In 2003 your batting was at its peak with Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Martyn, S.Waugh, Gilchrist and you had McGill, Lee and Gillespie in the bowling department. McGill has tons of wickets against most sides as well and Aussies rated him highly.
Gillespie was at his peak as well and he was as good as any bowler back then. I don`t think any other side would`ve challenged even the above mentioned side. And the Indian pace attack now is far better than 2003/4. We had Nehra, Agarkar and a debutant Irfan in the test lineup then. Zaheer got injured after taking a 5er at the GABBA. I could easily pick on that one. 2003/04, Australia were at their peak.
You still had Hayden, Gilly and Lee in the 2007/08 series and that side was thrashing teams other than India around. It takes nothing away from the fact that India have been the most successful side against Australia in the past decade or so. I don`t remember SL,Pakistan or NZ winning a single game against Australia all these years. SA could`nt beat them till 2008/09. People still claim how great SA`s win over Australia was. Noone talks about Hayden`s career declining or Lee getting injured in that series.
Correct, India has been the most successful side against Australia. I made my original post when the argument was that India hadn't challenged
Australia, at their peak. Now I don't think that's true, India have at least challenged Australia at their peak, but I still say that
at their peak, Australia was fairly clearly a better side. That's what my figures were intended to show. And that India has been lucky to avoid the 2 best players. Maybe I'm being too picky about 'peak', but I like having the 2 best players before trying to prove that a team is at their peak.
Actually, you have no idea about that either. What makes your imaginative musings any more accurate than mine? I'd say the fact that Warnie got smashed at 62.55 at home against the Indians is a pretty good reason to assume that he wouldn't be all that successful.
I don't know where you are getting 62.55 from. This page suggests Warne's average in India is 43.11:
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com
And even that average is inflated a bit due to the lack of support in that legendary 97/98 - he was a one man band. Gavin Robertson was the other spinner, Kasprowicz led the pace bowlers with Adam Dale as support. Warne was quickly worn (:doh) down.
To prove, here's Warne's averages in India:
with McGrath: 6 Tests, 24 wickets @ 38.58
without McGrath ('97/98): 3 Tests, 10 wickets @ 54.00
Still not awesome with McGrath, but a darn sight better than that 97/98 tour indicated. I'll be the first to admit that India is his worst venue - but he wasn't HELLISHLY BAD, like Joe Average cricket fan thinks.
As someone mentioned earlier, India was missing Tendulkar in 2 of the 4 Tests in the 2004 series. We've never really had a star bowler. But the point I am making is that if Australia is losing all their players just prior to a series against India, that's not India's fault. The fitness of a player is equally important to how good they are. A legend of a player is no good if they're injured during all the big match-ups.
Fair point. It's not India's fault, but it is still lucky that they've avoided Australia's best 2 players more than Australia has avoided India's best player. Example? Tendulkar's much lauded record v Australia. Exactly 2 of his 10 centuries v Australia came in against a team featuring both Warne and McGrath... Ridiculous - given they were all current players for over 10 years, yet he managed to avoid McGrath in particular a lot. That's not his fault, but it's good fortune.
You still ignored my point. How many dead rubbers had Australia lost in that historical context. Since you don't want to find out, I'll do it for you. In the last 13 dead rubbers Australia had played prior to that Indian series--the number of those matches in this decade (against opposition such as England, South Africa, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, etc.)--Australia had won 9. So it's not as if they just gave up on the dead rubber games.
And to play devil's advocate. The only LIVE Tests Australia lost between Oct 1999 up until that 2004 India series were the 2 India Tests in 2001, and in Adelaide in 2003/04. All their other losses were in dead rubbers: v England in 2001, v SA in 2001/02, v Eng in 2002/03, v WI in 2003 then v India in 2004. So they lost 5 dead rubbers Test. They only lost 8 in TOTAL!!
To be clear, Australia's record in Tests: Oct 1999 - end of India tour 2004:
I count 18 dead rubbers: 5 Losses.
I count 43 Live tests: 3 Losses.
And if I just include the series with those dead rubber losses - In the live Tests: 13 Tests, 12 Wins, 1 Draw (the Chennai match - which MIGHT have turned into an Aussie loss)
They played well in dead rubbers sure - but only because they were so awesome to start with they couldn't play THAT much worse.
Finally, the summary that the 2-1 series was firmly Australia's because the only game India won was a dead rubber is inaccurate.
I know what you are saying. The series was much closer than the result. I agree. BUT THE LAST TEST WAS STILL DEAD.
