Are India close to being top notch?

On their day India are hard to beat, but they have to start performing in big games in order to be considered a top notch side IMO.

As far as I am concerned there have only been two truly great sides, West Indies late 1970s to early 1990s and Australia from late 1994 until star of 2007. There is also the ‘would have been’ South African side of 1969-70 that was stopped dead in its tracks by world politics. The Chappell led sides of the mid 1970s had two magnificent home summers against an England side minus their best batsman and best fast bowler and against the West Indies prior to their golden era. That is not to disparage them, but rather to say they did not prove themselves anywhere else apart from a 1-0 win in a 4 test Ashes series in England between those two aforementioned home series. The 1948 side has dined out on the ‘invincible’ tag, taking it completely out of context ever since. The 1989 tour was just as long, the standard of opposition in both tests and county games higher and they also lost just one tour game and one ODI, a form of cricket that did not exist in 1948. After that, with Bradman retired, they won one more home Ashes series and then lost three in a row, two away and one home, despite retaining Miller, Lindwall, Morrisk and co. The contextual closest any side has ever come to the dominance of those aforementioned Windies and Aussie eras was England in the 1950s who went eight years from 1951 to 1959 without losing a test series, but they played nowhere near as many series, and the competition outside of Ashes cricket was nowhere near the 1980s, 90s and early part of the new century. I don’t think any team is ever going to achieve such a long term level of dominance again because the game is just too professional now and international cricket is just too even. The team that had the best opportunity was South Africa from about 2008 until recently, but they came nowhere near it despite having some of the best players the world has ever seen. As for the current Indian side, they certainly have a depth of fast bowling that would be the envy of most other countries, especially Australia. In the recent Melbourne Test one might have wondered if we were playing the West Indies of the 1980s. However, talented as Bumrah and the three Mohammads are, I don’t see them creating terror series after series all around the world unabated for anywhere near as long as a whole decade for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Also, in the Melbourne test, Steve Smith was still caught up in his first ever rut for some six years, Warner was out injured and Labuschagne was enduring an inevitable temporary low to follow up the high waves he had surfed the previous summer. Plus, fielding standards have risen and risen and risen since I started following cricket 40 years ago that the Indian bowlers in Melbourne were helped no end by all the valuable runs Australia were deprived of by relentless ground fielding – in our second innings when we were behind in the game, the fielders were stopping literally everything.

This India team is pretty good, but I struggle to see it as one of the great sides. The fast bowling is the best it's ever been and in conjunction with Ashwin and Jadeja, this means their bowling is probably the best it's ever been. Bowlers win matches, so they're winning more than they lose. But like most other sides around the world, they have one champion batsman and one class batsman and then there's a gulf after that. Much like Australia has been with Smith and Warner until Labuschagne's emergence. The reason I say this is that Rahane is really nothing special. To average over 40 after 70 tests in modern cricket is decent enough, but but hardly earth shattering. He averages one more run than Dhawan and only a handful of runs more than Vijay. You're line about him 'averaging over 50' is very misleading; he had an average above 50 for one test, his 29th, and then it dropped back down after that test and has basically been declining ever since.

I agree with The last two coments, as anyone will know that India don't travel well away from their own countrey and with a full test serise due to be played in England later this summer we will see.

India are a long way from being a great team. Against the swinging ball they struggle more than Australia does at the moment, and this Australian team isn't very good.

Completely understand your lack of confidence in Gill, Jeff because mine is a "hope" only. I'm a huge fan of mentors. In the case of a cricketer, I'm not talking about a coach, but about a player that can relate to the issue. You talk about Gill needing to play with soft hands, this is something Boycott could discuss with him. Or maybe a bowler who knows the frustration of getting the edge consistently, only to see it fall short thanks to really good technique. Guys like Gill have the whole world coaching him and probably few mentors, if any.

Yeah not sure he will Paul. He plays hard against and forward to the ball and I suspect swing - and seam - movement in England will cause him issues. I recall last summer the differences between Gill's edges carrying at height and Pujara's repeated soft-hand edges falling short, being quite a stark comparison.

India need to show they can play consistently in all conditions before they can achieve the dominance they crave.

I think what india needs is a fast bowling allrounder. I would like to see Shardul Thakur come in and play a bit more often. Also training Shami, Bumrah, and Siraj with the bat will come handy in ICC tournaments like these. Also I would like to see either Kohli, Pujara or Rahane to be dropped. I feel like they believe their positions are set solid, and that they don't have to worry about on being dropped.

The other thing it does is gives the bowler additional confidence when they stick around. A guy like McGrath probably didn't need his confidence built up to bowl well, but I'm sure that helped guys like Nathan Lyon, for example.

I think Gill is one of the more stylish batsmen I've seen in some time and clearly has a lot of time to play his shots. That said, I actually think he was flattered by what happened in Australia. He should have been out for next to nothing in his first innings where Labuschagne dropped an absolute sitter. That Gill went on to make runs in that innings and across the rest of the series, may have hidden issues with his batting that are coming out now. I too want him to do well because he looks the goods, but am not sure staying in the team right now is a good move. Hopefully he proves me wrong with a strong series against England.

Yep. A tailender who values his wicket and knows how to defend it will annoy and frustrate a fielding side far more than one who throws the bat to make hay while the sun shines.

Exactly. he also taught McGrath about leaving the ball and not being tempted as most tail-enders are when they see something in their zone. These are very simple concepts to teach anyone.

Both have played in excess of 140 games across all formats at top class level. I find it hard to accept age being a difference, given the amount of experience each has had.

Gill is 21, still a kid learning his trade. Conway is 29, well prepared and knows his craft well. Thats the difference.