaheer Abbas. Ofcourse, Javed and Zaheer only captained when Imran Khan wasn't available or was injured, but when you say 80's Pak, you have look at Pakistan's record under all these three captains. And from 1982, when Imran became captain to 1994, when Javed Miandad retired from test cricket, Pakistan was the 2nd best team in the world behind only West Indies with a very impressive W/L ratio of 2.4 as I posted above.

Miandad captained for 7 games. I don't care about miandad..Imran captained 45 games. That's what I care about.

 

[Heisenberg111]

This is between 82-92. Imran captaincy era

Against a weaker Australia;

Lost 3 matches
Drew 5.
Won zero.zerooooo

Against Lanka ROFL ahahha
Won 1 lost 1 drew 1
Terrible

In India. The goat side lmao.

Won 1 and drew 7

In Pakistan;

22 draws lmao out of 45.


Yea sorry. Not sorry. Not good enough. Go home. I am done with this overrated team. You can gloat all you want but facts is facts. They aren't the goat test team of Asia.

It's either India of 2006-2010 or virat's India.
Bye ciao.

India of 2000's is overrated, they only have a W/L ratio of 1.48. Pak's W/L ratio of 2.4 from 1982-1994 is much better. Kohli's India have a W/L ratio of 3.0, so thats pretty impressive too.

 

[Heisenberg111]

Miandad captained for 7 games. I don't care about miandad..Imran captained 45 games. That's what I care about.

Lol, Miandad captained for 34 tests not 7. Miandad won 14 out of those 34 matches and lost 6.

 

[Mamoon]

That's better, a more balanced post - I knew you could do better. Well done.

Now, your general premise is correct. It is difficult to compare eras. If that is all you said I'd say thanks - end of discussion.

But you make some fatal mistakes here - you start speaking in absolute terms when you are speculating e.g. you are "guaranteeing" me Javed won't average 62. You cannot guarantee anything. It is speculation. You then say Imran "wouldn't" average less than Cummins. If you said "may not have", I'd say your opinion, fair enough. I agree with you that Cummins is a fine bowler - he may end up being a great, but let him get there. He's not there yet.

My opinion on Imran is that he was better because he got better movement (not just with old ball, with new ball too), he was a pioneer with the old ball, he had consistency, control and great pace. He performed all over the world - Cummins hasn't even played in SL or Pakistan and even if you want to shout about his record and average, his record in Asia is very modest too. I don't like to bring Cummins down because I am a fan of his, and it is no insult to say that he is not as great as Imran.

As I said, the general premise I agree with - it's difficult to compare eras. But you started the whole "Wipe the floor" stuff. Go back and correct that post, and we can eventually agree to disagree.

No, there is no speculation. I can guarantee that Miandad would not average 62+ today because he was not a better Test batsman than Smith and even Kohli.

The record of Imran and other Pakistani bowlers with the old ball needs to be taken with a barrel of salt. They bowled with balls that very heavily tampered with bottle caps.

That degree of ball-tampering is not possible today. Teams got away with a lot in an era of little scrutiny and no high definition, high zoom cameras.

Australia tampered with the ball in South Africa using sandpaper and they were caught. Tampering still happens at a small level but not at the extent at which it happened in the 70s, 80s and 90s.

Kohli’s India is comfortably better than Imran’s Pakistan. You can disagree if you wish.

 

[TheSultan]

No, there is no speculation. I can guarantee that Miandad would not average 62+ today because he was not a better Test batsman than Smith and even Kohli.

The record of Imran and other Pakistani bowlers with the old ball needs to be taken with a barrel of salt. They bowled with balls that very heavily tampered with bottle caps.

That degree of ball-tampering is not possible today. Teams got away with a lot in an era of little scrutiny and no high definition, high zoom cameras.

Australia tampered with the ball in South Africa using sandpaper and they were caught. Tampering still happens at a small level but not at the extent at which it happened in the 70s, 80s and 90s.

Kohli’s India is comfortably better than Imran’s Pakistan. You can disagree if you wish.

Nope it's all speculation. Unfortunately you can't label it as anything else. I don't know quite what you are so uptight about, but I think it's clouding your vision. I don't want to remind you in every post (it will get quite repetitive) - just take this as generic advice: Please take a step back and calm yourself before responding to me. It will really help your argument. You saw what an improved post you managed last time - I think you can do it again.

So you can't guarantee anything. Moreover, you know better to stick stats around without any context. Javed averaged 57.41 after 100 tests - yes, he fell away towards the end of his career, but that's why he retired from tests soon after. Smith hasn't even played 100 matches - let's see where he ends up and maybe, after his career ends I can reassess his standing (his standing isn't too shabby in my book anyway, and it may get better if he keeps his average above 60 with a list of meaningful knocks).

Against WI, it's nice to brandish that average of 29.00, but if you discount the final series at the tail end of his career, he averaged 41 Vs WI in WI. Pretty decent vs the greatest team of all time in their own backyard.

Again the zzzzz ball tampering accusations. Come on - even being Indian, you can do better. If you knew anything about anything, you'd know that Imran relied very little on reverse swing - and there is no evidence he used any outside substances in test matches.

And as for the other pakistan bowlers, people were chomping at the bit to defame them and cameras were everywhere in the 90s too. Apart from a bit of harmless scratching (that mind you many other bowlers were caught for), there was nothing excessive found - and everyone knows we were scrutinised more than any other team. If there was something more sinister, it would have come to light. Reverse swing is an art and if you have actually researched things, you'll understand that you can't just give a tampered ball to someone and they'll be able to utilise it. Robin Smith admitted that England tried to tamper with the ball in the 1992 series, but they could not achieve anything!

I will "wish" to disagree of course. But just saying "Kohli's team is much better" enough times will not make it true. They are a good team no doubt, and I commend them for the fight they have shown in this series and dare I say, I find them a lot more watchable than our current Pak team, but to start comparing them with ATG is reaching.

 

[Mamoon]

Nope it's all speculation. Unfortunately you can't label it as anything else. I don't know quite what you are so uptight about, but I think it's clouding your vision. I don't want to remind you in every post (it will get quite repetitive) - just take this as generic advice: Please take a step back and calm yourself before responding to me. It will really help your argument. You saw what an improved post you managed last time - I think you can do it again.

So you can't guarantee anything. Moreover, you know better to stick stats around without any context. Javed averaged 57.41 after 100 tests - yes, he fell away towards the end of his career, but that's why he retired from tests soon after. Smith hasn't even played 100 matches - let's see where he ends up and maybe, after his career ends I can reassess his standing (his standing isn't too shabby in my book anyway, and it may get better if he keeps his average above 60 with a list of meaningful knocks).

Against WI, it's nice to brandish that average of 29.00, but if you discount the final series at the tail end of his career, he averaged 41 Vs WI in WI. Pretty decent vs the greatest team of all time in their own backyard.

Again the zzzzz ball tampering accusations. Come on - even being Indian, you can do better. If you knew anything about anything, you'd know that Imran relied very little on reverse swing - and there is no evidence he used any outside substances in test matches.

And as for the other pakistan bowlers, people were chomping at the bit to defame them and cameras were everywhere in the 90s too. Apart from a bit of harmless scratching (that mind you many other bowlers were caught for), there was nothing excessive found - and everyone knows we were scrutinised more than any other team. If there was something more sinister, it would have come to light. Reverse swing is an art and if you have actually researched things, you'll understand that you can't just give a tampered ball to someone and they'll be able to utilise it. Robin Smith admitted that England tried to tamper with the ball in the 1992 series, but they could not achieve anything!

I will "wish" to disagree of course. But just saying "Kohli's team is much better" enough times will not make it true. They are a good team no doubt, and I commend them for the fight they have shown in this series and dare I say, I find them a lot more watchable than our current Pak team, but to start comparing them with ATG is reaching.

You are well within your rights to love watching them, and appreciating them - it's your team. Enjoy it, I would not want to spoil that for you. Just don't get overexcited about and get in to territory that is really not necessary.

Pakistani fans are the only fans in the world that celebrate mediocrity and rebrand it as unpredictability and cornered tiger mentality.

The fluke 92 World Cup win destroyed the mentality and culture of Pakistan cricket. It ensured that Pakistan remains a mediocre and unprofessional cricket nation that relies on miracles.

India’s 83 was a far bigger cornered tigers moment than Pakistan’s 92, but India did not make it the cornerstone of their cricket culture because it had the intelligence to understand that success is a process and you have to build that process.

Reverse-swing is an art but reverse-swing induced with ball-tampering is cheating. Our bowlers crossed the line between art and cheating but they got away with it because of the era that they played in.

What our bowlers did in the 92 series in England would not fly today. It won’t take more than a session for the cameras to catch them.

Kohli and Smith are better batsmen than anyone Pakistan has ever produced. Miandad was a great player but he won’t even make the D team of an all-time XI.

Kohli is a better Test captain than Imran and Dhoni was a better ODI captain than Imran.

Bumrah is a better bowler than Waqar. Waqar would have been ordinary in today’s era. He was average without reverse-swing which has died today.

Pakistan is a mediocre cricket nation with a substandard batting legacy and a fake bowling legacy built on systematic cheating.

Once that systematic cheating became redundant because of high definition cameras and increased scrutiny, Pakistan has been reduced to an almost minnow level cricket nation.

 

[Last Monetarist]

If you knew anything about anything, you'd know that Imran relied very little on reverse swing - and there is no evidence he used any outside substances in test matches.

Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.

Imran has been on record as stating he used bottle tops in county cricket, and showed no compunction whatsoever about it. Pakistani umpires were notoriously blind when it came to monitoring the condition of the ball throughout the 80s and 90s.

 

[TheSultan]

Pakistani fans are the only fans in the world that celebrate mediocrity and rebrand it as unpredictability and cornered tiger mentality.

The fluke 92 World Cup win destroyed the mentality and culture of Pakistan cricket. It ensured that Pakistan remains a mediocre and unprofessional cricket nation that relies on miracles.

India’s 83 was a far bigger cornered tigers moment than Pakistan’s 92, but India did not make it the cornerstone of their cricket culture because it had the intelligence to understand that success is a process and you have to build that process.

Reverse-swing is an art but reverse-swing induced with ball-tampering is cheating. Our bowlers crossed the line between art and cheating but they got away with it because of the era that they played in.

What our bowlers did in the 92 series in England would not fly today. It won’t take more than a session for the cameras to catch them.

Kohli and Smith are better batsmen than anyone Pakistan has ever produced. Miandad was a great player but he won’t even make the D team of an all-time XI.

Kohli is a better Test captain than Imran and Dhoni was a better ODI captain than Imran.

Bumrah is a better bowler than Waqar. Waqar would have been ordinary in today’s era. He was average without reverse-swing which has died today.

Pakistan is a mediocre cricket nation with a substandard batting legacy and a fake bowling legacy built on systematic cheating.

Once that systematic cheating became redundant because of high definition cameras and increased scrutiny, Pakistan has been reduced to an almost minnow level cricket nation.

You're entitled to your opinion. Voice them, write them, whatever, but don't pass off your opinions as facts.

I do disagree that the root of all problems was 92 WC Victory, or that we have been mediocre ever since. In the 90s, we were anything but mediocre. We were inconsistent yes, we were plagued with matchfixing yes, but it was a great team when they wanted to be. Unfortunately that team got too arrogant and thought they could pick and choose when they win matches and it came back to bite them. Cricket is entertainment and they were box office. In one era they gave the cricketing world gifts like reverse swing and the doosra.

Let Smith Kohli, Bumrah etc finish their careers and then assess them - you can't factually say anything. You have opinions, voice them, justify them but they are just opinions.

Your ball tampering accusations are just that. If you're talking degrees - how do you prove the degree? Don't give me the TV angle and zoom and cameras excuse - cameras were there in the 90s too and we were the most scrutinised team in history.

 

[TheSultan]

Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.

Imran has been on record as stating he used bottle tops in county cricket, and showed no compunction whatsoever about it. Pakistani umpires were notoriously blind when it came to monitoring the condition of the ball throughout the 80s and 90s.

Don't use random statements. You can't get away with it with me. Imran gave that example as the exception rather than the norm. The rest of your post is just conjecture and can be safely ignored.

 

[cricketAXEpert]

And India is not much better than Pakistan in Australia because they play more often. It is just a coping mechanism by our fans. Besides, India actually plays more often because it is a more competitive team.

Pakistan struggles in Australia are not only due to the lack of quality in batting and bowling but also because they allow Australia to mess up with their heads.

Australia is a daunting place to play cricket. The stadiums have a cauldron type atmosphere and are unlike most other cricket venues. They resemble football stadiums more than traditional cricket grounds.

Moreover, they are nasty sledgers and are always chirping in your ear. Pakistani players do not have the confidence and the communication skills to get back at them.

Paine told Ashwin that he cannot wait for him to come to Gabba, and Ashwin told him that he cannot wait for Paine to come to India because it will end his career. Paine got flustered, couldn’t get back at Ashwin.

Similarly Pant got under Wade’s skin really bad and he was flushed with anger and started body shaming him.

When Pakistan toured Australia last year, Rizwan played a few dots against Lyon. Paine chirped behind the stumps that Sarfraz would have swept him for fours already, but at least Rizwan smells nice.

And what did Rizwan say? Nothing.

This is the difference between us and India. Pant or Saha would never have let that go and would have got back at Paine one way or the other.

The Australian are bullies. If you are not confident and obviously cannot back your confidence with performance on the pitch, they will devour you.

Pakistan can play 5 Tests in Australia every year and they will lose 5-0 as long as they remain a team low on talent, skill, confidence and communication skills.

No coping mechanism, I know where exactly Pakistan stands and why. Pakistan is playing too few tests to stay competitive and the first class has been one of the weakest in the world. And then Nepotism and wishful selection.

 

[ManFan]

This works both ways. Both batsmen and bowlers enjoy little margin of error today because of DRS and high quality cameras.

Back then, batsmen would often survive clear run outs because umpires didn’t have the facility to check for replays, and someone like Miandad never got LBW’d in Pakistan.

Moreover, if you are dismissing modern batsmen for bigger bats, shorter boundaries and field restrictions, then you need to apply the same logic to bowlers as well.

The West Indian quartet, Imran etc. were bowling to batsmen with small bats, big boundaries, no field restrictions and no high quality cameras which made tampering with the ball easy.

So are you ready to follow your own logic and downplay their records?

Bowlers have higher scrutiny today on things like no-balls but also have the advantage of Snicko and HotSpot. Can you imagine how many wickets were lost due to not having those technologies at hand?

Same applies to the batsmen. How many times have they been wronged because of the lack of technology? In fact, I would argue it’s more than they have suffered.

And yes, the bowlers benefited due to less restrictions and the pitches were far more responsive in the past. I would dispute the ball-tampering issue since there is no evidence to who did and who did not because the only ones that we know of are them ones who were caught and who admitted. And it still happens today.

 

[ManFan]

Patterson and Winston Benjamin were average bowlers. Bo need to hype them just to suit the narrative. Waksh had not even played 20 test matches and Amby was on debut.

Pakistan won a test against a Windies side that was missing their X-factor bowler and their X-factor batsman in Marshall and Viv. Windies were so weak that they opened with Phil Simmons and made Greenidge(already in decline) bat in the middle order instead. The likes of Gus Logie and Carl Hooper were average cricketers anyway .

Talk about overrating the past.

Clearly, you did not check the past. Greenidge was not in decline. Walsh was their second best pacer behind Marshall. Patterson had just proved his talents alongside Walsh in India.

Simmons was bang average. Hooper was fine along with Logie but they both under-achieved.

As far as missing the Test, they did but they played the SERIES. Same cannot be side about this Indian team’s success in AUS last time when Smith and Warner missed the entire series.

 

[ManFan]

Ganguly became Test captain in 2000. Azharuddin was captain when Pakistan beat India in 1998-1999.

Prime Ganguly team came to Pakistan in 2004 and won the series 2-1.

Prime Ganguly came back when he was old and the Indian Fab 4 carried the batting. And the same Indian side lost to PAK in 06’ and was drawn in 05’.

And regardless of who the captain was, it’s telling how good the PAK team that IK left behind was, that when they were old and beaten up, could beat IND, when Sachin, Ganguly and Kumble were at their best, and at home.

 

[MesonK]

Small observation on the 'GEM' bit worth considering : -
Similar to Sydney 2018 test against India in which the host followed on and rain ended the test match, the 2015 BD test in BD had a similar conclusion. There are times when the cold result on scoreboard does not accurately reflect the reality.

This proves nothing as thats a won test series. India "GOAT" Team won against Australia C in 2018l. Even on that tour they lost a test match to Aus C.

The fact remains same that this team has lost 10/11 away SENA series in last 10 years. If one washout was such a massive unlucky event than this record could have been like 6/11 or 8/11 in favor of India but its freaking 10/11.

Also no body is talking about BAN test here. 10/11 loses record is against away SENA tours.

 

[Jadejagoat]

This proves nothing as thats a won test series. India "GOAT" Team won against Australia C in 2018l. Even on that tour they lost a test match to Aus C.

The fact remains same that this team has lost 10/11 away SENA series in last 10 years. If one washout was such a massive unlucky event than this record could have been like 6/11 or 8/11 in favor of India but its freaking 10/11.

Also no body is talking about BAN test here. 10/11 loses record is against away SENA tours.

Make no mistake. It wasn't Aussie C just cause you said so.

Every batsman that played averaged 45 plus except Marsh in Australia. So Smith and Warner make no difference tbh.

Their extra 60 odd runs will still not help them from losing that series.

Warner is Smith's bunny. He avergwss under 30 when Ashwin plays. As for Smith. Bumrah and co were at their peak. They would have handled his ugly butt.


Also make no mistake. That same team you call B team would butcher and obliterate your AtG Pakistani sides into oblivion. They would make you cry and go into depression.

Sorry boy.

 

[Jadejagoat]

Prime Ganguly came back when he was old and the Indian Fab 4 carried the batting. And the same Indian side lost to PAK in 06’ and was drawn in 05’.

And regardless of who the captain was, it’s telling how good the PAK team that IK left behind was, that when they were old and beaten up, could beat IND, when Sachin, Ganguly and Kumble were at their best, and at home.

Lol what do you smoke? Ganguly was no where near his prime in 2000. Neither was Kumble who played for 9 years post 2000. Sacchi too was no where near his best. He was at his best post 2003-2008.

That's like sayi f Jimmy Anderson of post 2010 is the same Anderson that played in 2006-2007

 

[ManFan]

Lol what do you smoke? Ganguly was no where near his prime in 2000. Neither was Kumble who played for 9 years post 2000. Sacchi too was no where near his best. He was at his best post 2003-2008.

That's like sayi f Jimmy Anderson of post 2010 is the same Anderson that played in 2006-2007

Actually, Ganguly had 5 years where he averaged 50 or more (96’, 97’, 99’, 03’, and 07’). So, around 00’, he was very much in his prime.

Kumble had his second best year (in terms of bowling average in 98’) and never achieved an average close to 20 ever again.

Tendulkar, from 97’ to 02’, averaged 66. And 98’ was his third best year ever.

The reason we associate those three with being better later on is because their career highlights came later on. But as far as performance, they all peaked around 97-99’.

 

[Jadejagoat]

Actually, Ganguly had 5 years where he averaged 50 or more (96’, 97’, 99’, 03’, and 07’). So, around 00’, he was very much in his prime.

Kumble had his second best year (in terms of bowling average in 98’) and never achieved an average close to 20 ever again.

Tendulkar, from 97’ to 02’, averaged 66. And 98’ was his third best year ever.

The reason we associate those three with being better later on is because their career highlights came later on. But as far as performance, they all peaked around 97-99’.

no it wasnt. it just so happened that they played on roads in those years which inflated his averages. Besides he wasnt in his prime in the 90s. not even close. You just make it appear that way to suit your agenda of trying to make your 90s team look better than they actually are.

india were very weak in 90s except at home. Even at home they werent all that special. It was a weak bowling attack and weak middle order. 2 good players cant make a team top quality especially when both werent even in their prime.

ganguly's prime was post 2002 - 2006. laxman, ganguly, dravid all peaked after about 2002.

 

[ManFan]

no it wasnt. it just so happened that they played on roads in those years which inflated his averages. Besides he wasnt in his prime in the 90s. not even close. You just make it appear that way to suit your agenda of trying to make your 90s team look better than they actually are.

india were very weak in 90s except at home. Even at home they werent all that special. It was a weak bowling attack and weak middle order. 2 good players cant make a team top quality especially when both werent even in their prime.

ganguly's prime was post 2002 - 2006. laxman, ganguly, dravid all peaked after about 2002.

Obviously, since you don’t go by numbers, I can’t argue further. Ganguly had two good years post 99’ and they were 03’ and 07’. His three best years happened to be right before he played PAK.

Are you seriously saying the pitches in the mid-00’s were harder to bat on than in the late 90’s?

And we are not talking about IND but the players that made the team. That Indian team was the same that beat AUS in 01’. You can’t have it both ways; either the ATG Aussie team lost to a weak Indian team or a strong Indian team beat an ATG Aussie team. And if it’s the former, then the IND team of the 00’s was not all that great and their current team is their best one. You know? The one that has lost 10/11 SENA tours. LOL.

 

[Jadejagoat]

Obviously, since you don’t go by numbers, I can’t argue further. Ganguly had two good years post 99’ and they were 03’ and 07’. His three best years happened to be right before he played PAK.

Are you seriously saying the pitches in the mid-00’s were harder to bat on than in the late 90’s?

And we are not talking about IND but the players that made the team. That Indian team was the same that beat AUS in 01’. You can’t have it both ways; either the ATG Aussie team lost to a weak Indian team or a strong Indian team beat an ATG Aussie team. And if it’s the former, then the IND team of the 00’s was not all that great and their current team is their best one. You know? The one that has lost 10/11 SENA tours. LOL.

Uh. The current one won 29 out of 31 games at home. Best Asian team of all time without a doubt.

Weak Indian team beat AtG Aussies at home shows that India could still decimate Aussies at their best at home despite being a poor side.

Pakistan beat a poor Indian team in 2001.

What that tells me is that Aussies of 2000 aren't the goat side like you all claim. Already mentioned that before.

 

[Mamoon]

Prime Ganguly came back when he was old and the Indian Fab 4 carried the batting. And the same Indian side lost to PAK in 06’ and was drawn in 05’.

And regardless of who the captain was, it’s telling how good the PAK team that IK left behind was, that when they were old and beaten up, could beat IND, when Sachin, Ganguly and Kumble were at their best, and at home.

90s Pakistan was overrated. They lost 6 Test series at home.

Strong teams don’t lose Test series at home frequently. Never have and never will. It is the only thing common among every truly strong Test side in history of cricket.

Any Test side that loses 6 series at home cannot be rated highly. It is the symptom of a very, very average side.

Pakistan did well against India in 1998-1999, but it does not change the fact that they lost the following series in Pakistan:

1. Sri Lanka 1995-96
2. South Africa 1997-98
3. Australia 1998
4. Zimbabwe 1998-99
5. Sri Lanka 2000
6. England 2000-01

That is a shambolic, deeply embarrassing record.

It is funny how Pakistani fans brush all of that under the carpet with assumption that all of these series were fixed since that team had a lot of fixers, but then they are unwilling to extend the same leniency to India that lost to Pakistan in 1998-99, who were led by Azharuddin, a match-fixer himself.

The reality is that the performance of the 90s generation of Pakistani cricketers do not meet the hype and the aura of our fans, many of whom are blinded with nostalgia and romanticism.

90s Pakistan would get pasted by Kohli’s India in most conditions and specially in Asia. It will be a completely one-sided affair.

2000s Pakistan, under Inzamam-Woolmer was actually more solid and efficient than the overhyped, mediocre 90s Pakistan that carried a nothing batsman like Ijaz at number 3 for a decade.

The middle-order of Younis, Inzamam and Yousuf is arguably the strongest middle-order Pakistan has ever had, and Asif was twice the Test bowler Waqar was.

Kamran in the 2000s was a better all-round WK Batsman than Latif Moin. His keeping was well below Latif’s and around Moin’s level, but as a batsman, he was better than both combined.

90’s Pakistan had two players that were stand out compared to Inzamam-Woolmer era: Wasim and Saeed Anwar. However, overall, the latter team was more efficient.

In the mid to late 2000s, Waqar would have been a below par bowler because he would not get the custom made balls that made his career in the late 80s and early 90s.

2000s Pakistan under Inzamam and Woolmer would beat 90s Pakistan. There is no way they would lose 6 Test series at home to the teams that won in Pakistan in the 90s, and Dravid’s India that lost 1-0 in Pakistan in 2006-07 would beat the mediocre 90s Pakistan as well.

 

[hoshiarpurexpress]

90s Pakistan was overrated. They lost 6 Test series at home.

Strong teams don’t lose Test series at home frequently. Never have and never will. It is the only thing common among every truly strong Test side in history of cricket.

Any Test side that loses 6 series at home cannot be rated highly. It is the symptom of a very, very average side.

Pakistan did well against India in 1998-1999, but it does not change the fact that they lost the following series in Pakistan:

1. Sri Lanka 1995-96
2. South Africa 1997-98
3. Australia 1998
4. Zimbabwe 1998-99
5. Sri Lanka 2000
6. England 2000-01

That is a shambolic, deeply embarrassing record.

It is funny how Pakistani fans brush all of that under the carpet with assumption that all of these series were fixed since that team had a lot of fixers, but then they are unwilling to extend the same leniency to India that lost to Pakistan in 1998-99, who were led by Azharuddin, a match-fixer himself.

The reality is that the performance of the 90s generation of Pakistani cricketers do not meet the hype and the aura of our fans, many of whom are blinded with nostalgia and romanticism.

90s Pakistan would get pasted by Kohli’s India in most conditions and specially in Asia. It will be a completely one-sided affair.

2000s Pakistan, under Inzamam-Woolmer was actually more solid and efficient than the overhyped, mediocre 90s Pakistan that carried a nothing batsman like Ijaz at number 3 for a decade.

The middle-order of Younis, Inzamam and Yousuf is arguably the strongest middle-order Pakistan has ever had, and Asif was twice the Test bowler Waqar was.

Kamran in the 2000s was a better all-round WK Batsman than Latif Moin. His keeping was well below Latif’s and around Moin’s level, but as a batsman, he was better than both combined.

90’s Pakistan had two players that were stand out compared to Inzamam-Woolmer era: Wasim and Saeed Anwar. However, overall, the latter team was more efficient.

In the mid to late 2000s, Waqar would have been a below par bowler because he would not get the custom made balls that made his career in the late 80s and early 90s.

2000s Pakistan under Inzamam and Woolmer would beat 90s Pakistan. There is no way they would lose 6 Test series at home to the teams that won in Pakistan in the 90s, and Dravid’s India that lost 1-0 in Pakistan in 2006-07 would beat the mediocre 90s Pakistan as well.

Wow it is surprising to see that 90s team even lost to Zim and Srl at home.
Shows what massive underachievers in test cricket given the talent at disposal.
90s India rarely lost at home even to Australia and England team.

 

[Mamoon]

Wow it is surprising to see that 90s team even lost to Zim and Srl at home.
Shows what massive underachievers in test cricket given the talent at disposal.
90s India rarely lost at home even to Australia and England team.

There wasn’t much talent at disposal. It is a myth. Sure, Wasim was an all-time great and Saeed was very good too, but rest of the team wasn’t all that flash.

Aamer Sohail and Ijaz, 2 of the top 3, were average. They would not even make the bench of Kohli or Ganguly’s India.

Aamer Sohail might get into Inzamam’s Pakistan, but Ijaz won’t.

Inzamam himself was a very good Test batsman, but not in the class of the three best Test batsmen of the 90s - Tendulkar, Lara and S Waugh and he was not in the class of the best batsmen of the 2000s like Ponting, Kallis and Dravid. He was not in the class of Smith and Kohli either.

Saleem Malik was washed up in the 90s.

Yousuf was a rookie batsman who only emerged in the late 90s and peaked in the 2000s.

Azhar Mahmood was a 15 Test wonder.

Razzaq emerged in 1999.

Afridi could have been a very good Test cricket had he focused on his leg-spin. He could have become a 400+ wickets Test bowler while averaging 15-20 with the bat. Instead, that 37 ball hundred ruined his career and he spent the next decade trying to become what he wasn’t remotely capable of, i.e. Pakistan version of Sir Vivian Richards.

Saqlain and Mushtaq Ahmed were very good spinners, but they weren’t close to Warne and Muralitharan and Ashwin and Jadeja are better as well. Yasir is probably on par with Mushtaq Ahmed. He is better in Asia but the latter was better overseas.

Kaneria is also an underrated Test spinner. He doesn’t get the recognition he deserves. He bowled a lot of decisive spells in the 2000s and was pretty good outside Asia as well. He must be right up there with any bowler in history for having the most dropped catches and missed stumpings of his bowling. Kamran must have cost him at least a 100 wickets.

Rashid Latif and Moin Khan were average wicket keeper batsmen. Latif was brilliant with the gloves, but a poor batsman.

Moin was almost as unreliable as Kamran with the gloves, and an inferior batsman compared to Kamran in his prime years - 2004 to 2007.

Rizwan is a better wicket keeper batsman than both Latif and Moin. His keeping is nearly as sound as Latif’s and his batting ability is much better.

Shoaib’s real peak as a bowler was from 2001-2003. He was at this physical peak in this time period.

Waqar was extremely good at what he did, but his success was circumstantial. Outside his comfort zone, he was just an average Test bowler.

He would certainly have been ordinary in this era.

90s Pakistan gets overrated due to multiple factors. They won the World Cup in 92, and people are blinded with nostalgia and romanticism over players like Wasim, Waqar, Saeed Anwar etc.

They also won a lot of ODI matches against India especially in Sharjah Cups.

Overall, it was a dysfunctional overrated team with a soft underbelly that would only come off if the couple of brilliant talents had a good day. It was far from an efficient and solid cricket team.

 

[hoshiarpurexpress]

There wasn’t much talent at disposal. It is a myth. Sure, Wasim was an all-time great and Saeed was very good too, but rest of the team wasn’t all that flash.

Aamer Sohail and Ijaz, 2 of the top 3, were average. They would not even make the bench of Kohli or Ganguly’s India.

Aamer Sohail might get into Inzamam’s Pakistan, but Ijaz won’t.

Inzamam himself was a very good Test batsman, but not in the class of the three best Test batsmen of the 90s - Tendulkar, Lara and S Waugh and he was not in the class of the best batsmen of the 2000s like Ponting, Kallis and Dravid. He was not in the class of Smith and Kohli either.

Saleem Malik was washed up in the 90s.

Yousuf was a rookie batsman who only emerged in the late 90s and peaked in the 2000s.

Azhar Mahmood was a 15 Test wonder.

Razzaq emerged in 1999.

Afridi could have been a very good Test cricket had he focused on his leg-spin. He could have become a 400+ wickets Test bowler while averaging 15-20 with the bat. Instead, that 37 ball hundred ruined his career and he spent the next decade trying to become what he wasn’t remotely capable of, i.e. Pakistan version of Sir Vivian Richards.

Saqlain and Mushtaq Ahmed were very good spinners, but they weren’t close to Warne and Muralitharan and Ashwin and Jadeja are better as well. Yasir is probably on par with Mushtaq Ahmed. He is better in Asia but the latter was better overseas.

Kaneria is also an underrated Test spinner. He doesn’t get the recognition he deserves. He bowled a lot of decisive spells in the 2000s and was pretty good outside Asia as well. He must be right up there with any bowler in history for having the most dropped catches and missed stumpings of his bowling. Kamran must have cost him at least a 100 wickets.

Rashid Latif and Moin Khan were average wicket keeper batsmen. Latif was brilliant with the gloves, but a poor batsman.

Moin was almost as unreliable as Kamran with the gloves, and an inferior batsman compared to Kamran in his prime years - 2004 to 2007.

Rizwan is a better wicket keeper batsman than both Latif and Moin. His keeping is nearly as sound as Latif’s and his batting ability is much better.

Shoaib’s real peak as a bowler was from 2001-2003. He was at this physical peak in this time period.

Waqar was extremely good at what he did, but his success was circumstantial. Outside his comfort zone, he was just an average Test bowler.

He would certainly have been ordinary in this era.

90s Pakistan gets overrated due to multiple factors. They won the World Cup in 92, and people are blinded with nostalgia and romanticism over players like Wasim, Waqar, Saeed Anwar etc.

They also won a lot of ODI matches against India especially in Sharjah Cups.

Overall, it was a dysfunctional overrated team with a soft underbelly that would only come off if the couple of brilliant talents had a good day. It was far from an efficient and solid cricket team.

Truth bombs!!!..
But I think Inzamam, Wasim, Waqar, and Saeed. These 4 were champions and the support cast around them was not bad.
But there were lots of egos and infighting, especially between Waqar and Wasim.
I wrote somewhere on another thread that Pakistan were unlucky.
After Imran, Wasim and Waqar did not gel the team together and carry his legacy.
Whereas India had exceptional men of highest Integrity, like Tendulkar, Ganguly, Dravid, Laxman, Kumble, Srinath. People from whom not only you learn cricket, but learn a lot about life and values as well.

That is where our core culture of the team was formed, which has been carried forward till now.
Lucky to have those men, even if they did not win a lot of match overseas.

 

[MesonK]

Make no mistake. It wasn't Aussie C just cause you said so.

Every batsman that played averaged 45 plus except Marsh in Australia. So Smith and Warner make no difference tbh.

If you think that two men, averaging ~50 and 62 in test cricket with close to 30000 international runs combined, do not matter then you should be banned from watching cricket.

Their extra 60 odd runs will still not help them from losing that series.

Smith averages 75+ against India and you think he along with Warner who averages 68 at home, both would have added just 60 runs against India? If we go by average they would have added something like 100-150 runs on average and would have stopped batting collapses that happened lots in that odd series. In their absence, Austrailia underwent a dark patch with B and C teams. India capitalized that moment well to make the probably 11/11 loses in a decade record to 10/11.

Warner is Smith's bunny. He avergwss under 30 when Ashwin plays. As for Smith. Bumrah and co were at their peak. They would have handled his ugly butt.

Smith averages 75 against India. Stats matter more than your rants.

Also make no mistake. That same team you call B team would butcher and obliterate your AtG Pakistani sides into oblivion. They would make you cry and go into depression.

Sorry boy.

Indians away SENA losses are 10/11 in the last decade while Pakistan stands at 1Win+1Draw/7 in last decade. ROFL

Sorry boy.

trash talk doesnt matter .. Stats matter

 

[szrana007]

If you think that two men, averaging ~50 and 62 in test cricket with close to 30000 international runs combined, do not matter then you should be banned from watching cricket.



Smith averages 75+ against India and you think he along with Warner who averages 68 at home, both would have added just 60 runs against India? If we go by average they would have added something like 100-150 runs on average and would have stopped batting collapses that happened lots in that odd series. In their absence, Austrailia underwent a dark patch with B and C teams. India capitalized that moment well to make the probably 11/11 loses in a decade record to 10/11.



Smith averages 75 against India. Stats matter more than your rants.



Indians away SENA losses are 10/11 in the last decade while Pakistan stands at 1Win+1Draw/7 in last decade. ROFL



trash talk doesnt matter .. Stats matter

Correction.Pakistan have 1 win, 2 draws and 7 losses in the last decade.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

What is surprising is that a Kohli-less India (not counting injured players) is actually pushing Australia hard and this bowling attack us one of the best Australia ever had.

What many Ppers, and a British poster residing in Australia, consider the GOAT Asian side could not, at full strength, beat an Australian side that had journeyman bowlers like Rackemann, Hughes and Alderman and one of the worst spinners to play for Australia in Peter Sleep.

 

[Heisenberg111]

What is surprising is that a Kohli-less India (not counting injured players) is actually pushing Australia hard and this bowling attack us one of the best Australia ever had.

What many Ppers, and a British poster residing in Australia, consider the GOAT Asian side could not, at full strength, beat an Australian side that had journeyman bowlers like Rackemann, Hughes and Alderman and one of the worst spinners to play for Australia in Peter Sleep.

That Pakistan team from 1986-1992/93 had good results everywhere though apart from Australia. Won in England, New Zealand and India and drew in West Indies. Only place, they failed was in Australia. And Australia was on the upswing in 1990 after winning the Ashes 4-0 in England in 1989.

 

[Ab Fan]

That Pakistan team from 1986-1992/93 had good results everywhere though apart from Australia. Won in England, New Zealand and India and drew in West Indies. Only place, they failed was in Australia. And Australia was on the upswing in 1990 after winning the Ashes 4-0 in England in 1989.

Did they won in India? I think it was a draw in 1989, not sure though.

 

[Heisenberg111]

Did they won in India? I think it was a draw in 1989, not sure though.

Yes, they won in India in 1987. That Pakistan side is a bit like SA from 2007-2014 who had good results everywhere. Except that SA wasn't unbeaten at home in that period, but Pakistan was.

 

[Markhor]

90s Pakistan was overrated. They lost 6 Test series at home.

Strong teams don’t lose Test series at home frequently. Never have and never will. It is the only thing common among every truly strong Test side in history of cricket.

Any Test side that loses 6 series at home cannot be rated highly. It is the symptom of a very, very average side.

Pakistan did well against India in 1998-1999, but it does not change the fact that they lost the following series in Pakistan:

1. Sri Lanka 1995-96
2. South Africa 1997-98
3. Australia 1998
4. Zimbabwe 1998-99
5. Sri Lanka 2000
6. England 2000-01

That is a shambolic, deeply embarrassing record.

It is funny how Pakistani fans brush all of that under the carpet with assumption that all of these series were fixed since that team had a lot of fixers, but then they are unwilling to extend the same leniency to India that lost to Pakistan in 1998-99, who were led by Azharuddin, a match-fixer himself.

The reality is that the performance of the 90s generation of Pakistani cricketers do not meet the hype and the aura of our fans, many of whom are blinded with nostalgia and romanticism.

90s Pakistan would get pasted by Kohli’s India in most conditions and specially in Asia. It will be a completely one-sided affair.

2000s Pakistan, under Inzamam-Woolmer was actually more solid and efficient than the overhyped, mediocre 90s Pakistan that carried a nothing batsman like Ijaz at number 3 for a decade.

The middle-order of Younis, Inzamam and Yousuf is arguably the strongest middle-order Pakistan has ever had, and Asif was twice the Test bowler Waqar was.

Kamran in the 2000s was a better all-round WK Batsman than Latif Moin. His keeping was well below Latif’s and around Moin’s level, but as a batsman, he was better than both combined.

90’s Pakistan had two players that were stand out compared to Inzamam-Woolmer era: Wasim and Saeed Anwar. However, overall, the latter team was more efficient.

In the mid to late 2000s, Waqar would have been a below par bowler because he would not get the custom made balls that made his career in the late 80s and early 90s.

2000s Pakistan under Inzamam and Woolmer would beat 90s Pakistan. There is no way they would lose 6 Test series at home to the teams that won in Pakistan in the 90s, and Dravid’s India that lost 1-0 in Pakistan in 2006-07 would beat the mediocre 90s Pakistan as well.

I agree strongly with this. The 95-01 team is romanticised far too much given such dismal home results.

We also drew to a poor New Zealand team at home in 1996.

The team between 1985-1994 was more cohesive and resilient. They were far more consistent, repeatedly challenged the best team of their era unlike the 95-01 side, and won several multinational tournaments (excluding 1992 World Cup).

 

[NishanKonar]

There wasn’t much talent at disposal. It is a myth. Sure, Wasim was an all-time great and Saeed was very good too, but rest of the team wasn’t all that flash.

Aamer Sohail and Ijaz, 2 of the top 3, were average. They would not even make the bench of Kohli or Ganguly’s India.

Aamer Sohail might get into Inzamam’s Pakistan, but Ijaz won’t.

Inzamam himself was a very good Test batsman, but not in the class of the three best Test batsmen of the 90s - Tendulkar, Lara and S Waugh and he was not in the class of the best batsmen of the 2000s like Ponting, Kallis and Dravid. He was not in the class of Smith and Kohli either.

Saleem Malik was washed up in the 90s.

Yousuf was a rookie batsman who only emerged in the late 90s and peaked in the 2000s.

Azhar Mahmood was a 15 Test wonder.

Razzaq emerged in 1999.

Afridi could have been a very good Test cricket had he focused on his leg-spin. He could have become a 400+ wickets Test bowler while averaging 15-20 with the bat. Instead, that 37 ball hundred ruined his career and he spent the next decade trying to become what he wasn’t remotely capable of, i.e. Pakistan version of Sir Vivian Richards.

Saqlain and Mushtaq Ahmed were very good spinners, but they weren’t close to Warne and Muralitharan and Ashwin and Jadeja are better as well. Yasir is probably on par with Mushtaq Ahmed. He is better in Asia but the latter was better overseas.

Kaneria is also an underrated Test spinner. He doesn’t get the recognition he deserves. He bowled a lot of decisive spells in the 2000s and was pretty good outside Asia as well. He must be right up there with any bowler in history for having the most dropped catches and missed stumpings of his bowling. Kamran must have cost him at least a 100 wickets.

Rashid Latif and Moin Khan were average wicket keeper batsmen. Latif was brilliant with the gloves, but a poor batsman.

Moin was almost as unreliable as Kamran with the gloves, and an inferior batsman compared to Kamran in his prime years - 2004 to 2007.

Rizwan is a better wicket keeper batsman than both Latif and Moin. His keeping is nearly as sound as Latif’s and his batting ability is much better.

Shoaib’s real peak as a bowler was from 2001-2003. He was at this physical peak in this time period.

Waqar was extremely good at what he did, but his success was circumstantial. Outside his comfort zone, he was just an average Test bowler.

He would certainly have been ordinary in this era.

90s Pakistan gets overrated due to multiple factors. They won the World Cup in 92, and people are blinded with nostalgia and romanticism over players like Wasim, Waqar, Saeed Anwar etc.

They also won a lot of ODI matches against India especially in Sharjah Cups.

Overall, it was a dysfunctional overrated team with a soft underbelly that would only come off if the couple of brilliant talents had a good day. It was far from an efficient and solid cricket team.

The biggest reason the 90s Pakistan team was so overrated was their huge success in India - thanks to our bang average team. Those days when our pace attack was Kuruvilla , Dodda Ganesh , Debashish MOhanty , Salil Ankola etc...

Take away the India performances - the team was actually not so great. I remember that Pakistan team lost every ODI to South Africa for 5 years ( 1995-2000 )

 

[szrana007]

The biggest reason the 90s Pakistan team was so overrated was their huge success in India - thanks to our bang average team. Those days when our pace attack was Kuruvilla , Dodda Ganesh , Debashish MOhanty , Salil Ankola etc...

Take away the India performances - the team was actually not so great. I remember that Pakistan team lost every ODI to South Africa for 5 years ( 1995-2000 )

In the 1990's Pakistan won 13 tests outside Asia with a W/L ratio of 1.0

No other Asian team has won this number of matches outside Asia in a single decade. In short 90's Pakistan was a beast outside Asia, hence they are rated highly.

 

[NishanKonar]

In the 1990's Pakistan won 13 tests outside Asia with a W/L ratio of 1.0

No other Asian team has won this number of matches outside Asia in a single decade. In short 90's Pakistan was a beast outside Asia, hence they are rated highly.

Out of those 13 wins - only 1 against Australia ( dead rubber ), 1 against South Africa & zero wins against Wet indies ( when they were still a force )

4 wins against England - where they do well even now & 4 in New Zealand where Pakistan used to do well historically . Also 3 against Zimbabwe

So not really so special if u look it objectively. Of course India was pathetic overseas which makes Pakistan's record much better but not the sort of record u expect from a team so hyped up

Basically the only diff between Pakistan of 90s & post 2000 era is Pakistan won 1 test in Australia in 90s , which they did not in the last 20 years. and of course more success against weakened West Indies team in last 10 years

Add to that 6 series defeats at home - including teams like Zimbabwe , Sri Lanka & even England / Australia who generally struggled in the subcontinent. India maintained clean slate at home

Not really the sort of performance u brag about that much !

 

[szrana007]

Out of those 13 wins - only 1 against Australia ( dead rubber ), 1 against South Africa & zero wins against Wet indies ( when they were still a force )

4 wins against England - where they do well even now & 4 in New Zealand where Pakistan used to do well historically . Also 3 against Zimbabwe

So not really so special if u look it objectively. Of course India was pathetic overseas which makes Pakistan's record much better but not the sort of record u expect from a team so hyped up

Basically the only diff between Pakistan of 90s & post 2000 era is Pakistan won 1 test in Australia in 90s , which they did not in the last 20 years. and of course more success against weakened West Indies team in last 10 years

Add to that 6 series defeats at home - including teams like Zimbabwe , Sri Lanka & even England / Australia who generally struggled in the subcontinent. India maintained clean slate at home

Not really the sort of performance u brag about that much !

Tell me, when any other Asian team wins 13 tests outside Asia with a W/L ratio of 1.0 in a single decade.

90's Pak and post 2000's Pak aren't really comparable. Pak also drew a series in SA in 1998 against an ATG SA side. Post 2000, Pakistan hasn't drawn any series in SA, haven't won a series in England too, whereas in the 90's they won in England twice. Add to that 90's Pak also beat India in India in 2 out of 3 tests in 1999 against a strong Indian home team.

So 90's Pakistan's away record was great but home record was poor. You can say they were lions away and lambs at home,lol

 

[Buffet]

Without going into picking one team, the greatest Asian test team is not really too high a cut-off.

WI and Aus had great teams. I will put even SA team ahead of current Indians and late 2000s Indians team.

 

[Heisenberg111]

Without going into picking one team, the greatest Asian test team is not really too high a cut-off.

WI and Aus had great teams.
I will put even SA team ahead of current Indians and late 2000s Indians team.

I think, Pakistan from 1986-1992/93 is at par with SA from 2007-2014. That Pakistan side performed well everywhere except Australia. Won a series in England ,New Zealand and India. Also drew a series in WI against the GOAT WI team. All the while remaining unbeaten at home. Their only failure was the away series in Australia in 1990.

Smith's South Africa lost at home to Australia twice but their away record was phenomenal. I also rate them very highly.

 

[Buffet]

In the 1990's Pakistan won 13 tests outside Asia with a W/L ratio of 1.0

No other Asian team has won this number of matches outside Asia in a single decade. In short 90's Pakistan was a beast outside Asia, hence they are rated highly.

A single decade is simply a random 10 years selected and not account for all 10 years. All teams are not going to exactly start at the start of the decade to fit nicely in the decade defined by us. 10 years periods make much more sense if you want to see the number of wins outside Asia. But why stop there. You can do the same for the number of total wins away. The number of wins at home. The number of wins overall.

2016 onwards ( Not 10 years, just 5 years period) - Indians have 9 test wins outside Asia. They will need 4 test wons outside Asia to cross the stats you are putting up.

Not making any case about the greatest, but the current Indian team( taking the last 5 years and assuming they do reasonably well in the next 5 years,

• Should have more test wins outside Asia in 10 years.
• Should have the most test wins while playing away.
• Absolutely no doubt about having the most test wins at home in 10 years.
• Absolutely no doubt about having overall the most test wins in 10 years.

So if we are going by test wins outside Asia, test wins away, test wins home and overall test wins -- I don't think any other Asian team will come even close.



These test wins are simply a reflection of how Kohli plays. He will go for wins all the time and it will cost his team some loss which could have been a draw. But the same approach is going to give a lot more wins as well.

I won't judge based on the number of wins only. It's the overall performance. Kohli's team has already occupied rank 1 for 4-5 years with ratings of 120+ points for an extended period. If they can do a few more years of that, then all this debate will be pointless.

Best or not best can be judged only after players or teams are done producing outputs. It's not the right time to judge when it comes to comparing with all previous teams.

Just enjoy the quality cricket produced by Indian teams. The scoreline in Eng and SA may not reflect it, but they played good cricket in those series. They had only one bad series of NZ so far. Back to back gun series in Aus showed tons of character. We should forget about the best XYZ tag. Just enjoy good cricket. Wins and losses are not the only factors. You got to able to enjoy watching teams.

 

[szrana007]

A single decade is simply a random 10 years selected and not account for all 10 years. All teams are not going to exactly start at the start of the decade to fit nicely in the decade defined by us. 10 years periods make much more sense if you want to see the number of wins outside Asia. But why stop there. You can do the same for the number of total wins away. The number of wins at home. The number of wins overall.

2016 onwards ( Not 10 years, just 5 years period) - Indians have 9 test wins outside Asia. They will need 4 test wons outside Asia to cross the stats you are putting up.

Not making any case about the greatest, but the current Indian team( taking the last 5 years and assuming they do reasonably well in the next 5 years,

• Should have more test wins outside Asia in 10 years.
• Should have the most test wins while playing away.
• Absolutely no doubt about having the most test wins at home in 10 years.
• Absolutely no doubt about having overall the most test wins in 10 years.

So if we are going by test wins outside Asia, test wins away, test wins home and overall test wins -- I don't think any other Asian team will come even close.



These test wins are simply a reflection of how Kohli plays. He will go for wins all the time and it will cost his team some loss which could have been a draw. But the same approach is going to give a lot more wins as well.

I won't judge based on the number of wins only. It's the overall performance. Kohli's team has already occupied rank 1 for 4-5 years with ratings of 120+ points for an extended period. If they can do a few more years of that, then all this debate will be pointless.

Best or not best can be judged only after players or teams are done producing outputs. It's not the right time to judge when it comes to comparing with all previous teams.

Just enjoy the quality cricket produced by Indian teams. The scoreline in Eng and SA may not reflect it, but they played good cricket in those series. They had only one bad series of NZ so far. Back to back gun series in Aus showed tons of character. We should forget about the best XYZ tag. Just enjoy good cricket. Wins and losses are not the only factors. You got to able to enjoy watching teams.

What is the W/L ratio of India outside Asia since 2016? I think its much less than 90's Pakistan's W/L ratio of 1.0 outside Asia.

 

[Hasan123]

What is the W/L ratio of India outside Asia since 2016? I think its much less than 90's Pakistan's W/L ratio of 1.0 outside Asia.

You always have the filters so that Pakistan look good. It's pretty useless showing these stats when you just find way for them to make Pakistan look good.

 

[szrana007]

You always have the filters so that Pakistan look good. It's pretty useless showing these stats when you just find way for them to make Pakistan look good.

What filter? lol. [MENTION=97523]Buffet[/MENTION] was talking about India's record outside Asia since 2016. I was asking him if their W/L ratio outside Asia since 2016 is less than 90's Pak's W/L ratio of 1.0

 

[Buffet]

I think, Pakistan from 1986-1992/93 is at par with SA from 2007-2014. That Pakistan side performed well everywhere except Australia. Won a series in England ,New Zealand and India. Also drew a series in WI against the GOAT WI team. All the while remaining unbeaten at home. Their only failure was the away series in Australia in 1990.

Smith's South Africa lost at home to Australia twice but their away record was phenomenal. I also rate them very highly.

I don't think even the best period of Pakistan(86-93) was comparable to SA(2007-2013).

Here are test and series wins. Since different era has a different percentage of draw, but W/L is there to normalize it by taking the draw out of the equation.


Pakistan: 9 series win - 17 test wins - W/L of 2.1 (WI had W/L of 2.8 and Aus had W/L of 1.9 )

SA : 17 series win - 37 test wins - W/L of 2.8 (Aus/Eng had W/L of 1.5/1.6)

Double test wins. Double series wins. Stand out W/L ratio.

Some may argue that SA pitches helped SA to get such a standout W/L ratio, but that's not true. SA had away W/L of 3.75. SA lost only one test series in the entire period and that was against Aus. No hesitation in taking it over Pakistan's record.

 

[Heisenberg111]

I don't think even the best period of Pakistan(86-93) was comparable to SA(2007-2013).

Here are test and series wins. Since different era has a different percentage of draw, but W/L is there to normalize it by taking the draw out of the equation.


Pakistan: 9 series win - 17 test wins - W/L of 2.1 (WI had W/L of 2.8 and Aus had W/L of 1.9 )

SA : 17 series win - 37 test wins - W/L of 2.8 (Aus/Eng had W/L of 1.5/1.6)

Double test wins. Double series wins. Stand out W/L ratio.

Some may argue that SA pitches helped SA to get such a standout W/L ratio, but that's not true. SA had away W/L of 3.75. SA lost only one test series in the entire period and that was against Aus. No hesitation in taking it over Pakistan's record.

Fair enough, but Pakistan only lost 1 series from October 1985 to March 1993 and that was in Australia in 1990. They also won 10 series and drew 3 series with the GOAT WI team in this period. SA from 2007-2014 lost 2 series to Australia at home.

 

[Buffet]

What is the W/L ratio of India outside Asia since 2016? I think its much less than 90's Pakistan's W/L ratio of 1.0 outside Asia.

Here you go,

Pakistan's W/L in 90s outside Asia : 1.0
India W/L since 2016( 5 years ) : 0.9

Now anyone trying to look at this will also look at let's see what they have done in Asia.


Pakistan W/L in 90s in Asia: 2.4
India( since 2016) W/L in Asia: 22

-----------

Since cricket is played in Asia as well, W/L is not in the same ballpark to compare. If you are trying to point out that Pakistan had 1.0 and India is having 0.9 and that makes it better output for Pakistan then that's fine. I don't have much to add.

I will not really compare Indians with anyone till they are done playing 10 years. Who knows what they will do. But they have played really high-quality cricket in the last 5 years.

 

[Mesozoic]

Here you go,

Pakistan's W/L in 90s outside Asia : 1.0
India W/L since 2016( 5 years ) : 0.9

Now anyone trying to look at this will also look at let's see what they have done in Asia.


Pakistan W/L in 90s in Asia: 2.4
India( since 2016) W/L in Asia: 22

-----------

Since cricket is played in Asia as well, W/L is not in the same ballpark to compare. If you are trying to point out that Pakistan had 1.0 and India is having 0.9 and that makes it better output for Pakistan then that's fine. I don't have much to add.

I will not really compare Indians with anyone till they are done playing 10 years. Who knows what they will do. But they have played really high-quality cricket in the last 5 years.

/thread....

Nailed it.

 

[Buffet]

Fair enough, but Pakistan only lost 1 series from October 1985 to March 1993 and that was in Australia in 1990. They also won 10 series and drew 3 series with the GOAT WI team in this period. SA from 2007-2014 lost 2 series to Australia at home.

In the period I am citing SA, lost only one test series, but more importantly won pretty much all series with some rare drawn series.

 

[Heisenberg111]

I don't think even the best period of Pakistan(86-93) was comparable to SA(2007-2013).

Here are test and series wins. Since different era has a different percentage of draw, but W/L is there to normalize it by taking the draw out of the equation.


Pakistan: 9 series win - 17 test wins - W/L of 2.1 (WI had W/L of 2.8 and Aus had W/L of 1.9 )

SA : 17 series win - 37 test wins - W/L of 2.8 (Aus/Eng had W/L of 1.5/1.6)

Double test wins. Double series wins. Stand out W/L ratio.

Some may argue that SA pitches helped SA to get such a standout W/L ratio, but that's not true. SA had away W/L of 3.75. SA lost only one test series in the entire period and that was against Aus. No hesitation in taking it over Pakistan's record.

Actually, just checked Pak's W/L ratio from October 1985 to March 1993 is 2.83, which is even better than WI's W/L ratio in that period and is at par with SA's W/L ratio from 2007-2013.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...1985;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

 

[szrana007]

Here you go,

Pakistan's W/L in 90s outside Asia : 1.0
India W/L since 2016( 5 years ) : 0.9

Now anyone trying to look at this will also look at let's see what they have done in Asia.


Pakistan W/L in 90s in Asia: 2.4
India( since 2016) W/L in Asia: 22

-----------

Since cricket is played in Asia as well, W/L is not in the same ballpark to compare. If you are trying to point out that Pakistan had 1.0 and India is having 0.9 and that makes it better output for Pakistan then that's fine. I don't have much to add.

I will not really compare Indians with anyone till they are done playing 10 years. Who knows what they will do. But they have played really high-quality cricket in the last 5 years.

Yeah, thats what I thought. Maintaining a W/L ratio of 1.0 outside Asia over a decade is really difficult.

Not surprised with 90's Pakistan's W/L ratio in Asia though. That team was poor in Pakistan.

 

[Hasan123]

What filter? lol. [MENTION=97523]Buffet[/MENTION] was talking about India's record outside Asia since 2016. I was asking him if their W/L ratio outside Asia since 2016 is less than 90's Pak's W/L ratio of 1.0

Pakistan won 2 games in England in 2016 and 1 win against England in 2018. They lost the other games i think.

India have won a series in Australia, won 1 game and drawn 1 game on this current tour , they have won a game in South Africa and won 1 test in England in 2018.

Even if Pakistan have a better win record , it's from winning in 1 country lol. India have won games in Australia and South Africa since 2016. So your stats are misleading and need to be looked into further.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

The biggest reason the 90s Pakistan team was so overrated was their huge success in India - thanks to our bang average team. Those days when our pace attack was Kuruvilla , Dodda Ganesh , Debashish MOhanty , Salil Ankola etc...

Take away the India performances - the team was actually not so great. I remember that Pakistan team lost every ODI to South Africa for 5 years ( 1995-2000 )

Well same logic can be applied to Indian team also. If we take away the Australia performances we haven't done anything special in NZ, Eng and SA too.

 

[Buffet]

Actually, just checked Pak's W/L ratio from October 1985 to March 1993 is 2.83, which is even better than WI's W/L ratio in that period and is at par with SA's W/L ratio from 2007-2013.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...1985;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

Pakistan played 6 tests in 1985. They lost 2 and won 1. You picked a date to remove those 2 losses.

Taking a cut off date to remove losses in the same year to get a certain W/L is not really a reflection of the team's output.

With 37 test wins like SA, 2 tests adding or removing won't make much difference in W/L. With 15-20 wins, 2 tests will make quite a difference. With 10 test wins, it will start making even a larger difference.

 

[Mesozoic]

Well same logic can be applied to Indian team also. If we take away the Australia performances we haven't done anything special in NZ, Eng and SA too.

Dumb as usual....

Comparing the Indian team of the 90s to the current Aussie team...this is a new low even for you.

 

[captain.hansolo]

That I wont argue against but then that is India's best side they had to offer. That is not Australia's problem.

funny that this statement is not accessed when the shoe is on the other foot. your objectivity (or lack thereof) is questionable.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Dumb as usual...

Comparing the Indian team of the 90s to the current Aussie team...this is a new low even for you.

You must be looking at yourself in the mirror.

Read my post again and then come back with a logical reply for once.

 

[Mesozoic]

Indian team of the 2000s is still the GOAT Asian test team....

-->>>Outstanding record at home

-->>>Series wins in England, New Zealand, West Indies, Pakistan....

-->>>Series draws in England, Australia, South Africa, Sri Lanka....

-->>>Running ATG Australia and South Africa close in their own backyards (memorable wins in Perth and Joburg)..

That core group of Sehwag,Dravid, Sachin, Laxman, Ganguly, Dhoni, Bhajji, Zak , Kumble will forever be at the peak of Asian Test history. This cute Indian team has a chance of eclipsing them if they win in England and South Africa this year.

 

[Heisenberg111]

Pakistan played 6 tests in 1985. They lost 2 and won 1. You picked a date to remove those 2 losses.

Taking a cut off date to remove losses in the same year to get a certain W/L is not really a reflection of the team's output.

With 37 test wins like SA, 2 tests adding or removing won't make much difference in W/L. With 15-20 wins, 2 tests will make quite a difference. With 10 test wins, it will start making even a larger difference.

I took the period after Pak lost the series in NZ in 1985, in which Imran Khan didn't play as he was injured. I already told you that I was considering the period from October 1985 to March 1993. In any case these are the records for the teams in the given periods.

Pakistan from Oct 1985- Mar 1993

Series Played 16
Series Won 9
Series Drawn 6
Series Lost 1

W/L ratio = 2.83

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...1985;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

SA from 2007-2013

Series Played 24
Series Won 16
Series Drawn 7
Series Lost 1

W/L ratio = 2.84

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...2007;spanval2=span;template=results;type=team

Pretty comparable to be honest. I would say SA slightly ahead coz they won more series, but then they played way more series too. Its pretty close really.

 

[Mesozoic]

You must be looking at yourself in the mirror.

Read my post again and then come back with a logical reply for once.

Please don't use the word "logical" after equating the 90s Indian team to any version of the Aussie team let alone the current one.

 

[Mesozoic]

Indian team of the 2000s is still the GOAT Asian test team....

-->>>Outstanding record at home

-->>>Series wins in England, New Zealand, West Indies, Pakistan....

-->>>Series draws in England, Australia, South Africa, Sri Lanka....

-->>>Running ATG Australia and South Africa close in their own backyards (memorable wins in Perth and Joburg)..

That core group of Sehwag,Dravid, Sachin, Laxman, Ganguly, Dhoni, Bhajji, Zak , Kumble will forever be at the peak of Asian Test history. This cute Indian team has a chance of eclipsing them if they win in England and South Africa this year.

*Current*.

 

[Heisenberg111]

Indian team of the 2000s is still the GOAT Asian test team....

-->>>Outstanding record at home

-->>>Series wins in England, New Zealand, West Indies, Pakistan....

-->>>Series draws in England, Australia, South Africa, Sri Lanka....

-->>>Running ATG Australia and South Africa close in their own backyards (memorable wins in Perth and Joburg)..

That core group of Sehwag,Dravid, Sachin, Laxman, Ganguly, Dhoni, Bhajji, Zak , Kumble will forever be at the peak of Asian Test history. This cute Indian team has a chance of eclipsing them if they win in England and South Africa this year.

Indian team from 2007-2010/11 lost 2 series ( one in Australia in 2007/08 and one in SRL in 2008).

In contrast Pakistan from 1986 to 1992/93 only lost one series and that was in Australia in 1990. Pakistan from 1986 to 1992/93 did well everywhere except Australia. They won in England twice ( 1987 and 1992), won in NZ, won in India in 1987, drew with the GOAT WI team in WI in 1988. And they didn't lose any home series too.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Please don't use the word "logical" after equating the 90s Indian team to any version of the Aussie team let alone the current one.

So you didn't read my post and came up with another silly reply? Let me make it easier for you. I didn't do any comparison between Indian team of 90s and current Aus team. I said if we take out India's performances against Aus out then we also haven't done anything special in NZ, Eng and SA. Point is why should we take out our best performances? Hopefully your pea sized brain can comprehend this now. Although chances are pretty slim.