India will meet Australia in the first Test of the five-match blockbuster series on Friday, November 22, at the Optus Stadium in Perth, knowing that only an outstanding series win can book their flight to the World Test Championship final in 2025. (Full Coverage | More Cricket News)
Border-Gavaskar Trophy, India Vs Australia Bowling Stats: Most Wickets, Five-Fors, And Individual Milestones
Border-Gavaskar Trophy: Here is the list of the top five bowlers who have picked the most wickets, five-fors and other individual milestones in the India Vs Australia series
Winning a Test series in Australia is tough, however, India have been tougher in the recent past coming out victorious in their last two away series.
However, can they do it under the WTC pressure as well as the expectations to deliver after a humiliating New Zealand series whitewash at home?
While on the other hand, Australia will be raring to go as they seek revenge after two back-to-back Border-Gavaskar Trophy losses to India at home, and four on the trot.
Well, a five-match Test series is not an easy task. However, putting runs on the board is going to be vital, but getting 20 wickets is going to decide the fate.
Before we dive much deeper, here’s a look the India-Australia bowling stats
Most wickets in Border-Gavaskar Trophy History
| Player | Matches | Wickets |
| Nathan Lyon | 26 | 116 |
| R Ashwin | 22 | 114 |
| Anil Kumble | 20 | 111 |
| Harbhajan Singh | 18 | 95 |
| Ravindra Jadeja | 16 | 85 |
Most wickets in a series in Border-Gavaskar Trophy history
| Player | Wickets | Year |
| Harbhajan Singh | 32 | 2000/01 |
| R Ashwin | 29 | 2012/13 |
| Ben Hilfenhaus | 27 | 2011/12 |
| Anil Kumble | 27 | 2011/12 |
| R Ashwin | 25 | 2022/23 |
Most five-wicket hauls in Border-Gavaskar Trophy history
| Player | Innings | Five-Fors |
| Anil Kumble | 38 | 10 |
| Nathan Lyon | 47 | 9 |
| Harbhajan Singh | 35 | 7 |
| R Ashwin | 42 | 7 |
| Ravindra Jadeja | 30 | 5 |
As the statement goes, "batters win you games, but bowlers win you championships", and the theory has proved right more often than not.
Show comments