Read on Twitter
The man knows statistics, match ups in sports and how rare something like Kolkata win is and wants to argue that THAT win by Indian team with some of the most outstanding individual performances with some helpful umpiring makes that team inferior to current Australian team!
The current team has lost 3 series at home in 5 years with this bowling line up. They haven't won an overseas series in quite some time. How can you argue so bluntly as if others don't understand cricket at all.
For the record - the reason Australia lost to India in 2001 was Warne's performance. Against India, he was worse than a mortal. He averaged 24 with SR 55.3 and was a SPIN BOWLER. He bowled way more overs at higher SR and averaged 2.68 wickets per innings.
That meant they always kept the pressure up. You knock Warne off (or Lyon , which is considerably easier), you have an attack under pressure more often.
That is why that Indian team competed against Australia better than other teams. The match up suited them better. India wasn't a better team than SA during 92-07, India was just a better matchup because they knocked Warne off and McGrath missed 2 tours.
And don't give me the nonsensical argument that "of course attacking one bowler makes life easier, there is nothing to be said". The point is - spin bowlers are essential for variety and to give breather to fast bowlers whose spells aren't as long.
And Warne wasn't any spin bowler - he bowled a lot, kept an awful amount of pressure and got wickets at SR of fast bowlers but in lesser time as he got through overs quickly. So saying they have 2 great fast bowlers and saying Warne is only slightly better than Hazlewood is wrong
Reason - he isn't. Hazlewood will bowl a maximum of 22 overs in a day. He will not ever bowl 70 overs in an innings and win you match. Warne did that in Cape town and bowled 40+ overs about 34 times in 140 matches. Hazlewood has done so 2 times. So please.
