Which Test team is better? Graeme Smith's South Africa Or Virat Kohli's India?

[Heisenberg111]

Two of the greatest Test sides from their respective countries in this century are Graeme Smith led South Africa from 2007-2014 and Virat Kohli led India from 2015-present.

So the question is which of these two Test teams is better Smith's South Africa or Kohli's India ?

 

[Heisenberg111]

India' W/L ratio from 2015 onwards = 3.076

SA's W/L ratio from 2007-2014 = 2.733

So its close between the two teams numbers wise.

 

[Heisenberg111]

India have won all their home series since 2015, but they have lost 3 away series from 2015 onwards ( one each in Eng, SA and NZ)

SA didn't lose any away series from 2007-2014, but they lost 2 series at home in that period, both to Australia ( in 2009 and 2014)

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Kindly tell how many away series India played and lost and same for South Africa?

 

[Ab Fan]

At this point, Smith's SA because they won away series in Australia and England twice and drew in India twice and they were all strong teams.

 

[Heisenberg111]

India's home W/L ratio since 2015 = 12.5

SA's home W/L ratio from 2007-2014 = 2.3

So no contest in terms of home record. India is way way ahead.


India's away W/L ratio since 2015 = 1.363

SA's away W/L ratio from 2007-2014 = 4.25

So SA way ahead in terms of away record.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

Smith's South Africa hands-down.

 

[MHN1293]

Smiths Sa. Not losing to any team away and besting all teams besides 1 is a remarkable feat.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Kohli's India led by Rahane can do wonders.

 

[Mahee]

Kohli and Rahane's India

 

[NishanKonar]

Graeme Smith

That South Africa won test series in Aus , NZ & England & also drew India 1-1 in India

Virat Kohli's India is yet to win series in England NZ & South Africa !

 

[Firebat]

I'd narrowly go for Kohli's India. If SA were better at home, it would be a no contest. That side was stacked full of ATGs

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

At this point, Smith's SA because they won away series in Australia and England twice and drew in India twice and they were all strong teams.

Yeah....the only right answer right now.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Kohli's India led by Rahane can do wonders.

The amount of close games we had in SENA....had Rahane been there, it might have been a different ball game imho.

 

[Mamoon]

Kohli’s India. They are incredible at home and have not lost a single series.

Smith’s South Africa drew with England in 2010 in addition to losing twice to Australia.

It is tight but I would go with the GOAT Asian Test team.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

I'd go with South Africa. They won in England, NZ, Australia, Pakistan, West Indies ,Lanka, drew in India. That's a damn good record away.

 

[WengerOut]

SA and it is not even close

 

[Mesozoic]

Smith's South Africa by a country mile...

 

[Shoaibbtt]

SA easy filled with great batsmen and bowlers but again it's a different era.

 

[Buffet]

Right now, SA team.

SA team did lose at home but did very well away.

 

[Buffet]

I'd narrowly go for Kohli's India. If SA were better at home, it would be a no contest. That side was stacked full of ATGs

I will pick SA team right now.

Coming back to ATGs, Steyn and Kallis....


Amla/Smith were gun, but not in the same class.

 

[szrana007]

Against Ashwin and Jadeja in India, Smith's team would have been toast.

Smith's team never won in India. Big weakness for that SA team is spin, while India doesn't seem to have any major flaw in their arsenal and their pace bowling is strong too.

So, in a hypothetical scenario, if you are determining the world championship title based on home and away series, I would say India has a better chance of winning against Smith's SA in SA than that SA has a chance of winning in India.

So my vote goes to India.

 

[Buffet]

Against Ashwin and Jadeja in India, Smith's team would have been toast.

Smith's team never won in India. Big weakness for that SA team is spin, while India doesn't seem to have any major flaw in their arsenal and their pace bowling is strong too.

So, in a hypothetical scenario, if you are determining the world championship title based on home and away series, I would say India has a better chance of winning against Smith's SA in SA than that SA has a chance of winning in India.

So my vote goes to India.

Indians surely have a bowling unit to cover pretty much all conditions and SA did not have gun spinners, but Indian batting is suspect in swinging conditions.

 

[GenericBrand]

SA team did lose at home but did very well away.

Why was that? I never seem to be able wrap my mind around how an ATG SA team that was winning AWAY had some struggles at home.

 

[Buffet]

Why was that? I never seem to be able wrap my mind around how an ATG SA team that was winning AWAY had some struggles at home.

It was not really a struggle in the real sense. SA and Aus have bouncy pitches and Aus always had a good team. SA pitches have bounce and it helps Aus bowlers/batsmen. Aus is the only team that won in SA when SA had a good run. Eng drawing was a good result, but that can happen.


Look at it this way.

If you just have turners and you are a good team on turners then it's very hard for visiting team to beat you. -- Historically that's India.

If you just have bounce and you are good in that then it is very hard for visiting team to beat you --- Historically that's Aus. The exception was SA and SA had experience on the bounce at home.

SA has assistance for all kids of bowlers depending on the venue. It makes it hard for SA to counter if some good team plays in a venue that suits their bowling. When SA had a good team, all bases were covered, but with the weaker side, it is going to be harder to win consistently at home. Imagine, India of the 90s having pitches with bounce, turn, seam etc... Don't you think India would have lost many more at home in 90s?

 

[Buffet]

If you are looking for one main tangible reason then it was Smith.

Smith at home avg 41
Smith away avg was 54

Vs Aus at home Smith averaged 25 in 11 tests. That's your reason if you want to really pin it. Many away wins were on the back of Smith and he did not bat that well at home especially against Aus.

 

[AamchiMumbaikar]

Close. One more win in ENG/ NZ by this current Indian team, will place them above Smith's side.

 

[Ab Fan]

If you are looking for one main tangible reason then it was Smith.

Smith at home avg 41
Smith away avg was 54

Vs Aus at home Smith averaged 25 in 11 tests. That's your reason if you want to really pin it. Many away wins were on the back of Smith and he did not bat that well at home especially against Aus.

ABD was best bat at home vs Australia in 2009 and 2014 series for SA and then ultimately won vs Australia in 2018 series.

 

[Buffet]

ABD was best bat at home vs Australia in 2009 and 2014 series for SA and then ultimately won vs Australia in 2018 series.

Yah, he was the only one who scored around 350 runs in both series.

 

[Buffet]

ABD was best bat at home vs Australia in 2009 and 2014 series for SA and then ultimately won vs Australia in 2018 series.

Most SA batsmen, except AB, have batted poorly against Aus. To some extent, it was due to lively pitch, but it is hard to win if most batsmen average in the 20s/30s.
.

 

[Robert]

Smith’s. Much more powerful, all-conditions batting, and India have nobody like Steyn.

Smith beat Strauss’s #1 side in England. Kohli lost 1-4 to Cook’s weak side in England.

The one advantage Kohli’s side has is spin bowling but even they are not much cop outside the Subcontinent.

 

[Robert]

Kohli’s India. They are incredible at home and have not lost a single series.

Smith’s South Africa drew with England in 2010 in addition to losing twice to Australia.

It is tight but I would go with the GOAT Asian Test team.

I would say that was Imran’s later team.

This current India side plays in an era of much reduced skill sets. India cannot bat against the moving ball, and modern England and Australia batsmen are hopeless against spin.

 

[Heisenberg111]

Smith’s. Much more powerful, all-conditions batting, and India have nobody like Steyn.

Smith beat Strauss’s #1 side in England. Kohli lost 1-4 to Cook’s weak side in England.

The one advantage Kohli’s side has is spin bowling but even they are not much cop outside the Subcontinent.

Well, what if India manages to win/draw in England and win in SA later this year. Surely Kohli's team will surpass Smith's team then ?

 

[Heisenberg111]

A combined XI of the two teams.

G Smith (c)
C Pujara
J Kallis
H Amla
V Kohli
AB Devilliers
R Pant (wk)
R Ashwin
R Jadeja/V Philander (depending on the conditions)
D Steyn
J Bumrah

 

[Mesozoic]

Well, what if India manages to win/draw in England and win in SA later this year. Surely Kohli's team will surpass Smith's team then ?

Nope still won't do.

Smith's South Africa were unbeaten away from home for 8 years from 2006-14. In that period they toured India twice, Australia twice, England twice , Pakistan twice (one in UAE) and New Zealand twice.....

I'll just leave it at that.

 

[Mesozoic]

A combined XI of the two teams.

G Smith (c)
C Pujara
J Kallis
H Amla
V Kohli
AB Devilliers
R Pant (wk)
R Ashwin
R Jadeja/V Philander (depending on the conditions)
D Steyn
J Bumrah

Brilliant team but I'd make ABD keep, play Jadeja at 7 and bring in Morne Morkel as the 3rd pacer.

 

[Heisenberg111]

Nope still won't do.

Smith's South Africa were unbeaten away from home for 8 years from 2006-14. In that period they toured India twice, Australia twice, England twice , Pakistan twice (one in UAE) and New Zealand twice.....

I'll just leave it at that.

SA had the better away record, but you have to look at the Overall picture as well. India's home record since 2015 is miles better than SA's home record and their Overall W/L ratio of 3.076 is also better than SA's W/L ratio of 2.73 from 2007-2014.

So given these records thats why I feel that India needs to win in Eng/SA to surpass Smith's SA, coz that will give them away series wins in Aus/SA/Eng/SL/WI and their home record is already very dominant. Smith's SA didn't have a dominant home record, so that has to count against them too.

 

[sam_ahm]

Quite easily Smith's South Africa.

 

[Mesozoic]

SA had the better away record, but you have to look at the Overall picture as well. India's home record since 2015 is miles better than SA's home record and their Overall W/L ratio of 3.076 is also better than SA's W/L ratio of 2.73 from 2007-2014.

So given these records thats why I feel that India needs to win in Eng/SA to surpass Smith's SA, coz that will give them away series wins in Aus/SA/Eng/SL/WI and their home record is already very dominant. Smith's SA didn't have a dominant home record, so that has to count against them too.

I'm sorry but.... Away record >>>> Home record. Don't know why this needs any explaining.

If I could, I'd happily swap South Africa's 8 year unbeaten run away from home with our 8 year long home dominance. I'm pretty sure most would.

 

[szrana007]

Indians surely have a bowling unit to cover pretty much all conditions and SA did not have gun spinners, but Indian batting is suspect in swinging conditions.

Yeah Indian batting is vulnerable in swinging and seaming conditions but by the same token South Africa's batting would have been toast, had they faced Ashwin and Jadeja in India.

I still stand by my earlier comment that current Indian team has a greater chance of beating Smith's team in SA, than Smith's team has a chance of beating the current Indian team in India. On a home and away points based series between the two teams, India is more likely to come on top.

 

[Heisenberg111]

I'm sorry but.... Away record >>>> Home record. Don't know why this needs any explaining.

If I could, I'd happily swap South Africa's 8 year unbeaten run away from home with our 8 year long home dominance. I'm pretty sure most would.

India's away record is pretty good too, and if they can win in Eng/SA, it will get even better. That coupled with their ruthless bullying of teams at home makes for a great record Overall, which puts them atleast at par with Smith's side if not better.

Anyways the difference between the two teams isn't even that great at present.

SA under Smith won 16 series and lost only 2 series from 2007-2014, while India have won 17 series and lost only 3 series from 2015 onwards.

So India have lost only 1 more series than Smith's side, but have also won 1 more.

 

[sindhiboy]

A combined XI of the two teams.

G Smith (c)
C Pujara
J Kallis
H Amla
V Kohli
AB Devilliers
R Pant (wk)
R Ashwin
R Jadeja/V Philander (depending on the conditions)
D Steyn
J Bumrah

A pant and de Villiers partnership would be devastating

 

[Mesozoic]

[MENTION=146229]Heisenberg111[/MENTION]

Yes. India's away record looks 'good' on paper but if you dig a little deeper, you'll see that we've lost 3 out of the 4 challenging series' in South Africa, England and New Zealand. Yes we competed well in SAF and England, but at the end of the day, loss is a loss. At present, winning in West Indies and Sri Lanka is not that big a deal.

And I'll say it again. Away performances count a lot lot more in test cricket than the ones at home. And Smith's Saffers won...

Two series' in England

Two series' in Australia

One series in Pakistan

One series in New Zealand

One series in West Indies

One series in Bangladesh

And drew

Two series' against a formidable Indian side...

Two series against Misbah's Pakistan in UAE...


This is just an absolutely mindboggling record to have. I've always found it extremely unfair on them to be left out of "GOAT" discussions with only 80s WI and 2000s Australia getting acknowledged and they barely get a mention.

 

[Mesozoic]

If India or Pakistan had such an enviable record, their fans (including me) would have hyped them to be the greatest team of all time and better than GOAT WI and Australia by some token or other...

 

[WengerOut]

Dhoni's India drew with Smith's SA in SA though

 

[Mamoon]

I would say that was Imran’s later team.

This current India side plays in an era of much reduced skill sets. India cannot bat against the moving ball, and modern England and Australia batsmen are hopeless against spin.

India post 2015, or Kohli’s India, have the following achievements:

(a) Longest reign as the number 1 ranked team in history for an Asian side.

(b) Longest reign as the number 1 ranked team among all sides in the 2010-20 decade.

(c) Two Test series wins in Australia; every other Asian side has a big fat “0” in the column of the number of series wins in Australia.

(d) 36 Test wins and counting for Kohli, a hugely impressively number and 22 more wins than Imran. It is futile to downplay his winning rate due to subjective metrics.

Irrespective of what cross-era adjustments people like to make, you cannot argue for 14 wins over 36 and counting. The gap is simply too significant.

If you want to include Miandad’s Pakistan, then you might have a point because they also won 14 Tests at a better rate than Imran’s Pakistan, but the above listed achievements of Kohli’s India makes it the most successful Asian Test team of all time.

Imran’s Pakistan lost in Australia in 1984 and 1990 to a much weaker attack than Cummins, Hazlewood, Starc and Lyon.

They would have never won against this Australian attack, let alone twice, not to mention with a reserve team the second time.

Furthermore, the 80’s was the weakest era of spin bowling. The quality of spin bowling was poor between the retirement/decline of the Indian quartet and the emergence of Warne, Muralitharan and Kumble in the 90’s.

The best spinner of that period was Qadir and he played, of course, for Pakistan.

Imran’s team was never tested against spinners like Ashwin, Jadeja and Lyon.

These three spinners as well as Yasir would have ran riot against the 80’s batting lineups regardless of how much you overhype their capabilities against spin bowling.

 

[Hasan123]

Graeme Smith’s South Africa.

 

[Heisenberg111]

[MENTION=146229]Heisenberg111[/MENTION]

Yes. India's away record looks 'good' on paper but if you dig a little deeper, you'll see that we've lost 3 out of the 4 challenging series' in South Africa, England and New Zealand. Yes we competed well in SAF and England, but at the end of the day, loss is a loss. At present, winning in West Indies and Sri Lanka is not that big a deal.

I've always found it extremely unfair on them to be left out of "GOAT" discussions with only 80s WI and 2000s Australia getting acknowledged and they barely get a mention.

Thats why I said that the current Indian has to win in Eng/SA to surpass Smith's side. Winning in Eng/SA is a big deal and if India manages that, I see no reason why they shouldn't be rated higher than Smith's SA, given that they would have won in 3 toughest places Aus/SA/Eng coupled with their incredible home record. But at the moment I do think that Smith's SA is slightly ahead.

Secondly, the reason why Smith's SA doesn't get mentioned in the same breath as the Great WI/Aus sides is because they weren't as dominant as those sides. WI in 80's had a W/L ratio of 5.37, while Aus of 2000's had a W/L ratio of 4.39. In comparison, Smith's team's has a much lesser W/L ratio of 2.7 So clearly Aus of 2000's and WI of 80's are a tier above Smith's SA.

 

[Robert]

Well, what if India manages to win/draw in England and win in SA later this year. Surely Kohli's team will surpass Smith's team then ?

No, because England are so weak now. And SA are not test class any more.

Smith’s team would duff Kohli’s team up.

 

[street cricketer]

Weird thread. Don't see the comparison at all. Kohli's India are probably more closer to the early 2010s English side than Smith's Saffers who had a much greater pedigree away from their home.

 

[Amjid Javed]

Kohli’s India. They are incredible at home and have not lost a single series.

Smith’s South Africa drew with England in 2010 in addition to losing twice to Australia.

It is tight but I would go with the GOAT Asian Test team.

Clueless response as usual.

SA were brillant away from home and won in Aus, Eng and most of all drew a series in india which most teams at that side struggled to do. Yes SA lost twice at home but on flip side indias record in SA ENG and NZ is pathetic.

 

[Amjid Javed]

India post 2015, or Kohli’s India, have the following achievements:

(a) Longest reign as the number 1 ranked team in history for an Asian side.

(b) Longest reign as the number 1 ranked team among all sides in the 2010-20 decade.

(c) Two Test series wins in Australia; every other Asian side has a big fat “0” in the column of the number of series wins in Australia.

(d) 36 Test wins and counting for Kohli, a hugely impressively number and 22 more wins than Imran. It is futile to downplay his winning rate due to subjective metrics.

Irrespective of what cross-era adjustments people like to make, you cannot argue for 14 wins over 36 and counting. The gap is simply too significant.

If you want to include Miandad’s Pakistan, then you might have a point because they also won 14 Tests at a better rate than Imran’s Pakistan, but the above listed achievements of Kohli’s India makes it the most successful Asian Test team of all time.

Imran’s Pakistan lost in Australia in 1984 and 1990 to a much weaker attack than Cummins, Hazlewood, Starc and Lyon.

They would have never won against this Australian attack, let alone twice, not to mention with a reserve team the second time.

Furthermore, the 80’s was the weakest era of spin bowling. The quality of spin bowling was poor between the retirement/decline of the Indian quartet and the emergence of Warne, Muralitharan and Kumble in the 90’s.

The best spinner of that period was Qadir and he played, of course, for Pakistan.

Imran’s team was never tested against spinners like Ashwin, Jadeja and Lyon.

These three spinners as well as Yasir would have ran riot against the 80’s batting lineups regardless of how much you overhype their capabilities against spin bowling.

The conversation is india vs SA.

So as usual you copy and paste a load of rubbish about pakistan teams and asian teams?

Since when is South Africa based in Asia?

Do you think any one pays attention to repetative irrelavant nonsense you post.

 

[Srtfan]

How many test series South Africa lost under smith captaincy- atleast 8
How many test series india lost under kohli captaincy- 3

 

[Buffet]

How many test series South Africa lost under smith captaincy- atleast 8
How many test series india lost under kohli captaincy- 3

No one thinks that SA was really great when Smith started as a young captain. Only after Steyn came into the picture... OP also specified 2007 - 2014.

 

[Mamoon]

Clueless response as usual.

SA were brillant away from home and won in Aus, Eng and most of all drew a series in india which most teams at that side struggled to do. Yes SA lost twice at home but on flip side indias record in SA ENG and NZ is pathetic.

You cannot compare South Africa’s record in Australia and England with India’s because South Africa’s home conditions are very similar to Australian and English conditions.

To judge the away performances of SENA teams, you will have to look at performances in Asia.

Smith’s South Africa didn’t beat India away in two attempts and got flogged in Sri Lanka in 2004 and 2006.

They won in Pakistan in 2007 but it was a weak Pakistan team. They lost to a stronger Pakistan team in 2003.

Smith’s South Africa did not perform any miracles in Asia. India’s consecutive series wins in Australia is a bigger achievement than anything Smith’s South Africa managed.

Winning in India in 2008 and 2010 would have been the equivalent achievement to India winning in Australia in 2018 and 2021, but South Africa failed to win either series.

 

[Amjid Javed]

You cannot compare South Africa’s record in Australia and England with India’s because South Africa’s home conditions are very similar to Australian and English conditions.

To judge the away performances of SENA teams, you will have to look at performances in Asia.

Smith’s South Africa didn’t beat India away in two attempts and got flogged in Sri Lanka in 2004 and 2006.

They won in Pakistan in 2007 but it was a weak Pakistan team. They lost to a stronger Pakistan team in 2003.

Smith’s South Africa did not perform any miracles in Asia. India’s consecutive series wins in Australia is a bigger achievement than anything Smith’s South Africa managed.

Winning in India in 2008 and 2010 would have been the equivalent achievement to India winning in Australia in 2018 and 2021, but South Africa failed to win either series.

So the start of thread says Smith SA from 2007-2014. So you start going on about SA before that?

Then you say SA conditions are similar to england and Australia? Based on what?

Your twisted logic as usual makes no sense and has no relevance to question been asked.

 

[Bilal7]

Smith's South African side from 2007 onwards are comparable to the great Aussies and West Indies teams of the past. They dominated Australia and England and drew against India and Pakistan, away from home. Their home record is excellent and the reason they lost at home is because they are not in the business of doctoring pitches.

Kohli's India is nowhere near being an ATG side and is more comparable to Misbah's Pakistan. Both incredibly strong home teams who were never challenged at home because India and Pakistan refused to play each other. Kohli's teams greatest achievement was beating the weakest Australian team in decades away from home, Misbah's was drawing against a strong England side, away from home.

Even if you were to put results aside, the South African team was much stronger. G. Smith, Amla, Kallis, ABD and Steyn are all ATG players and they had a world-class supporting caste in the likes of Philander, Morkel, Faf, etc.

This Indian side have one ATG in Kohli, a few world-class players in Ashwin, Pujara, Bumrah and Shami but overall, there is no comparison here. The South African side would win comfortably almost everywhere.

 

[Bilal7]

A combined XI of the two teams.

G Smith (c)
C Pujara
J Kallis
H Amla
V Kohli
AB Devilliers
R Pant (wk)
R Ashwin
R Jadeja/V Philander (depending on the conditions)
D Steyn
J Bumrah

1) Smith (c)
2) Pujara
3) Amla
4) Kallis
5) Kohli
6) ABD (wk)
7) Ashwin
8) Jadeja
9) Philander
10) Steyn
11) Morkel

Two wicket-keepers is an overkill and Bumrah does not even have 100 test wickets. Both Morkel and Philander are better test bowlers thus far.

 

[szrana007]

Kohli's India is nowhere near being an ATG side and is more comparable to Misbah's Pakistan.

You really think so ? Kohli's WL ratio is 2.6 while Misbah's WL ratio is 1.4 so the two are not comparable at all. Kohli's team also has the monumental achievement of winning back to back series in Australia while Misbah's Pakistan got whitewashed in Australia and South Africa.

 

[szrana007]

Weird thread. Don't see the comparison at all. Kohli's India are probably more closer to the early 2010s English side than Smith's Saffers who had a much greater pedigree away from their home.

I think Kohli's India is much better than the English team from 2009-2013.

India's number of series wins since 2015 = 17

India's number of series losses since 2015 = 3

Now compare that with England's series stats from 2009-2013

England's number of series wins from 2009-2013 = 12

England's number of series losses from 2009-2013 = 3

So clearly Kohli's team is much better.

 

[szrana007]

Dhoni's India drew with Smith's SA in SA though

Yup, that tells me that Kohli's team has a greater chance of winning against Smith's Saffers in SA than Smith's side has a chance of winning in India.

 

[Ab Fan]

Kohli's India is an excellent team but they lost to a South African side which had ABD, Amla, Rabada, Philander, Morkel.

The SA side of 2011, on other hand, had
Kallis, Smith, Amla, ABD, Steyn, Morkel.

I think 2011 SA side is slightly better than the 2018 one and hence Kohli's India would have lost to them also in SA conditions. In Indian conditions, we would have won against that SA team though. So, it is pretty even steven.

SA drew in India and Pakistan and have one series win each in Pakistan and Sri Lanka. India also need to come up with atleast series draw in England and New Zealand to be mentioned alongside Smith's SA team.

 

[Mamoon]

So the start of thread says Smith SA from 2007-2014. So you start going on about SA before that?

Then you say SA conditions are similar to england and Australia? Based on what?

Your twisted logic as usual makes no sense and has no relevance to question been asked.

Why do you think the OP chose 2007 as a cut-off date? Simply because he wanted to exclude South Africa losing in Pakistan in 2003 and getting smashed in Sri Lanka in 2004 and 2006 to further his agenda.

When you are comparing Smith’s South Africa and Kohli’s India, you have to look at their entire captaincy tenures and not pick and choose convenient dates to suit your cut-off points.

It would be like choosing November 2018 as a cut-off date for Kohli’s India and that will make them look even better because it will exclude the losses in South Africa and England in January 2018 and September 2018.

If you think South Africa’s home conditions are not more similar to England’s and Australia’s than India’s home conditions and if you think that it is not easier for South Africa to win in those conditions compared to India, you clearly don’t know anything about cricket and simply have a problem with India, but then again, we know that already.

South African conditions are very much a hybrid of English and Australian conditions. The pitches offer pace, bounce, seam and the overhead conditions offer swing as well.

That is why historically, South Africa has been a tougher place to bat for Asian teams than England.

I repeat - when it comes to away performances of SENA teams, you have to look at performances in Asia and not what they do in each other’s countries because of the similarity of conditions and how those teams are better equipped than Asian sides to win in each other’s countries.

Kohli’s India winning twice in Australia against their full-strength bowling attack (which is one of the best attacks Australia has ever fielded) and winning once with their reserve team are greater achievements than what Smith’s South Africa managed.

 

[Last Monetarist]

I'd take Smith's South Africa ahead of Kohli's India, unless the match is being played anywhere in Asia.

Combined XI for mine:

Sharma
Smith
Amla
Kohli
Kallis
de Villiers
Pant (wk)
Ashwin
Steyn
Morkel
Bumrah

 

[Robert]

I think Kohli's India is much better than the English team from 2009-2013.

India's number of series wins since 2015 = 17

India's number of series losses since 2015 = 3

Now compare that with England's series stats from 2009-2013

England's number of series wins from 2009-2013 = 12

England's number of series losses from 2009-2013 = 3

So clearly Kohli's team is much better.

What you have to factor in is the worldwide collapse in batting standards due to T20. It was harder to win a series anywhere a decade ago because batters would dig in and secure drawn matches. Nobody does that now unless rain interferes. Nearly every match results in a win.

 

[subshakerz]

Kohli’s India. They are incredible at home and have not lost a single series.

Smith’s South Africa drew with England in 2010 in addition to losing twice to Australia.

It is tight but I would go with the GOAT Asian Test team.

What a joke. An undeafeated away record weighs more heavily than winning at home.

Btw, once Philander debuted in 2011, South Africa were also a strong team at home until Kallis retired.

 

[subshakerz]

The Indian batting lineup have a huge weakness which SA doesn't: batting on seaming decks. The SA lineup rarely ever got dismissed for less than 200.

Let's just compare the core members of each team:

India: Rahane, Kohli, Pujara, Shami, Bumrah, Ishant, Ashwin

SA: Smith, Kallis, AB, Amla, Steyn, Morkel, Philander

SA have at least three worldclass batting legends, one all-time great batting all-rounder, one all-time great pacer and worldclass pace support.

 

[subshakerz]

Indian fans just ignore how collapse prone this batting lineup is once the ball begins to move.

SA under Smith would never lose anywhere 4-1 or get whitewashed like Kohli's team.

 

[subshakerz]

Dhoni's India drew with Smith's SA in SA though

They drew in 2010 but lost in 2014 once Philander joined the side.

 

[Mamoon]

What a joke. An undeafeated away record weighs more heavily than winning at home.

Btw, once Philander debuted in 2011, South Africa were also a strong team at home until Kallis retired.

There is one thing common between all truly great Test teams: they are brutal at home. They might lose a Test or two at home, but they don’t lose a series.

Over the course of a series, their batsmen and bowlers will eventually find a way to outperform the opposition counterparts in conditions that they are more familiar with it.

The 2000s Australia and Clive’s West Indies developed an aura because they were imperious at home.

The great Australian team lost two high profile series away from home (India 2001, Ashes 2005), but it did not hurt their legacy because they were extremely strong at home - they didn’t lose a single home series until the likes of McGrath, Warne and Gilchrist retired.

Smith’s South Africa failed to built an aura of a juggernaut team because they were not imperious at home.

In addition to losing twice to Australia, they lost to Vaughan’s England in 2004-05 and drew with them in 2009-10.

They also drew with India and Australia in 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively.

Even a pretty average West Indies and Sri Lankan sides won Tests in South Africa in 2007 and 2011 respectively.

South Africa played very well in India, Australia and England, but you cannot be considered a truly great team with such a patchy home record.

They also got flogged in Sri Lanka really bad. Of course, it had to be our losers (“Pakistan me talent bohat hai” ) in 2007 to give Smith’s South Africa their only series win in Asia other than a minnow Bangladesh in 2003.

Kohli’s India is one of the greatest home teams of all time. Their dominance at home is frightening and teams are scared of stepping into India. Playing Kohli’s India in India is a nightmare scenario for every team.

Only top sides like England and Australia can hope to return from India with a solitary Test win at some point, while all other teams are virtually guaranteed to get whitewashed in brutal fashion.

Besides, India winning twice in Australia and once with their reserve team is a bigger achievement than anything South Africa managed away from home.

South Africa winning in India in 2008 or 2010 would have been on par with it, but they couldn’t close out either series.

In both series, they surrendered a 1-0 series lead with complete bottle-jobs in the final Tests (batted first both times) to showcase the fact that they did not possess the mentality and the ruthlessness of a truly great team.

 

[Mamoon]

Indian fans just ignore how collapse prone this batting lineup is once the ball begins to move.

SA under Smith would never lose anywhere 4-1 or get whitewashed like Kohli's team.

They lost 3 out of 4 Tests in Sri Lanka in 2004-2006 (the other Test was a draw) and conceded a 60,000 runs partnership to Sangakkara and Jayawardene in Colombo where they seemingly batted for about 50 days.

Smith’s South Africa will get flogged against Kohli’s India in India worse than they got flogged in Sri Lanka.

 

[Mamoon]

The Indian batting lineup have a huge weakness which SA doesn't: batting on seaming decks. The SA lineup rarely ever got dismissed for less than 200.

Let's just compare the core members of each team:

India: Rahane, Kohli, Pujara, Shami, Bumrah, Ishant, Ashwin

SA: Smith, Kallis, AB, Amla, Steyn, Morkel, Philander

SA have at least three worldclass batting legends, one all-time great batting all-rounder, one all-time great pacer and worldclass pace support.

They had several batting collapses at home and in spite of an endless supply of legends and titans and what not, they kept getting embarrassed at home. What a pity.

Imagine losing home Tests to West Indies in 2007 and Sri Lanka in 2011 and failing to beat England twice and then calling yourself a legendary Test team.

 

[Amjid Javed]

They had several batting collapses at home and in spite of an endless supply of legends and titans and what not, they kept getting embarrassed at home. What a pity.

Imagine losing home Tests to West Indies in 2007 and Sri Lanka in 2011 and failing to beat England twice and then calling yourself a legendary Test team.

Imagine losing all test series uve played in england, SA and NZ and doing bhangra every day because you were competative.

Lets ignore fact SA went so long unbeaten away from home in tests series but celebrate series wins in Australia by india.

Lets minupulate things to promote indias agenda.

I have no issues with india doing well. But the utter twisted logic you use id comedy at its best.

 

[shaz619]

Not much of a comparison, more SA players from that team would easily get into the current India team. Winning series away is almost as big as winning a WC trophy, SA overall much better just a few blips at home, you’d forgive that for the outstanding wins away

 

[Amjid Javed]

They lost 3 out of 4 Tests in Sri Lanka in 2004-2006 (the other Test was a draw) and conceded a 60,000 runs partnership to Sangakkara and Jayawardene in Colombo where they seemingly batted for about 50 days.

Smith’s South Africa will get flogged against Kohli’s India in India worse than they got flogged in Sri Lanka.

So your still flapping on about 2004-2006. Why dont you go in depth to kohlis pathetic peformance in SA ENG and NZ. The fact india have been awful in seaming or swinging conditions. Oh wait its only because they lose the toss they lose at these venues.

 

[AMSS]

Saffer peak in that arbitrarily cut-off period was built on coinciding peaks of multiple ATG players - Smith, Amla, Kallis, ABDV, Steyn, and even Morkel. It was not a peak built on the basis of depth or a variety of attack for different conditions.

India in the last few years has had a very different route to overall test dominance. Of the test regulars, Kohli, Bumrah, Jadeja, and Ashwin look certain to be test ATGs. But there hasn't been a sustained multi-year long overlap of their respective peaks as cricketers.

The absolute lack of depth for Saffers meant their cricket went to pieces once these ATGs retired. Hard to recall a steeper fall for any top flight team than South Africa. OTOH, like we saw in AUS and even the recent series against ENG, India are surprisingly not reliant on their top performers for test success.

I daresay, India has a better all round attack than Saffers ever had in that cut off period.

 

[AMSS]

I'd take Smith's South Africa ahead of Kohli's India, unless the match is being played anywhere in Asia.

Combined XI for mine:

Sharma
Smith
Amla
Kohli
Kallis
de Villiers
Pant (wk)
Ashwin
Steyn
Morkel
Bumrah

Combined XI for what conditions? In Subcontinent and even a few SENA venues, I'd gladly take Jadeja in place of Smith and have Amla open. In fact, I'd certainly choose Umesh over Morne in subcontinent.

 

[Last Monetarist]

Combined XI for what conditions? In Subcontinent and even a few SENA venues, I'd gladly take Jadeja in place of Smith and have Amla open. In fact, I'd certainly choose Umesh over Morne in subcontinent.

Picking someone that isn't a regular opener doesn't sit well with me, as it's frankly a cop out. That's why I picked Sharma as the other regular opening options are pitiful.

If it's a match in the subcontinent, I'd pick Jadeja as the second spinner instead of Morkel. Batting order stays the same.

 

[RamLakhan]

They had several batting collapses at home and in spite of an endless supply of legends and titans and what not, they kept getting embarrassed at home. What a pity.

Imagine losing home Tests to West Indies in 2007 and Sri Lanka in 2011 and failing to beat England twice and then calling yourself a legendary Test team.

Absolutely right! You need to be first strong at your home! That is when you really know how to dominate and be competitive outside, also it gives the best chance to produce quality players... The time when South Africa dominated most other teams barring Australia were weak and not even dominant at home (Even India were not this strong at home)! So they caught some teams on the wrong foot...

 

[szrana007]

What you have to factor in is the worldwide collapse in batting standards due to T20. It was harder to win a series anywhere a decade ago because batters would dig in and secure drawn matches. Nobody does that now unless rain interferes. Nearly every match results in a win.

I don't think batting standards were that higher in Strauss/Cook era. Australia had a weak batting lineup then, same with India whose batting was in transition and England feasted on those teams from 2009-2013.