What do you mean by "West Indies won it again in 2016"? You are mixing up the Champions Trophy and the World T20. The 2004 Champions Trophy was West Indies' one and only triumph in the tournament.
Much like Pakistan in 2017, they entered and left the tournament a mediocre side, who happened to have a good run in the tournament.
As far as T20s are concerned, they have produced some fantastic T20 cricketers in the last few years. A full strength West Indies team from 2012 to 2016 was a very dangerous T20 team, especially on flat wickets. The generation of Gayle, Pollard, Bravo, Russell, Sammy, Narine, Badree, Samuels etc. were excellent T20 players.
They have underachieved in bilateral series because the slow Caribbean pitches do not suit their hitters, and quite often they do not get to play their full-strength team due to multiple reasons.
A full-strength West Indies T20 team also beat the living daylights out of Pakistan in the 2014 WT20, taking Ajmal to the cleaners.
Yes a weakened West Indies T20 side - the one that we have beaten a few thousand times over the last two years - also managed to win a couple of games against India, but they were down to brilliant individual performance by Evin Lewis.
Individual brilliance can happen any time against any opposition. The so-calledb best bowling attack in the world that won us the Champions Trophy in June 2017 could not defend 310 against West Indies in an ODI in May 2017, thanks to a brilliant innings by Jason Mohamed.
The same attack was taken to the cleaners by Grandhomme of all players in the fourth ODI in New Zealand earlier this year, snatching a win from the jaws of defeat.
England World T20 triumph in 2010 was isolated. They were an average Limited Overs team at that point, and remained so till the 2015 World Cup after which they transformed their Limited Overs cricket.
Just because Sri Lanka beat India in a game or two does not change the fact that they are a mediocre side. They couldn't stop losing last year and were bashed by pretty much every team they came across.
They couldn't even win a series against the "will forever be minnows" Bangladesh. I love how you are trying to make Sri Lanka look like a quality side just to add some prestige to the 5-0 whitewash that we dished out in October last year.
Yes New Zealand in New Zealand is a tough time, but the way we surrendered 5-0 just a few months after winning the Champions Trophy put our triumph in perspective. As far as the notion that we are getting there is concerned, that is another myth - you cannot be a top quality Limited Overs team in this era without having a top class batting unit, and our batting unit is mediocre.
Babar is prolific but he starts slow and lacks impact - he also cannot switch gears and hit big shots. Haris is a good player, but he is a lost cause. He is nearly 29, and is as raw as a 20 year old. He has no temperament to play long innings, and by the time he acquires the temperament, he will be in his 30s.
He is going to go down as a wasted talent. He might have been some player had he played regularly post the 2011 World Cup, but injuries + negligence of the selectors have cost him what could have been a very fine career.
The likes of Fakhar etc. are an improvement on what he had, but he is still a hit and miss player. The current batting lineup is better than what we had in the last few years, but it is still not good enough to beat the likes of Australia, India, England, South Africa and New Zealand over a series, as the tour of New Zealand demonstrated.
The chest-thumping after that reality check really does surprise me.
I am not putting words in mouths; I am actually quoting what you said. I clearly remember you stating in a thread before the New Zealand series that only England in England and Australia in Australia (?) can beat this team. I don't remember the thread or the exact words, otherwise I would have quoted your post here.
However, I do not want to pick on you individually, because if we go back to the post Champions Trophy and pre New Zealand tour period, the forum was littered with posts on how we are the best ODI team in the world now and will beat any team in our way because of the Champions Trophy momentum and all that crap.
We might be moving in the right direction, but other teams are not standing still. They will also improve with time, with perhaps the exception of South Africa, and we need to do something special to close the gap. I don't think we have the capability to do that. The quality of batsmen coming through, as highlighted by the PSL, is simply not up to the mark.
This English team is potentially very good but they have played very poor cricket in the last few months or so. They are at their lowest ebb since the late 90's, and it is disappointing because they have the players to do a lot better. I have given Pakistan credit for the win at Lord's and repeatedly stated that it wasn't a fluke.
Yasir is our best bowler, but we did not miss him because he is poor in conditions that do not offer much for spinners, and he is nowhere near Shadab as far as batting is concerned, so his injury was actually a blessing in disguise. Shadab brings more value to the team unless their is a lot of assistance in the pitch for the spinners.
As far as Babar is concerned, he is a nothing Test batsman at this point, and his absence cannot be excused for the capitulation at Leeds. He played well at Lord's, but he has failed in 90% of his Test innings so far and there is nothing to suggest that he has turned a corner yet. For all we know, he might have been dismissed for a pair.
He has a long way to go before his absence can be used to justify the team losing. For now, he is a poor Test batsman. I absolutely agree that he will eventually come good, but at the moment, he is not there.
It will not be a big deal if India beats England, because India is the best Test team in the world at the moment and the rightful holders of the Mace. However, England tends to raise their game against them and it is a long series. Moreover, a lot of careers will be on the line and I expect England to come out hard against them. They have the players to beat any side if they click, and a narrow series win for England would not surprise me.
I did not skip 2016 - I cited the 2010 series to show that we have had the wood over England throughout this decade, even when we toured them in 2010 in difficult conditions with a very poor batting lineup.
Pakistan have lost to worst teams than England and England have beaten better teams than Pakistan. It is clear that we tend to raise our game against them.
I never said that to be number one, you have to beat teams in all conditions. However, you do not beat the majority - if not all - teams to prove your dominance. I have no issues with India being ranked number one in Tests even though they haven't won in Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and England, and that is because they have beaten all these teams at home.
I would happily call Pakistan the number one T20 team if they beat all of the aforementioned sides in a series anywhere in the world. However, becoming the number one based on beating poor teams including some World XI charity is nonsense.
Our number one ranking is a complete joke and shows the flaw in ICC's ranking system. Our 180+ scores have been against a poor Sri Lanka side and the pint-sized New Zealand grounds. We have a mediocre T20 batting lineup and lack genuine strikers. If there is a World T20 tomorrow, we are likely to suffer the same fate as the last three editions.
Those who are comparing the records of Pakistan and Bangladesh over the last two-three years to prove that Pakistan is going north and Bangladesh are going south are missing the point - it doesn't tell the story.
I prefer to look at the bigger picture because we cannot directly compare the results of an established team with 65 years of cricketing heritage to an emerging side that has been around for less than 20 years.
Is the gap between Pakistan and Bangladesh today as big as the gap between Pakistan and Bangladesh 10-15 years ago? Clearly no. Some people would also argue that Bangladesh has closed the gap between themselves and all teams, but the difference between us and the other teams is that the last 10-15 has been one of our darkest periods in history.
It is not natural progression. Not every team will progress if given the opportunity. Kenya made it to the World Cup semifinal in 2003, but they completely disappeared afterwards. Bangladesh have worked very hard at their cricket and have developed a very good domestic structure. The have a bright future in the game and they have already closed the gap between themselves and the established sides.
New Zealand is a wrong example because they have a very small population and cricket is their distant second sport. The fact they have been so good at cricket for so long is itself a miracle, and a credit to their sporting culture. However, it won't be surprising if Bangladesh leaves New Zealand behind in the long haul.
The 90's team lacked leadership. Imran Khan passed over the reigns to the corrupt Wasim Akram who was a good tactician, but he was not the leader that the team needed. The 90's team should dominated the era, and it is a shame that they failed to fulfill their potential because of egos, infightings and corruption. However, that does not change the fact that post 90s, Pakistan suffered from a talent drought.
In spite of the isolated success, the last 15-20 years have been one of the darkest periods in Pakistan cricket history. We have awful in ODIs, and a Champions Trophy title does not change that. Since 2005, we have lost nearly 85% of all our ODI series against the top teams minus Sri Lanka.
The 90's team underachieved, but the post-millennia teams minus the Inzamam-Woolmer era have simply been mediocre. Australia's example is poor because they are the greatest cricketing nation ever who produced arguably the greatest team of all time only in the previous era.
Making it to the all-time Australian XI is not comparable to making it to the all-time Pakistan XI. We have not been able to produce great players for many years now, and that certainly indicates the decline of Pakistan cricket.
Facilities alone do not make you a top team, you need to have talent as well. The English youth do not appear to be interested in Test cricket, and it is nowhere close to football in popularity. The young English players are more geared towards Limited Overs cricket and they remain a top side in the shorter formats for a while.
Unlike England, Bangladesh is a cricket crazy country and it is the only sport that they love. They will come good with and the systems that they have put in place will bear fruit.
India are doing just fine. They have consistently been among the top-ranked sides and their captain is the greatest cricket of this era, and one of the greatest cricketers of all time at the age of 29. They are producing some excellent young talent, and their U-19 winning team is the most professional and well-drilled U-19 side ever.
They have some fantastic talent coming through, and this is only the start of their dominance in world cricket. As far as producing world class fast bowlers are concerned, they are getting there, but it will take time.
India is a batting nation, and their aspiring players want to be Tendulkar and Kohli. Considering how much they have improved in terms of bowling, it is clear that it is only matter of time before they produce fast bowlers who would be able to make it to their all-time XI. The potential is already there - their young pacers stole the show in the U-19 World Cup.
The IPL will not produce players. It, along with other copycat cheap leagues, only serve as a platform to springboard players into the national team and accelerate their progress. Kohli did not become Kohli because of the IPL, but the opportunity to play with and against world class international players since the age of 19 has played a huge role in his development as a cricketer.
Same goes for other Indian cricketers of this generation who have benefited greatly from playing in the IPL. Kohli, Rohit, Ashwin, Jadeja etc. owe a lot of their success to IPL exposure.
______________________________________________________________
I would also like to tag your cheerleaders [MENTION=138254]Syed1[/MENTION] and [MENTION=136079]ahmedwaqas92[/MENTION] who don't seem to have the capacity to come up with their own points but like to toot other people's horns.
They are the type of posters I don't appreciate. The ones who prefer to hide behind other people's posts. Hopefully they can make a more substantial contribution to this discussion other than posting smileys.
