General Cricket Discussion

[Satan666]

Let's see..

Australia - have one of the best pace bowling units in their history, the third greatest test batsman in history, a bloke who currently averages 60 and shows no signs of stopping to be so good and two ATG talents ready to step it up.

England - have their greatest batsman since Barrington, arguably their greatest all-rounder ever, possibly their best pace bowling partnership.

India - arguably their greatest team ever.

New Zealand and Bangladesh - too many players to list so let this be simple; their greatest team ever is active now.

South Africa - have started declining after a flurry of retirements and poor planning in terms of replacing them. Still have very exciting talents yet to establish themselves and an ATG bowler, arguably their best keeper batsman and their best spinner since Tayfield. If Markram works out, add an ATG opener to the list.

Sri Lanka - a team in decline but expecting a small island nation to churn out talent to replace a golden generation is a far stretch. Still think they could do better with a proper leadership structure off the field.

Pakistan - in the middle of a long overdue rebuild process but they've got the right key players/potential ATGs to build around with a very exciting group of youngsters coming through.

West Indies - ah, the great conundrum. I'd argue they are on the rise after a dismal decade but they're nowhere near their former glorious past. Still would expect them to continue doing better in the next decade.

Zimbabwe - corruption has led to the downfall of both cricket and country but they do seem to be trying to bring back their best form. Stagnant probably.

Afghanistan and Ireland - too early to decide but Afghanistan can easily do much, much better if they start selecting players who deserve to be there instead of whoever they like. Ireland missed out on test cricket by about 5-10 years for their golden generation but some proper investment could see them be the next New Zealand in a few decades.

Is the state of cricket worse now? Hard to say, I don't think keeping the game a closed bubble is the right decision which would be the biggest reason why the sport is stagnant. However, is it fair to say that teams in the past were simply better competition? I would probably say no, modern fielding and bowling standards are ludicrously high in comparison to the past. Modern batting has benefitted from better bats but the decision to keep pitches quite bowler friendly has been excellent and has maintained a sense of equality if not slightly overpowered in terms of bowling.

And finally, I believe current teams could do better. Bangladeshi and Afghani cricket is being held back massively by corrupt administrations and poor leadership, the young talents there are ridiculously good. India should be dominating world cricket not because of weak opponents, but because of their strong national pool that was always going to produce high quality cricketers once the developmental systems were more organised. The problem now and for most parts of our history has been incompetency and corruption at the highest echelon that has always decided our fate in world cricket.

I’ll give you Smith of Australia as a world class batsman, Root of England and Kane of NZ, while they are superb there will always be the argument they were never tested by a quality spinner like Warne or a speedster like Marshall. I personally think they would have done well against those guys but there is simply no bowler of this era that comes close to these guys!

England having the best allrounder at present? Ian Botham says hi!

Australia having the best pace bowlers in this era? I invite you to revisit the Ashes series played in England over the decades and then revisit your claims.

Nothing positive for SL/SA/PAK/WI. Oh right yes we blame corruption and politics, blame it on whomever or whatever the points you brought up justify the reasoning to claim test cricket it as its weak point. What else I should expect from an Indian supporter, cant say I blame you.

Btw thought you put me on ignore? Lmao I know youve always been a fan, aye!

 

[ShamiLoverGlipGlops]

Could India become mighty like West Indies and Australia of old?

They are producing formidable young cricketers at an impressive rate

www.espncricinfo.com

How well would these players stand up to test cricket and on neutral pitches (not doctored ones as they normally do in India). The opposition bowlers are very weak now also, the class spinner as Warne/Kumble or a Lillee/Marshall, or a Gavaskar/Richards.

The issue with cricket is that T20 has destroyed all the teams, except India due to its popularity and IPL. Indians play in no global leagues and some test specialists play county cricket.

Yes WI and Aus teams in their eras were a spectacle and mighty indeed but the other teams in those eras had a vast amount of great players as well and thats what cemented their legacy.

We as cricket fans need to stop comparing apples to oranges. Comparing two different era's of cricket with rules that are ever changing makes absolutely no sense. The generation which I did not watch growing up aka Viv Richards, Gavaskar, etc vs the generation I grew up with aka Tendulkar, Ponting, Kumble, Warne, etc vs the generation that is playing cricket currently aka Smith, Kohli, Kane, Root, etc cannot be compared. Lets call the generations as below

1. Gen Z - Richards,Gavaskar
2. Gen Y - Tendulkar,Ponting,Kumble,McGrath
   1. Gen Y-1 - MSD, Yuvi, Afridi, Misbah, Gayle, etc
3. Gen X - Kohli, Smith, Kane, Root

Now each generation had its own unique charm and teams that dominated the era. With Gen Z, it was fast West Indian, Australian bowling that dominated the era whereas players like Gavaskar, Richards, etc showed what batting with sound mind looked like. Richards as I have heard was one of a kind who could have loved playing in Gen X giving his batting prowess. In the end its safe to say that Gen Z was dominated by West Indian fast bowlers who won them the matches more often.

Gen Y was completely dominated by Aussies. I grew up supporting India but it was so frustrating that we could not win the big moments. I still remember my first WC of 2003. I was living in a hostel in 6th grade and it was devasting to see us lose in the finals. I remember the first 5 overs of the India Pakistan game where we scored 55-60 runs and Tendulkar was on fire. Every country has been creating pitches that suit their strength. The bouncy pitches in Australia, seaming wickets in Africa, swinging wickets in England. Nobody back then complained about it. The reason? Players did not complain. The players were made to be rough and tough and played what was thrown at them.

Gen X now.. they play so much cricket that I do not think they should be complaining. Its not the players, its the fans that complain when we see our teams lose. India in the last 15 years have won 2 world cups (T20 and 50 over), reached semi finals of all the world cups and reached finals for the 2016 T20 WC, won the 2013 champions trophy, were in the 2017 champions trophy and now are in the World Test Championship finals. I would definitely say Gen X is dominated by India.

Now whatever the next Generation will be, I see England dominating it. They have revamped their entire limited over structure. The test team looks really good, need a few good fast bowlers and the next generation is England's.

 

[Satan666]

We as cricket fans need to stop comparing apples to oranges. Comparing two different era's of cricket with rules that are ever changing makes absolutely no sense. The generation which I did not watch growing up aka Viv Richards, Gavaskar, etc vs the generation I grew up with aka Tendulkar, Ponting, Kumble, Warne, etc vs the generation that is playing cricket currently aka Smith, Kohli, Kane, Root, etc cannot be compared. Lets call the generations as below

1. Gen Z - Richards,Gavaskar
2. Gen Y - Tendulkar,Ponting,Kumble,McGrath
   1. Gen Y-1 - MSD, Yuvi, Afridi, Misbah, Gayle, etc
3. Gen X - Kohli, Smith, Kane, Root

Now each generation had its own unique charm and teams that dominated the era. With Gen Z, it was fast West Indian, Australian bowling that dominated the era whereas players like Gavaskar, Richards, etc showed what batting with sound mind looked like. Richards as I have heard was one of a kind who could have loved playing in Gen X giving his batting prowess. In the end its safe to say that Gen Z was dominated by West Indian fast bowlers who won them the matches more often.

Gen Y was completely dominated by Aussies. I grew up supporting India but it was so frustrating that we could not win the big moments. I still remember my first WC of 2003. I was living in a hostel in 6th grade and it was devasting to see us lose in the finals. I remember the first 5 overs of the India Pakistan game where we scored 55-60 runs and Tendulkar was on fire. Every country has been creating pitches that suit their strength. The bouncy pitches in Australia, seaming wickets in Africa, swinging wickets in England. Nobody back then complained about it. The reason? Players did not complain. The players were made to be rough and tough and played what was thrown at them.

Gen X now.. they play so much cricket that I do not think they should be complaining. Its not the players, its the fans that complain when we see our teams lose. India in the last 15 years have won 2 world cups (T20 and 50 over), reached semi finals of all the world cups and reached finals for the 2016 T20 WC, won the 2013 champions trophy, were in the 2017 champions trophy and now are in the World Test Championship finals. I would definitely say Gen X is dominated by India.

Now whatever the next Generation will be, I see England dominating it. They have revamped their entire limited over structure. The test team looks really good, need a few good fast bowlers and the next generation is England's.

I have no arguments with being the dominant team at present all I am saying they cant compare to the Aus/WI teams of the past.

The issue of comparing players of different eras will always lead to differing opinions but at the end there was only on Tendulkar or one Lara that were so talented and consistent that they would simply dominate any era.

Its no hard and fast fact on the subject matter though. Sad thing is because Indians control cricket and their fans have the biggest voice (even on this forum now due to the amount of Indians here) that eventually the teams like WI and AUS will always seem weaker than the present Indian team.

 

[ShamiLoverGlipGlops]

I have no arguments with being the dominant team at present all I am saying they cant compare to the Aus/WI teams of the past.

The issue of comparing players of different eras will always lead to differing opinions but at the end there was only on Tendulkar or one Lara that were so talented and consistent that they would simply dominate any era.

Its no hard and fast fact on the subject matter though. Sad thing is because Indians control cricket and their fans have the biggest voice (even on this forum now due to the amount of Indians here) that eventually the teams like WI and AUS will always seem weaker than the present Indian team.

No matter who has the biggest voice as fans you cannot deny that the teams of WI and AUS of past were stronger for that generation. Hussey, Hayden, Gilli, etc all were powerful players and could rip apart any bowling attacks. There cannot be a comparison between current Indian team and other generational team.

They could be super strong even know, or could be a sitting duck for the likes of Ashwin, Riaz, Amir, Nortje, Bumrah, Boult, Southee? We never know! Also on this forum, you will find filtered out Indian fans. These fans are not the regular social media fans who will belittle other teams. We know our weaknesses and strengths. We will equally criticize. One good example is that not even 1 Indian fan on this forum did not criticize the pitches for the test matches that were used in the English series. We criticize our team because we know its strength.

 

[Satan666]

No matter who has the biggest voice as fans you cannot deny that the teams of WI and AUS of past were stronger for that generation. Hussey, Hayden, Gilli, etc all were powerful players and could rip apart any bowling attacks. There cannot be a comparison between current Indian team and other generational team.

They could be super strong even know, or could be a sitting duck for the likes of Ashwin, Riaz, Amir, Nortje, Bumrah, Boult, Southee? We never know! Also on this forum, you will find filtered out Indian fans. These fans are not the regular social media fans who will belittle other teams. We know our weaknesses and strengths. We will equally criticize. One good example is that not even 1 Indian fan on this forum did not criticize the pitches for the test matches that were used in the English series. We criticize our team because we know its strength.

Fair enough. I stand to be corrected then. Cant ague with you on those points at all.

Any idea why Sachin is being hailed as the masterblaster and no longer Viv though? It seems Indian fans labelled him this. I mean it may seem trivial but just shows how having a strong voice in the game set the trends.

 

[ShamiLoverGlipGlops]

Fair enough. I stand to be corrected then. Cant ague with you on those points at all.

Any idea why Sachin is being hailed as the masterblaster and no longer Viv though? It seems Indian fans labelled him this. I mean it may seem trivial but just shows how having a strong voice in the game set the trends.

Sachin is hailed the masterblaster by Indians who grew up watching heartbreaks, emotional rollercoaster of cricket that was the Indian team. Outside India, Ponting/Bradman in Australia, Vic Richards, Lara, Flower brothers, Smith there are so many to name. Its a sport, there will be fans who will be die hard supporters. Look at Messi vs Ronaldo in soccer/football, Brady vs Drew Brees in American Football.. etc etc. A hero is only a hero in the eyes of a fan.

 

[Verified Enigma]

Any idea why Sachin is being hailed as the masterblaster and no longer Viv though?

Recency bias

 

[Bevab]

@Untouchables_666 I have no idea why you've got a... thing or bias against Indian Cricket or it's fan in general? Haven't seen anyone even agree that the Indian side is better than the great sides of yesterday. The only thing most of us say is that this side is underachieving in relation to what it could achieve.

The article you've cited is pretty much speculation too. All Ian Chappell says is that India could dominate the next decade given their strength in depth and potential. He also mentions that it was only a matter of time before everything clicked. I still believe the domestic setup here could do some work but everything he mentions is speculation on solid facts. Could it happen? Maybe, maybe not. Articles on India generate clicks, that is pretty much it.

I'm also not sure what me supporting India has to do with me disagreeing that test cricket is not at it's weakest point. There are more countries playing test cricket than ever, there are more quality players representing their countries. The 80s were even less competitive, Pakistan were the only side good enough to challenge West Indies. How is that period supposed to be the stronger era?

The comparison with players that you've done is also pretty much, old players good and new ones not so good. The nostalgia factor that @WutUpMahGlipGlops mentions. But hey, I'll bite for that Australian example. Let's take James Pattinson, the backup bowler to the current pace trio. Had it not been for injuries, he probably would have been even better than Cummins and the star of this generation. He still would walk into most other sides as a class bowler when fit.

1900s : he's clearly getting in and would probably be the best pacer in the side.

1920s : the leading wicket-taker was Gregory. Yet again, Patto shall be the star.

1930s : the star, yet again.

1940s : this is probably where you doubt his position. Still would have been a regular given he could also bat and is quick.

1950s : would have started but probably wouldn't have been the star with Davidson and Lindwall doing their thing.

1960s : McKenzie would have loved having him alongside, poor bloke's back probably broke from carrying that pace unit.

1970s : Thommo and Lillee are the first choice pairing, Patto might have to settle for a third pacer role.

1980s : Patto will be a regular and probably be the star as the decade progresses.

1990s : Would probably edge one of McDermott and Reiffel for the third seamer role.

2000s : He's a better option than Lee. Not as quick but a lot more consistent.

 

[Verified Enigma]

@Untouchables_666 I have no idea why you've got a... thing or bias against Indian Cricket or it's fan in general? Haven't seen anyone even agree that the Indian side is better than the great sides of yesterday. The only thing most of us say is that this side is underachieving in relation to what it could achieve.

The article you've cited is pretty much speculation too. All Ian Chappell says is that India could dominate the next decade given their strength in depth and potential. He also mentions that it was only a matter of time before everything clicked. I still believe the domestic setup here could do some work but everything he mentions is speculation on solid facts. Could it happen? Maybe, maybe not. Articles on India generate clicks, that is pretty much it.

I'm also not sure what me supporting India has to do with me disagreeing that test cricket is not at it's weakest point. There are more countries playing test cricket than ever, there are more quality players representing their countries. The 80s were even less competitive, Pakistan were the only side good enough to challenge West Indies. How is that period supposed to be the stronger era?

The comparison with players that you've done is also pretty much, old players good and new ones not so good. The nostalgia factor that @WutUpMahGlipGlops mentions. But hey, I'll bite for that Australian example. Let's take James Pattinson, the backup bowler to the current pace trio. Had it not been for injuries, he probably would have been even better than Cummins and the star of this generation. He still would walk into most other sides as a class bowler when fit.

1900s : he's clearly getting in and would probably be the best pacer in the side.

1920s : the leading wicket-taker was Gregory. Yet again, Patto shall be the star.

1930s : the star, yet again.

1940s : this is probably where you doubt his position. Still would have been a regular given he could also bat and is quick.

1950s : would have started but probably wouldn't have been the star with Davidson and Lindwall doing their thing.

1960s : McKenzie would have loved having him alongside, poor bloke's back probably broke from carrying that pace unit.

1970s : Thommo and Lillee are the first choice pairing, Patto might have to settle for a third pacer role.

1980s : Patto will be a regular and probably be the star as the decade progresses.

1990s : Would probably edge one of McDermott and Reiffel for the third seamer role.

2000s : He's a better option than Lee. Not as quick but a lot more consistent.

Bookmarking this for 2030s. Might come back if the forum is up and running.

 

[Satan666]

Sachin is hailed the masterblaster by Indians who grew up watching heartbreaks, emotional rollercoaster of cricket that was the Indian team. Outside India, Ponting/Bradman in Australia, Vic Richards, Lara, Flower brothers, Smith there are so many to name. Its a sport, there will be fans who will be die hard

@Untouchables_666 I have no idea why you've got a... thing or bias against Indian Cricket or it's fan in general? Haven't seen anyone even agree that the Indian side is better than the great sides of yesterday. The only thing most of us say is that this side is underachieving in relation to what it could achieve.

The article you've cited is pretty much speculation too. All Ian Chappell says is that India could dominate the next decade given their strength in depth and potential. He also mentions that it was only a matter of time before everything clicked. I still believe the domestic setup here could do some work but everything he mentions is speculation on solid facts. Could it happen? Maybe, maybe not. Articles on India generate clicks, that is pretty much it.

I'm also not sure what me supporting India has to do with me disagreeing that test cricket is not at it's weakest point. There are more countries playing test cricket than ever, there are more quality players representing their countries. The 80s were even less competitive, Pakistan were the only side good enough to challenge West Indies. How is that period supposed to be the stronger era?

The comparison with players that you've done is also pretty much, old players good and new ones not so good. The nostalgia factor that @WutUpMahGlipGlops mentions. But hey, I'll bite for that Australian example. Let's take James Pattinson, the backup bowler to the current pace trio. Had it not been for injuries, he probably would have been even better than Cummins and the star of this generation. He still would walk into most other sides as a class bowler when fit.

1900s : he's clearly getting in and would probably be the best pacer in the side.

1920s : the leading wicket-taker was Gregory. Yet again, Patto shall be the star.

1930s : the star, yet again.

1940s : this is probably where you doubt his position. Still would have been a regular given he could also bat and is quick.

1950s : would have started but probably wouldn't have been the star with Davidson and Lindwall doing their thing.

1960s : McKenzie would have loved having him alongside, poor bloke's back probably broke from carrying that pace unit.

1970s : Thommo and Lillee are the first choice pairing, Patto might have to settle for a third pacer role.

1980s : Patto will be a regular and probably be the star as the decade progresses.

1990s : Would probably edge one of McDermott and Reiffel for the third seamer role.

2000s : He's a better option than Lee. Not as quick but a lot more consistent.

My apologies but I stopped paying much attention when I read the 80’s were less competitive. It seems we wouldnt be able to reach any common ground here. As your views/opinions are quite opposite to mines in every way possible.

The best fast bowler of ‘our’ era I would opinion to be Shane Bond but due to injuries he played so little cricket I wouldnt argue with anyone that he was the best, too much speculation. I go with hard facts and stats.

Look you brought out some great stuff that I cant argue with and I understand Rahul’s point on comparison of players from different eras.

I am not against India solely as I have in the past. Over the years I have always shown my support for Virat and would be proud to say he led a team of world class players but theyre just not there at all. Certainly I cant argue the Indian team have some great prospects like Risbah, Thakur, Gill etc. but you can only get better with the competition and hopefully the other teams can forge some strong opposition.

 

[NILAYSHAH60]

I think since I belong to the 2010s era I would have a greater resemblence to what current fans of my age would think.

For me I grew up watching the likes of Tendulkar, Ponting and Kallis well into their decline. Ponting was probably the worst amongst the 4 players I mentioned since the time I started watching Test Cricket. You could argue that Tendulkar was played for more time than he could've but let me tell you that he had lot of scores in excess of 50s post 2011 World Cup and all those went unnoticed because players like Pujara, Kohli & Dhoni were doing better. Talking about Kallis I still wonder that he had more years of Cricket left in him but he left a little too early. I would say that Kumar Sangakkara also had atleast 3-4 years of Cricket left with him.

Amongst the bowlers I think there were hardly ones from the 2000s left. I believe I grew up watching the weakest bowling line-ups in Cricket. There were only 3-4 genuine bowlers namely James Anderson, Stuart Broad, Dale Steyn & Vernon Philander. Morne Morkel, Mitchell Johnson, Mitchell Starc they were all inconsistent. Trent Boult, Josh Hazelwood & Kagiso Rabada had hardly started their careers. If there is one bowler who had that fire to keep improving it was Dale Steyn. In my initial years of following Cricket he was one bowler who wouldn't compromise on his pace and yet he bowled such tighter spells. Whenever India played South Africa I was always worried about the Steyn factor. He was that good.

I think the greatest ever bowling performance was Mitchell Johnson's 2013-14 Ashes series. I really enjoyed watching him bowl throughout that series.

The greatest Captain that I've followed is Dhoni in white ball Cricket and Michael Clarke in red-ball Cricket. I felt Clarke lead one of those Australian teams that was in transition and he was the only genuinely good batsman in their team. From what I followed in 2013 Ashes in England, Michael Clarke and Brad Haddin were only reliable batsmen they had while others were walking wickets or sitting ducks. Pattinson and Siddle were the only good bowlers they had while Lyon was good in his own way. The best spin bowler that I followed from the yesteryears was Graeme Swann. Things were that bad for spinners around the world.

I saw these players on top of their game in my initial years- Michael Clarke, Alastair Cook, AB de Villiers, Hashim Amla, Kumar Sangakkara, Mahela Jayawardene, MS Dhoni, Jonathan Trott, Kevin Pietersen, Brendon McCullum, Ross Taylor (he wasn't that good earlier), Ian Bell, Shakib Al Hasan, Dale Steyn, Morne Morkel, Vernon Philander, James Pattinson, Peter Siddle, Graeme Swann, Brad Haddin, James Anderson, Stuart Broad, Younis Khan, Mitchell Johnson, Tim Southee, Saeed Ajmal(who was later banned from bowling) & Junaid Khan. I may have still missed many names in there.

Growing up I watched these players reach greater heights- Virat Kohli, Rohit Sharma, Shikhar Dhawan, Faf du Plessis, Quinton de Kock, Kane Williamson, Cheteshwar Pujara, Ajinkya Rahane, Ravindra Jadeja, Sunil Narine, Ravichandran Ashwin, Steve Smith, Trent Boult, Kieron Pollard, Nicholas Pooran, Evin Lewis, Jason Holder, Murali Vijay, Joe Root, Yasir Shah, Nathan Lyon, Mitchell Starc, Josh Hazelwood, Aaron Finch, etc.

I also watched future stars like Yuzvendra Chahal, Jasprit Bumrah, Aiden Markram, Babar Azam, etc

I believe over the years Australia was the strongest side I followed then it was South Africa, India and England. Ever so declining sides are Pakistan, Sri Lanka, West Indies & Zimbabwe. Bangladesh is improving at a stagnant rate while Ireland and Afghanistan are quickly improving. Right now I think India and England are at par while Australia still have a work to do to get to their best. New Zealand has arguably their greatest ever side.

Now if you ask me historically which has been the strongest side I would definitely say it was West Indies in 80s, Pakistan in 90s, Australia in 2000s, South Africa in late 2000s and early 2010s while 2010s clearly belongs to India. Now it is actually a tough fight out between India, England and Australia but if we look at the bench strengths at present India may well dominate 2020s and England might decline in late 2020s but let us not write off Australia.

 

[blockerdave]

Nice (unpaywalled!) article about my own hero and winner of @Aislabie "VARP" best spinner of all time award, Hedley Verity.

Read it here.

 

[NILAYSHAH60]

Mahela Jayawardene on 2011 WC Final

 

[CerealKiller]

 

[Na Maloom Afraad]

He is INCREDIBLY lucky he didn't break his neck on that fall.