"When they came into the series, you would have thought Australia had the advantage with pace while India had the advantage in the spin department. Well, what we saw here in Mohali was India having the advantage all-round in bowling. The Indian quickies outbowled their Australian counterparts and there was absolutely no doubt about which team had the class spinners." Source - http://www.cricinfo.com/talk/content/multimedia/374836.html

Guess who said all this - not very long back about exactly - man to man - the same bowling line-up from India? Mr. Chappell, give us a break. And stop being so systematic about losing all the respect that you have gained

...contd... It still hurts Harsha. As a fan of the legends (from SRT to the latest - Sehwag), the only cure for the pain is an Indian series win in Australia when they travel there next year and nothing less than that! Even the World Cup is a mean achievement for me. But for that comparison, the show was really good. Good attempt to have time out here as well, given that we do not often get to to watch these shows online. hope we hear more of this. Coming to India staying there, it needs a champion bowler as IC said. But that bowler cannot necessary be a pace man. We need a champion spinner who knows what patience and grind is. I see Ojha being one. Yes he is a finger spinner. But he doesn't lose his focus if the batsmen attack him. Bhajji starts going wayward if he doesn't get wickets in his first few overs and it gets easy to milk him for runs later on. Either Bhajji has to learn patience or he must be replaced. Simple as that. Of course we need to make Mishra and Chawla better too.

The mind is like a stack and so is mine too. Last in first out. There are things which are digestible, Harsha and there are things which are just chewable but not digestible. We can of course chew as well as digest the LBW decision against Sreesanth because the number of times it happened in that test is not as many. I would have rather loved to hear you quoting more such decisions in the very same test. But in case of 2008 SCG, Oz were tottering at 134-6 when Hogg joined Symonds and it was 1911/6 when the caught behind appeal was not given. We could very well have got them under 300 (Considering wrong decisions and dropped catches too) and ended up with a lead of 232! We could even have won the match. Or in case of Dravid's dismissal in the 2nd innings, we could have saved it! If England had won at Lords, the result would have been 1 - 1. If we had won in SCG, the result would have been 2-1 for India! One decision changed the match in Lords whereas it changed the series in SCG.

I don't agree with Sanjay that the standard of cricket got weaker. I think the modern mindset has changed with the mindset of post-modern culture. To take risks are valued more than playing a good technical game which you know ultimately will lead to a safe result. There are times to play for these, but if it was all the time we would see boring cricket. Many batsmen especially could block all day, but why would they.

Test cricket is to me also more interesting because a game is never lost in a moment. It takes 5 days to lose, but any team can potentially seize the moment and turn the match. It is the team that does this more consistently who wins and thus leads to a fair result. The shorter versions are for consumers who wants short lived shopping sprees of sixes and fours, versus a good battle between bat and ball. In the short versions with batting friendly pitches, if you pitch a huge total most times you will win. Lots of action, but no contest. More flash, less skills.

Hahahaha Classice certainly no love lost between Chapellie and Boycs! Classic and so very true.

Test cricket is in a great place at present with 5 teams able to push for number 1. None of them are likely to hold that position long term but like Chaps said it's better to have that than 1 team dominating for a 10-15 year period.

It's the best form of the game and if test can have tight contests then we all win.

Harsha/Ian, three exceptions to your comments in my opinion:

1. Ian, you said it would have pleased you if India had caught up with Australia when they were in their prime. Let me remind you, since 2000 when the great Australian team of the 2000s came together, India 7 - Australia 7 in 17 Test matches. I agree India wasn't nearly as great as Australia overall in beating other teams, but head to head mate, Australia cannot claim to be better than India !!

2. Harsha, India is #1 now and hence the best team NOW, no one called them one of the best all time teams, so please don't confuse these two accolades..

3. Yes Harsha, Sreesanth did enjoy good fortune in helping India draw at Lords. But in any given Test match, 1 or 2 questionable calls (especially LBWs) are inevitable but the Sydney Test match in 2008 will have to go down in history as one of the worst officiated Test matches (definitely turned the match on its head), so again wrong comparison mate..

Indian bowlers' stats don't look so good, but that is because of the lifeless pitches they have to bowl in India. Whenever India tours a place known for seaming pitches -- England, Australia, New Zealand, SA; one of the bowlers puts in match winning performances.

Since 2001, India has played 19 matches at home and away winning 7 losing 6 and 6 draws. Of the wins 4 came against Australia when Australia were at their peak. Therefore, it is not entirely fair to take away from India's splendid achievement.

Mr.Chappell and Mr.Bhogle,India have just now reached the first spot and are yet to play their first test after the achievement.So,I can't understand how you guys have assumed it is short-term.And also,I don't see the relevance of comparing this team with the aus and win team of the past.India are the no1 team among the current teams.Yes,India don't have a most feared bowling attack but currently no one else has such an attack in the world. Australia were not Windies and India are not Australia.India has a batting line-up which is the best in the world which makes for the absence of great bowling attack.India have won series in nz,eng,win,pak. Whether Chappell and Bhogle like it or not,India are the no1and that is the reality.

Let us not get Over enthusiastic about India is no.1 in tests. It is only an intermediary position, no doubt India had played some tremondous cricket for the past 2 years. But one point I beg to differ with Ian chappel, is every team has a defeated mentality against Aussies at one time, when they are at their peak under Steve waugh. It is not so for the couple of occasions When Saurav Ganguly beats them after a loss in Mumbai in 2001 test series with 2-1 win, the team contains lots of big names. Warne, MgGrath, Gillespie, and in 2005 Ashes, These big names were present and still lost the series 2-1 to England, So Chappel is wrong in this regard, And Aussies were never ever was as dangerous as West Indies in their peak periods.