Will India become an average team once their legends retire?

[jnaveen1980]

It depends on who you guys are calling the legends. KOHLI+ROHIT absence will be a huge set back and we have already witnessed that thing in sri lanka series.

Bumrah is a key asset as well. Saying that India will go all the way from 100 to 30 or 40 or 50% is a big statement. I think they will struggle but not as bad as we have seen in the case of Pakistan.

Srilankan series ? Australia lost 5 T20 series in a row before winning world T20. England lost 0-3 in Bangladesh in T20 series and then won the world T20. Bilateral series are suddenly reflecting something? People have short memory. Srilanka was rolled over for 51 and 50 in back to back matches against India. Asia cup final and world cup.

 

[mominsaigol]

Srilankan series ? Australia lost 5 T20 series in a row before winning world T20. England lost 0-3 in Bangladesh in T20 series and then won the world T20. Bilateral series are suddenly reflecting something? People have short memory. Srilanka was rolled over for 51 and 50 in back to back matches against India. Asia cup final and world cup.

A) Because of Bumrah and Shami ans the crux of this thread is after Bumrah and shami are gone.

B) DIFFERENT VERSIONS

 

[RahulBose]

It took em a decade to punch above micro-ocrity, it’s down hill from here, we will see these boys begging for UK visa soon.

US sure, but UK?
Nah...

That country is going downhill so fast....

 

[jnaveen1980]

A) Because of Bumrah and Shami ans the crux of this thread is after Bumrah and shami are gone.

B) DIFFERENT VERSIONS

Srilanka hardly wins anything against India lol They rarely out of the blue beats an Indian side that was forced to play. You use that to diss India? The whole series was a pointless series. Many players were not interested. But BCCI forced them to play. Even there team got succumbed only after the pitch became a deadly turner half way through the 2nd dig each time. You seriously think Srilanka is a better ODI team than India? A team that was accused of "deliberately losing" to India has suddenly beaten them. Srilanka has lost 21 out of last 27 matches against India winning only 5 int he last 10 years.

 

[Unleashed]

The people really think that the Lanka series is any indicator of our team without Kohli and Rohit. Jesus.

 

[mominsaigol]

Srilanka hardly wins anything against India lol They rarely out of the blue beats an Indian side that was forced to play. You use that to diss India? The whole series was a pointless series. Many players were not interested. But BCCI forced them to play. Even there team got succumbed only after the pitch became a deadly turner half way through the 2nd dig each time. You seriously think Srilanka is a better ODI team than India? A team that was accused of "deliberately losing" to India has suddenly beaten them. Srilanka has lost 21 out of last 27 matches against India winning only 5 int he last 10 years.

No, I only made this argument cause I got frustrated by people claiming 2024 India > 2003 Australia. We can agree to disagree but it's a ridiculous viewpoint in my personal opinion. Otherwise yes India > sri lanka lol.

I've made my stances clear and will never change them no matter how many Indians cry me a river.

1996 to 2003 Australia > Any side in history with the exception of maybe classic WI in odi and test

2007 Australia > Any side in history in odi and test. T20 came this time but classic Australia did not adjust sadly.

2011 India > 2011 Australia

2015 Australia > Any Indian side in history period

2016-2020 India > 2016-2020 Australia

2021 Australia >>>>>>>>>>> 2021 India

2022 India > 2022 Australia but both suck, Half of the Indian team was injured at this time.

2023 India and 2024 India > 2023 and 2024 Australia but the gap isn't sky high like people think and India don't stand a chance against australia in a final, Final mentality and pressure is different.

Won't ever change this opinion, no matter how many 2024 Kohli's and 2024 bunrah's are shoved in my face. 2024 India did not dominate, Pakistan and SA and Aus threw it away.

As for 2023 India, yes they did dominate but it was home den. Completly different story if the tournament was played in Australia.

The one pitch that was not a road which was the final led to India getting drubbed.

 

[Unleashed]

A) Because of Bumrah and Shami ans the crux of this thread is after Bumrah and shami are gone.

B) DIFFERENT VERSIONS

Shami didn't play in the Asia cup match whilst Bumrah took combined 2 wickets in both of those matches. Well done on continous clownery.

 

[jnaveen1980]

No, I only made this argument cause I got frustrated by people claiming 2024 India > 2003 Australia. We can agree to disagree but it's a ridiculous viewpoint in my personal opinion. Otherwise yes India > sri lanka lol.

I've made my stances clear and will never change them no matter how many Indians cry me a river.

1996 to 2003 Australia > Any side in history with the exception of maybe classic WI in odi and test

2007 Australia > Any side in history in odi and test. T20 came this time but classic Australia did not adjust sadly.

2011 India > 2011 Australia

2015 Australia > Any Indian side in history period

2016-2020 India > 2016-2020 Australia

2021 Australia >>>>>>>>>>> 2021 India

2022 India > 2022 Australia but both suck, Half of the Indian team was injured at this time.

2023 India and 2024 India > 2023 and 2024 Australia but the gap isn't sky high like people think and India don't stand a chance against australia in a final, Final mentality and pressure is different.

Won't ever change this opinion, no matter how many 2024 Kohli's and 2024 bunrah's are shoved in my face. 2024 India did not dominate, Pakistan and SA and Aus threw it away.

As for 2023 India, yes they did dominate but it was home den. Completly different story if the tournament was played in Australia.

The one pitch that was not a road which was the final led to India getting drubbed.

I won't put anything categorically. It is all about how match up works. In one era one team might be blessed with the force that can exploit the weakness of another opposition in another era. We will never know. Game has evolved. Rules have changed. Bowling in LOIs is lot thankless nowadays than before where you could reverse the ball, get a really scuffed up ball that can turn, scoot. Bowlers had to invent new things. Batsmen have invented new things to upset bowlers. So any comparison has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Because some teams do well in some conditions not in all conditions. I still remember the working over that 19 year old Ishant gave to Ponting in 2008 series. India never had aggressive bowlers. As a fan i always felt helpless not being able to take wicket. India rarely had bowlers that bowl at 140 clicks consistently. India under Kohli dramatically transformed into beastly fast bowling unit. India started resting one spinner and playing 4 seamers. If history says anything if you have 4 good quality seamers you can win matches in most of the countries. Been true since the heydays of West Indies. England proved that in 2005 with Harmison, Flintoff, Simon Jones, Hoggard. SA in the 90s had Donald, Fanie Devilliers, Schultz/Pringle/Snell, McMillan. That is how India started winning matches. ONly reason they couldn't win a lot more was because batting regressed a lot. Indian fast bowlers couldn't bat to save their lives. So tail became longer. Having 4 quality seamers i would back India to shock any opposition. Look at how Srilanka won the test in England. 4 decent seamers.

 

[mominsaigol]

I won't put anything categorically. It is all about how match up works. In one era one team might be blessed with the force that can exploit the weakness of another opposition in another era. We will never know. Game has evolved. Rules have changed. Bowling in LOIs is lot thankless nowadays than before where you could reverse the ball, get a really scuffed up ball that can turn, scoot. Bowlers had to invent new things. Batsmen have invented new things to upset bowlers. So any comparison has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Because some teams do well in some conditions not in all conditions. I still remember the working over that 19 year old Ishant gave to Ponting in 2008 series. India never had aggressive bowlers. As a fan i always felt helpless not being able to take wicket. India rarely had bowlers that bowl at 140 clicks consistently. India under Kohli dramatically transformed into beastly fast bowling unit. India started resting one spinner and playing 4 seamers. If history says anything if you have 4 good quality seamers you can win matches in most of the countries. Been true since the heydays of West Indies. England proved that in 2005 with Harmison, Flintoff, Simon Jones, Hoggard. SA in the 90s had Donald, Fanie Devilliers, Schultz/Pringle/Snell, McMillan. That is how India started winning matches. ONly reason they couldn't win a lot more was because batting regressed a lot. Indian fast bowlers couldn't bat to save their lives. So tail became longer. Having 4 quality seamers i would back India to shock any opposition.

This lart I agree.

India was unfortuanelty blessed with crap bowlers over the years, so much so that 2022 after their main pacers were injured gave you those feelings of helpless.

They just didn't have the bowling to take on Australia back in those days and many Pakistani encounters they lost was due to their bowling.

Now it's the opposite, even if their batting collapses the bowling is good enough to win games by itself.

They've come along way and I'm proud of them and India is one of my favourite teams. However despite this ik full well what 2024 Australia is capable of, and I'm telling you 2023 Australia and 2024 Australia is probs the worst aussie team to ever play a tournament excluding 2011 Australia and any pre 1996 aussie team.

Australian team now is in a transition phase similar to 2012 India. Starc is rubbish now, Smith is not the same in test and his whiteball career is done. Jake fraser is raw and Warner had been washed up for a while now but his 2023 Pakistani bashing fooled everyone since Warner can bash pakistan even if he's 80 lol.

The whole team is chopping and changing atm and by 2027 or even further you'll see a brand new aussie team.

2015 Australia was a goat team However 2024 on Paper with the likes of smith, Warner, starc aka their ace players(Watson in 2015) may sound lethal, But these guys were ironically their worst players excluding warmer.

And Marsh sadly is not the answer, he's a far cry from the various no 3's australia has had over the years.

As I said, team has been in transition from 2022 onwards and Australia is taking their time.

Atm they've figured out Travis head, now their trying to make Jake fraser a gem, They got their captain down in cummins, have realises that starc and smith are finished. But the team is still only 40% complete. Give it time.

 

[jnaveen1980]

This lart I agree.

India was unfortuanelty blessed with crap bowlers over the years, so much so that 2022 after their main pacers were injured gave you those feelings of helpless.

They just didn't have the bowling to take on Australia back in those days and many Pakistani encounters they lost was due to their bowling.

Now it's the opposite, even if their batting collapses the bowling is good enough to win games by itself.

They've come along way and I'm proud of them and India is one of my favourite teams. However despite this ik full well what 2024 Australia is capable of, and I'm telling you 2023 Australia and 2024 Australia is probs the worst aussie team to ever play a tournament excluding 2011 Australia and any pre 1996 aussie team.

Australian team now is in a transition phase similar to 2012 India. Starc is rubbish now, Smith is not the same in test and his whiteball career is done. Jake fraser is raw and Warner had been washed up for a while now but his 2023 Pakistani bashing fooled everyone since Warner can bash pakistan even if he's 80 lol.

The whole team is chopping and changing atm and by 2027 or even further you'll see a brand new aussie team.

2015 Australia was a goat team However 2024 on Paper with the likes of smith, Warner, starc aka their ace players(Watson in 2015) may sound lethal, But these guys were ironically their worst players excluding warmer.

And Marsh sadly is not the answer, he's a far cry from the various no 3's australia has had over the years.

As I said, team has been in transition from 2022 onwards and Australia is taking their time.

Atm they've figured out Travis head, now their trying to make Jake fraser a gem, They got their captain down in cummins, have realises that starc and smith are finished. But the team is still only 40% complete. Give it time.

Current Australia has 3 good bowlers. But the problem is 4th seamer. They are making a compromise there. That is where the role of Gilchrist became bigger in 2000 set ups. Although Inglis is not terrible he has not reached the level of Gilly. He gave an insurance. SYmonds was able to bowl. Having said that in the ODI bowling is thankless in this era with just 4 fielder outside the ring for 30 overs. What happened was it reduced the impact of part timers in the middle overs, off spinners as well. It forced them to use the seamers in the middle overs. Managing death overs is a nightmare in this era. Add to the fact you got two new balls. Absolutely no chance of reverse happening. plus fearless T20 batting has enhanced the range of shots which is makes bowling even harder. Imagine someone like SKY hitting a six behind keeper like a straight drive. Few changes, growth of T20 has made batsmen more audacious. In order to counter that bowlers had to come up with their own strategy like Rashid khan, Noor Ahmeda, kaminda mendis (ambi dexterous), Fiz all have their own way of trying to fool batsmen. Bumrah is clearly cut above in this as he can almost predict what batsman is about to do with precision. Both departments have improved. But rules have made bowling a little harder in this era.

 

[Mp812]

After legends retire, team India was expected to be average since days of Gavaskar, Vengserkar etc....but some one or other comes along....like Tendulkar, Ganguly, Dravid, VVS,sehwag,Yuvraj etc......then Kohli,Rohit,pujara.............and in future maybe Gill, Jaiswal. Musheer, Sarfaraz etc to carry on.

Selection process based on randomly picking a player on gut instinct gets you a gem player...but it works once in a while like Imran picked Inzi,Akram .... but systematic cricket structure like Aus, Eng, Ind will find replacements in short period of time consistently

 

[mominsaigol]

But you got to have actual performance specially if contention for being better than McGrath.

You don't have to go by raw stats and simply say that some one with 22 avg is superior to some one with 24. That will be ridiculous. You will always see how those averages were achieved and where they were achieved. How many match changing spells and where etc... Now all that is not needed if you have seen entire career of players. I did not see Garner playing live. I only saw footage and I can only see stats.

Now without actual performances, it becomes very hard to justify an opinion. Garner was very good, that's for sure.

As you said, agree to disagree.

Joel Garner has tons of footages and live matches lol.

Regardless to answer your question, Sir Ian Botham claimed that Garner was the greatest bowler he's ever seen and went so far to claim that, that you simply don't play Garner, he's that good.

Garner is over 98 odi's only averaged 18 amd his List A career is even more impressive with him avg 16.

Further more the guy has 259 wickets in 58 test matches at an average of 20 which is bloody insane, his first test series against pakistan resulted in him decimating the team and taking 25 wickets in that series alone. Lastly his 5 for 39 against England in the final to this date remains the best ever performance by any bowler in a final to date. He was the main reason why West Indies won in the first place.

Now to talk about why I rate Garner higher, it's simple. Mcgrath is difficult to play because he bowls consistent line and length and forces batter to loft which gets wickets.

But Joel Garner would consistently bowl chest high deliveries at an awkward angle. To top it off he frequently would bowl at 150 to 152 clicks from a height of 6'8.

Garner had 2 deliveries only, the chest high delivery or the yorker and he was gun at executing it. He was basically a faster version of mcgrath with even more variation.

Joel garner > Mcgrath for me. And to talk about longevity, Garner throughout his run remained consistent, he was only dropped due to injuries but till his retirement he never dropped, However unfortunately due to the era he played in, He has very few games, only 98 odi's and 58 tests despite playing from 1979 to 1983

 

[charlie007]

Agree to disagree. I don't go by stats like others.

You were born nearly 2 decades after Garner retired, how else are you basing your assessment?

 

[Varun]

Yep, we'll be pretty average - #6 or #7 in the rankings tops.

 

[NishanKonar]

If anyone thinks that current teams are not strong then just to point it out, McGrath has 4 5-fers in wins againt top 4 oppositions in their den. 3 out of 4 came agaisnt weak WI batting line up. WI batting unit after mid 90s was not that strong and that's why Lara has so few tons in win despite having ATG bowlers with him.

It simply shows how hard it is to bowl a match changing spells against a strong batting line up in their den. That's why I rate Steyn very high and that's why I rate Bumrah high despite having such a short career. Extremely high impact bowlers in test format. Does not mean that I rate Bumrah higher than the likes of Steyn, McGrath or Wasim right now.

McGrath , Dale Steyn & Bumrah were the most impactful bowlers of the last 30 days. Their ability to take wickets when the situation demanded

Wasim Akram has beautiful action , good swing but tell me how many times did he win a test match in SENA . Bumrah has allready done that so many times and he is only half way through his career

 

[NishanKonar]

You were born nearly 2 decades after Garner retired, how else are you basing your assessment?

These guys just watch a lot of youtube , read stats on Cricinfo and pass weird judgments

Like no way Joel Garner will ever be in a conversation involving McGrath or Steyn or Bumrah - Malcolm Marshall wud be

Joel Garner's comparison wud be with someone like Morne Morkel or Hazelwood. He was always a support bowler , never a strike bolwer

 

[Buffet]

Joel Garner has tons of footages and live matches lol.

Regardless to answer your question, Sir Ian Botham claimed that Garner was the greatest bowler he's ever seen and went so far to claim that, that you simply don't play Garner, he's that good.

Garner is over 98 odi's only averaged 18 amd his List A career is even more impressive with him avg 16.

Further more the guy has 259 wickets in 58 test matches at an average of 20 which is bloody insane, his first test series against pakistan resulted in him decimating the team and taking 25 wickets in that series alone. Lastly his 5 for 39 against England in the final to this date remains the best ever performance by any bowler in a final to date. He was the main reason why West Indies won in the first place.

Now to talk about why I rate Garner higher, it's simple. Mcgrath is difficult to play because he bowls consistent line and length and forces batter to loft which gets wickets.

But Joel Garner would consistently bowl chest high deliveries at an awkward angle. To top it off he frequently would bowl at 150 to 152 clicks from a height of 6'8.

Garner had 2 deliveries only, the chest high delivery or the yorker and he was gun at executing it. He was basically a faster version of mcgrath with even more variation.

Joel garner > Mcgrath for me. And to talk about longevity, Garner throughout his run remained consistent, he was only dropped due to injuries but till his retirement he never dropped, However unfortunately due to the era he played in, He has very few games, only 98 odi's and 58 tests despite playing from 1979 to 1983

He simply does not have much imapct. You are just listing 1-2 matches. In his entire career, he has taken only 3 5-fers in win. Forget about win, he has grand total of 7 5-fers in career.

He played with Marhsall, Holding and Roberts.

Marshall - 81 tests - 22 5-fers
Holding - 60 tests - 13 5-fers
Roberts - 47 tests - 11 5-fers

Garner - 58 tests - 7 5-fers

Looks a great support bowler in that unit and not really a strike bowler. Marshall was the leader of pack and vastly superior You got to stand out against your peers at least to be in contention of best in history.

 

[Buffet]

McGrath , Dale Steyn & Bumrah were the most impactful bowlers of the last 30 days. Their ability to take wickets when the situation demanded

Wasim Akram has beautiful action , good swing but tell me how many times did he win a test match in SENA . Bumrah has allready done that so many times and he is only half way through his career

In Impact, Bumrah is right up there with the best. But to be rated along side Steyn and McGrath, he has to do it for a longer period.

 

[kron]

In Impact, Bumrah is right up there with the best. But to be rated along side Steyn and McGrath, he has to do it for a longer period.

Just 3 to 4 more years max is enough.

If he wins a wtc and a couple of series wins in SA and England then it's sealed.

Easily top 5 of all time.

For bumrah that is. He is already in top 10 greatest bowlers of all time.

One additional bonus would be if he can help india win one more BG series.

 

[mominsaigol]

You were born nearly 2 decades after Garner retired, how else are you basing your assessment?

Wow I didn't know full matches on the Internet didn't exist. It's a Shame I didn't get to watch terminator 2 in 1991 cause I wasn't their in the cinema.

Clearly we don't live in a world where recordings exist. Sorry brother, I shpuld have known better

 

[mominsaigol]

These guys just watch a lot of youtube , read stats on Cricinfo and pass weird judgments

Like no way Joel Garner will ever be in a conversation involving McGrath or Steyn or Bumrah - Malcolm Marshall wud be

Joel Garner's comparison wud be with someone like Morne Morkel or Hazelwood. He was always a support bowler , never a strike bolwer

Jee jee, please tell me about your experience watching Garner in 1979

 

[mominsaigol]

He simply does not have much imapct. You are just listing 1-2 matches. In his entire career, he has taken only 3 5-fers in win. Forget about win, he has grand total of 7 5-fers in career.

He played with Marhsall, Holding and Roberts.

Marshall - 81 tests - 22 5-fers
Holding - 60 tests - 13 5-fers
Roberts - 47 tests - 11 5-fers

Garner - 58 tests - 7 5-fers

Looks a great support bowler in that unit and not really a strike bowler. Marshall was the leader of pack and vastly superior You got to stand out against your peers at least to be in contention of best in history.

Brother I can see who's better with my own eyes

 

[Buffet]

I think without going into across era comaprisons, you have to stand out in your era and be the best in your era if you want to be in contention for the best test bowler in history.

ODI has changed a lot, but test cricket has not changed much. Great bowlers will do fine in any era. If some one stands out for extended period, let's say 10 years period, in any era then yah, you are in contention for the top 5 test bowlers or the top 5 test batsman in history by default. In 50 years you get by default 5 bowlers and 5 bastmen. Then you can add more people in list and make it 10-12 bowlers and 10-12 batsmen as contender for the ATG XI. That will be the best of the best list.

 

[Buffet]

Brother I can see who's better with my own eyes

But that's just opinion without actual performance. Actual performance will show up in relative impact agaisnt peers.

Nothing wrong in liking Garner more than some other bowlers. I was just trying to see if he had actual performances to belong in the top 5.

 

[NishanKonar]

But that's just opinion without actual performance. Actual performance will show up in relative impact agaisnt peers.

Nothing wrong in liking Garner more than some other bowlers. I was just trying to see if he had actual performances to belong in the top 5.

Joel Garner was always the 3rd or 4th seamer. yes he had great stats but thats bcoz he was playing along side Marshall & Holding

Just like McGrath made Gillepsie & Kasprowicz much better than they were. Dale Steyn made Morne Morkel much better than h was. Look at how Shami, Umesh & Ishant improved after Bumrah came along.

Coming back to Garner - he was easily the weakest link in that pace attack - and his career effectively ended once Courtney Walsh made his debut - unlike Marshall, Holding & Roberts who retired when they actually got old

 

[mominsaigol]

But that's just opinion without actual performance. Actual performance will show up in relative impact agaisnt peers.

Nothing wrong in liking Garner more than some other bowlers. I was just trying to see if he had actual performances to belong in the top 5.

Lol everything is opinionated. You guys act and treat your own opinions as facts.

The thing about stats and numbers is that it's quantitative data, it has to be given a qualititvate interpretation which will always be opinionated.

For example Babar has a higher avg then Sachin Tendulkar, Now to make sense of this, one has to argue qualititvately and look at various other angles and other forms of quantititatibe and qualititvate data to form their own conclusion.

The issue qith Indian posters is that if something is said about their precious Sachin, they attack in waves or get personal and start acting high and mighty, not realising that their own hive collective mind is also their own opinion lol.

Something can only be a fact if it's solely quantitive and you can prove it by quanititive measures only, For example Einstein theory of realitivity or proving the world is round by calculating it's circumference from space etc etc.

 

[NishanKonar]

In Impact, Bumrah is right up there with the best. But to be rated along side Steyn and McGrath, he has to do it for a longer period.

Yes. The only thing that separates Bumrah from the club of McGrath / Steyn / Marshall / Lillee is that 300 wicket benchmark in test cricket. Should get there in 3 years if he has no major injury

 

[Devadwal]

Brother I can see who's better with my own eyes

Yea Agha Salman is better than Rizwan sum up everything about your cricketing knowledge .

 

[mominsaigol]

Yea Agha Salman is better than Rizwan sum up everything about your cricketing knowledge .

You're gonna take that Bangladesh match thread literally? Lol. Should I take your trolls during wc 2024 literally

 

[Buffet]

Lol everything is opinionated. You guys act and treat your own opinions as facts.

The thing about stats and numbers is that it's quantitative data, it has to be given a qualititvate interpretation which will always be opinionated.

For example Babar has a higher avg then Sachin Tendulkar, Now to make sense of this, one has to argue qualititvately and look at various other angles and other forms of quantititatibe and qualititvate data to form their own conclusion.

The issue qith Indian posters is that if something is said about their precious Sachin, they attack in waves or get personal and start acting high and mighty, not realising that their own hive collective mind is also their own opinion lol.

Something can only be a fact if it's solely quantitive and you can prove it by quanititive measures only, For example Einstein theory of realitivity or proving the world is round by calculating it's circumference from space etc etc.

Let's keep Indian posters, SRT etc away. Useless discussion.

Stats with context and not just raw stats.

It will be poorly thought opinion if some one just takes a aggregate average to decide standing of batsman or bowler. It becomes very clear when some one looks at away average, 5-fers, spells, tons, knocks outside of home conditions.

It does not take more than 5 minuts to see how a player has done outside his home in all kinds of conditions. In test cricket, away performance is the one defines greatness. It was true 30 years back and it's true right now.

If you have match changing knocks and spells outside of home then everyone gives credit. If you can do it agaisnt strong oppositions then it's not hard to see.

Problem with pushing Garner for best in history is that he has 7 5-fers in entire career while his team mates had 2-3 times higher 5-fers playing in the same team. After this if you are arguing that stats is not everything and I am using stats incorrectly then I don't have much to add.

Due to my profession, I am very familiar with stats without context and stats with context.

 

[charlie007]

Wow I didn't know full matches on the Internet didn't exist. It's a Shame I didn't get to watch terminator 2 in 1991 cause I wasn't their in the cinema.

Clearly we don't live in a world where recordings exist. Sorry brother, I shpuld have known better

You will watch highlights on YouTube not full matches. Bhuvneshwar Kumar looks unplayable in highlights. There are no full matches publicly and easily available from those times.

If you only watched a trailer of Terminator, you will have no idea about the movie, will you?

 

[giri26]

I am sorry that is not going to happen. India have been preparing for the exit of Virat and Rohit for a long time. That's the reason Virat and Rohit hardly played any bi-laterals. In T20 we have already moved on as we saw in Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka. In ODIs it will take a while for a good combination but we will get there. India does not have the dearth of talent which means that we will manage to put up good teams for at least the next few years. We just want good coaches to manage the team and sorry contrary to what all Indian fans think Gambhir is not that.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Let's keep Indian posters, SRT etc away. Useless discussion.

Stats with context and not just raw stats.

It will be poorly thought opinion if some one just takes a aggregate average to decide standing of batsman or bowler. It becomes very clear when some one looks at away average, 5-fers, spells, tons, knocks outside of home conditions.

It does not take more than 5 minuts to see how a player has done outside his home in all kinds of conditions. In test cricket, away performance is the one defines greatness. It was true 30 years back and it's true right now.

If you have match changing knocks and spells outside of home then everyone gives credit. If you can do it agaisnt strong oppositions then it's not hard to see.

Problem with pushing Garner for best in history is that he has 7 5-fers in entire career while his team mates had 2-3 times higher 5-fers playing in the same team. After this if you are arguing that stats is not everything and I am using stats incorrectly then I don't have much to add.

Due to my profession, I am very familiar with stats without context and stats with context.

Wisden has given best all condition XI in Test history

Wisden’s ‘Masters of all conditions’ all-time Test XI

Some of crickets all-time greats still had serious gaps in their CVs, especially when it came to performing overseas.Subscribe to the Wisden Cricket YouTube channel for post-match analysis, player interviews, and much more.

www.wisden.com

Gavaskar
Bob simpson
Greg Chappell
Sachin Tendulkar
Allan Border
ABDV
Alan Davidson
Dale Steyn
Curtly Ambrose
Glenn Mcgrath
Lance Gibbs


Some choices may be debatable. But players with large sampleset deserve to be in this list.

 

[mominsaigol]

You will watch highlights on YouTube not full matches. Bhuvneshwar Kumar looks unplayable in highlights. There are no full matches publicly and easily available from those times.

If you only watched a trailer of Terminator, you will have no idea about the movie, will you?

Bhuvi kumar? You can watch 2012 and 2013 ct and we'll as 2014 asia cup full matches easily? Lol

 

[Devadwal]

You're gonna take that Bangladesh match thread literally? Lol. Should I take your trolls during wc 2024 literally

Ist not only about bangladesh series. 90% times your post regarding rizwan are negative while he is best batsman from Pakistan recently

 

[Ab Fan]

Wisden has given best all condition XI in Test history

Wisden’s ‘Masters of all conditions’ all-time Test XI

Some of crickets all-time greats still had serious gaps in their CVs, especially when it came to performing overseas.Subscribe to the Wisden Cricket YouTube channel for post-match analysis, player interviews, and much more.

www.wisden.com

Gavaskar
Bob simpson
Greg Chappell
Sachin Tendulkar
Allan Border
ABDV
Alan Davidson
Dale Steyn
Curtly Ambrose
Glenn Mcgrath
Lance Gibbs


Some choices may be debatable. But players with large sampleset deserve to be in this list.

Graeme Smith should be there instead of simpson. Rest of the list looks perfect although Wasim can come in for Davidson.

 

[mominsaigol]

Ist not only about bangladesh series. 90% times your post regarding rizwan are negative while he is best batsman from Pakistan recently

Because I don't like rizwan, why can't you get that?

Rizwan made his debut in 2015 and from 2015 to 2019 he was mostly a passenger frequently getting dropped because he was mediocre at any number assigned to him.

In 2016 afridi even tried to forward rizwan in t20 but dropping sarfraz even though sarfi was vc at the time and even then rizzu botched it.

Even in the tri series rizwan flunked everything at no 4 and fakhar with his 91 of 46 in the final took pakistan to no 1 ranked in t20.

Misbah when he was appointed as head coach, he always like chavha and rizwan during sngpl days, and forwarded these 2, ruining other careers in the process.

For fakhar he mentioned that even though fakhar did what he did in the tri series final, he was inconsistent and t20 requires stability at the top, which is laughable because t20 is the one format where anchoring and stability is not required but X factors are, What's even worse he said rizzu will provide that stability deapite rizwan, being a failure in t20 at the time, and only c string aussie 100's were his 2 outlier innings in odi.

He dis the same with chacha, brining chacha on when zampa finished his spell, Australia soon caught onto this and would wait until chacha came out to give zampa a free wicket.

Regardless rizwan at opening worked, rizzu at odi no 5 failed but at no 4 after a while worked and now In test he's working, so unlike chacha you can say he made full use of Misbah's nepotism factor. However at what cost?

As soon as he got his positions pakistan has devolved deep into a spiral rut?

2017 to 2019 team has players all > Rizzu in both abilities + gelling with the team.

Azhar Ali is an underrated batter who scored vital runs against England and India and he was the top scorer against Bangladesh as well, since his return for 2 years he avg 40 and 85 sr.

Babar from 2017-2019 is much superior.

Haris sohail, Hafeez and Fakhar were pakistan's best bats, malik, imad and sarfi play no 6 and no 7 and no 8 far better then Mr mein khush nahi hoon no 5 pei.

Just look at sarfi's NZ 100 and Rizzu 171? Heck just look at Das's match saving 100 and look at how rizzu was playing with tails?

People use to critise Sachin back in 2012 as well, Called him a pathetic selfish accumulator with his Bangladesh 100 being the height of frustration, However atleast with Sachin it's forgivable because it's the back end of his career. In his prime he was a gun batter and played clutch for his team. Rizzu has no excuse, he's in his freaking prime.

 

[BouncerGuy]

Thread is not about Rizwan so please stop derailing this thread.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

The ATG Australian team dominated 1999, 2003 and 2007 World Cups and beat everyone everywhere except India.

There is no better team anywhere.

Current India?

Laughable to compare them to ATG Australia.

I watched that era and Australians were mostly invincible.

Current Indian team hasnt even won a ODI World Cup which was made for India on Indian designed pitches.

who is comparing them?

 

[kron]

Let's keep Indian posters, SRT etc away. Useless discussion.

Stats with context and not just raw stats.

It will be poorly thought opinion if some one just takes a aggregate average to decide standing of batsman or bowler. It becomes very clear when some one looks at away average, 5-fers, spells, tons, knocks outside of home conditions.

It does not take more than 5 minuts to see how a player has done outside his home in all kinds of conditions. In test cricket, away performance is the one defines greatness. It was true 30 years back and it's true right now.

If you have match changing knocks and spells outside of home then everyone gives credit. If you can do it agaisnt strong oppositions then it's not hard to see.

Problem with pushing Garner for best in history is that he has 7 5-fers in entire career while his team mates had 2-3 times higher 5-fers playing in the same team. After this if you are arguing that stats is not everything and I am using stats incorrectly then I don't have much to add.

Due to my profession, I am very familiar with stats without context and stats with context.

You need to perform in home conditions too. Not just be an away specialist. Asian bowlers can get that exemption given how dreadful pitches can be for pace bowling. So you can minus a few average points ofd their final average in home conditions. But yes home performance overall and away performance in sena countries matter.

 

[Buffet]

You need to perform in home conditions too. Not just be an away specialist. Asian bowlers can get that exemption given how dreadful pitches can be for pace bowling. So you can minus a few average points ofd their final average in home conditions. But yes home performance overall and away performance in sena countries matter.

Good home condition performance is pretty much given for any good player and that's why I did not bother to list. It will be extremely rare to find players who did far better away when compared to home, but other way around is norm.

 

[kron]

Good home condition performance is pretty much given for any good player and that's why I did not bother to list. It will be extremely rare to find players who did far better away when compared to home, but other way around is norm.

Don't know about that. Cause in india pitches aren't conducive to pace bowling. See ishant and zaheers average in India. Depends on home pitch conditions too

 

[Buffet]

Don't know about that. Cause in india pitches aren't conducive to pace bowling. See ishant and zaheers average in India. Depends on home pitch conditions too

Yes, but over all if you see then most bowlers do better at home. Even for India if you go for atleast 50 wickets after 80s at home then,

Avg at home:

Shami - 22
Yadav - 25
Srinath - 26
Dev - 27
Sharma - 31
Khan - 35

Avg away for same bowlers:

Shami - 30
Yadav - 37
Srinath - 36
Dev - 31
Sharma - 32
Khan - 31

Khan is the only exeption here who did better away.

Yes, if pitch is highway then even good bowlers will struggle at home, but with a large enough sample size( like 40 tests home and 40 tests away ) most bowlers do better at home. Its rare to have super roads for entire career. Point noted about exceptional situation where you get very flat pitches all the time.

 

[thelandofthebravepeople]

India is stacked with Batters and spinners. I doubt they will feel the absence of Kohli, Rohit etc.

Bumra is very unique bowler, so they might struggle in replacing him.

 

[kron]

Yes, but over all if you see then most bowlers do better at home. Even for India if you go for atleast 50 wickets after 80s at home then,

Avg at home:

Shami - 22
Yadav - 25
Srinath - 26
Dev - 27
Sharma - 31
Khan - 35

Avg away for same bowlers:

Shami - 30
Yadav - 37
Srinath - 36
Dev - 31
Sharma - 32
Khan - 31

Khan is the only exeption here who did better away.

Yes, if pitch is highway then even good bowlers will struggle at home, but with a large enough sample size( like 40 tests home and 40 tests away ) most bowlers do better at home. Its rare to have super roads for entire career. Point noted about exceptional situation where you get very flat pitches all the time.

It's not event that lol.

In 2021 vs england 3rd and 4th test boom was complaining that he had nothing to do in the game lmao. Cause ash and jadeja ran through England. He was saying bhai why you even pick me lol.

He bowled 6 7 overs went for some runs with no wickets but then the spinners just mutilated England right after.

 

[Cricket Warrior]

India has a strong cricketing system and also a large pool of players from where they can pick any substitute so i dont think retirement of any player will hurt them.

 

[batandballbattle]

People were saying the same when players like Sachin, Sehwag, Dravid etc. hung up their boots. They always manage to find talent from somewhere.

 

[nish_mate]

Once our current lot of "legends" retire, there potentially could be a phase where we might lose 8-0 abroad, butr rest assured never going to be swept at home by all comers and never by BD.