Bazball cannot disguise Test cricket's weakest era

[Junaids]

The last couple of years have seen a rapturous embrace of England’s Test slogathon model.

The model appears to be designed to make white ball cricket lovers who don’t like Test cricket see a version that they might like. It’s a Flat Track Bully Extravaganza…..and it really only works in high-scoring matches on batting-friendly surfaces.

But Bazball has been hiding a terrible truth – this is the weakest era of Test cricket for at least 50 years. And it is weaker by a massive margin.

Australia are the recently-crowned World Test Champions. Congratulations to them.

But they have just drawn a home Test series against a pitifully weak West Indies team, and kept allowing a comically-mismanaged Pakistan team to extend them in the home series before that.

But it’s even worse than that.

This Australia team has exactly the same bowling line-up (Starc, Hazlewood, Cummins, Marsh and Lyon) which was massacred in South Africa in 2017-18, and was massacred when they were at their peaks and bowling far more dangerously than today.

The batting is the same batting which has lost two recent home Test series to a fairly mediocre India, to Shardul Thakur and Washington Sundar, to be precise. Except that Steve Smith and Marnus Labuschagne are both in decline and Dave Warner has already gone.

The deterioration in quality is visible everywhere.

Mohammad Siraj is India’s “young” fast bowler….at the age of 30 in three weeks’ time. The team is as reliant on the ancient Rohit Sharma, R Ashwin and Ravendra Jadeja as it ever has been.

Pakistan are even worse. The so-called spinners are (much, much) worse at spin bowling than batsmen like Mushtaq Muhammad were fifty years ago. Meanwhile the pace attack is the slowest Pakistan “attack” that I have seen in fifty years – and I saw the attack of Azeem Hafeez, Tahir Naqqash and Shahid Mahboob!

England stand at the same historic low point as the others. Jimmy Anderson is in his forties and is the only Test class quick who is ever fit, with Mark Wood having taken a grand total of 108 Test wickets at the age of 34. Their spinners are as bad as Pakistan’s, and the batting is just Root, Stokes and several interchangeable flat-track bullies who wouldn’t be able to survive a session on a greentop against Ireland, let alone India.

South Africa are in a terrible state. Their bowling is fine, but they no longer have a single international-quality Test batsman. They have no batsman who would, for example, have even got close to selection into the 1980’s Zimbabwe team ahead of the likes of Houghton, the Flowers, Pycroft and Hick.

New Zealand have discovered one proven Test player in the last decade – Kyle Jamieson. But Williamson is their only Test-quality batsman and their seamers – Southee, Boult and Wagner are 35, almost 35 and almost 38 years old.

It’s too painful to even discuss Sri Lanka and the West Indies, given that no player from either country would have made their own country’s Third Eleven in the 1980s.

It’s hard to fathom just how quickly Test cricket has plummeted in the last five years. The format is worth saving. But letting sloggers be Flat Track Bullies on batting paradises is not saving Test cricket, it is killing it.

 

[uppercut]

@Junaids How much of the last 3 Ind vs Eng tests have you watched live (not highlights) so far ?

 

[Ab Fan]

Australia and India are going strong. Can't say the same about the rest of the team, there is a difference in quality between these two teams and the rest.

Cummins and Bumrah have 6-7 years of career still left. India just found a gem in Jaiswal while Australia have Green. Australia just won a U-19 so expect more quality to come in.

It is not just Ashwin and Jadeja, India has Bumrah and Jaiswal. Australia has Green and Cummins.

 

[Junaids]

Australia and India are going strong. Can't say the same about the rest of the team, there is a difference in quality between these two teams and the rest.

Cummins and Bumrah have 6-7 years of career still left. India just found a gem in Jaiswal while Australia have Green. Australia just won a U-19 so expect more quality to come in.

It is not just Ashwin and Jadeja, India has Bumrah and Jaiswal. Australia has Green and Cummins.

But they are not “going strong”, are they?

They are winning with geriatric versions of the same players who were getting hammered in places like South Africa and, in India’s case, New Zealand a few years ago.

Those players certainly haven’t got any better in those years. But where they used to lose, now they beat everyone.

QED the standard has fallen by a lot!

 

[uppercut]

But they are not “going strong”, are they?

They are winning with geriatric versions of the same players who were getting hammered in places like South Africa and, in India’s case, New Zealand a few years ago.

Those players certainly haven’t got any better in those years. But where they used to lose, now they beat everyone.

QED the standard has fallen by a lot!

What is the gold standard for the highest quality of Test Cricket ever played in the past according to you ? Please list a few series if you can.

 

[shortbread]

I think it's generational change where a new crop of players don't care about the 'greatness' of the opposition. When you hear the stories of the great West Indian team, one also gets the sense that these opposition players who go waxlyrical on them, were completely in awe, they were simply so enamoured that defeat in the hands of the Windies were a given.

The modern players especially the youngsters don't give a flying F! The WI team that beat Australia put up a fight, their youngsters did not care. West Indies had dollops of something we claim we have, ie. Jazba. Look at the young English spinners bowling at Indian batsmen. Or young Indian batsmen tonking Anderson with zero regard.

The T20 era has brought about a certain amount of bravado to test cricket. England's tour of India is thoroughly entertaining.

But there's a gap growing amongst the test teams in terms of quality. Full strength test sides of Australia, England, India, NZ and perhaps SA (at home) are in a different league compared to the rest. The regression of the likes of the WI, SL and Pakistan test teams aren't good for the game.

 

[CricketCartoons]

What is the gold standard for the highest quality of Test Cricket ever played in the past according to you ? Please list a few series if you can.

Hamare zamane mein. The best era was when it was our youth. Once people grow old they get bitter and better at dissing everything.

 

[Hitman]

Hamare zamane mein. The best era was when it was our youth. Once people grow old they get bitter and better at dissing everything.

Harsha Bhogle once said it best - "It is human nature to underrate the present and grossly overrate the past".

 

[uppercut]

Hamare zamane mein. The best era was when it was our youth. Once people grow old they get bitter and better at dissing everything.

Except Iam no spring chicken ... lol I have seen Cricket on DD It always intrigues/fascinates me how people form opinions in this day and age of information overload.

 

[Junaids]

I think it's generational change where a new crop of players don't care about the 'greatness' of the opposition. When you hear the stories of the great West Indian team, one also gets the sense that these opposition players who go waxlyrical on them, were completely in awe, they were simply so enamoured that defeat in the hands of the Windies were a given.

The modern players especially the youngsters don't give a flying F! The WI team that beat Australia put up a fight, their youngsters did not care. West Indies had dollops of something we claim we have, ie. Jazba. Look at the young English spinners bowling at Indian batsmen. Or young Indian batsmen tonking Anderson with zero regard.

The T20 era has brought about a certain amount of bravado to test cricket. England's tour of India is thoroughly entertaining.

But there's a gap growing amongst the test teams in terms of quality. Full strength test sides of Australia, England, India, NZ and perhaps SA (at home) are in a different league compared to the rest. The regression of the likes of the WI, SL and Pakistan test teams aren't good for the game.

What you are missing is that the West Indian players who drew the series 1-1 are, to be generous, really not very good.

This is an Australian team which can't even outclass them or the very mediocre Aamer Jamal.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Guys,

OP, by his own admission is a troll.

PSA: don't feed trolls

 

[Junaids]

What is the gold standard for the highest quality of Test Cricket ever played in the past according to you ? Please list a few series if you can.

By definition a golden era of Test cricket requires two or more outstanding teams which can go half a decade without losing a series at home or away.

In my lifetime we have had two, one which we saw play out and the other which we knew was happening, but couldn't watch.

The three West Indies v Pakistan Test series which were all drawn 1-1 from 1986-87 to 1990-91 were the first. The West Indies were unbeaten anywhere in that period, and Pakistan only lost a rain-ruined 1-0 series in Australia in those five years.

The one we didn't see was from 1976 to 1982, when we saw the best West Indian and South African players play side by side in county cricket, but Apartheid robbed us of actual series between them.

Meanwhile, at the same time there was Lillee, Thomson and Greg Chappell and Gower, Botham and Willis and Zaheer, Javed and Imran

The other great era which fell a little short was when Australia and South Africa were at their best between around 1999 and 2008, but it couldn't quite live up to the hoped-for standard.

 

[Junaids]

Again, to highlight what is NOT a golden era.

The Australian team which won in South Africa in 2008-9 was Hughes, Katich, Ponting, Hussey, Clarke, North, Haddin, McDonald, Siddle, Hilfenhaus and Johnson.

Only four, maybe five, were top class international cricketers.

Similarly, while South Africa had the likes of Smith, De Villiers, Kalis and Steyn, they also had much lower quality players like McKenzie (who was a shadow of the player his dad was), Duminy and Harris.

 

[Junaids]

The further we go into this thread, the more I see several factors at play leading to today's appallingly weak standard of Test cricket.

Firstly, the corrosive effect of white ball cricket (20/50 over) played on dead wickets with seamless balls.

Secondly, people like McCullum and Stokes have lost their fear of losing. But players like Viv Richards and Imran Khan were who they were because they simply refused to lose. When defeat loses its stigma, quality dies.

Thirdly, Test cricket has been terribly damaged by Tests being played with flat pitches, huge bats, shortened boundaries and Kookaburra balls. Sloggers score sixes when they would previously have been caught halfway to the boundary. Bazball would be impossible on sporting pitches with proper-sized bats and Duke, or preferably Reader, balls.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

The last couple of years have seen a rapturous embrace of England’s Test slogathon model.

The model appears to be designed to make white ball cricket lovers who don’t like Test cricket see a version that they might like. It’s a Flat Track Bully Extravaganza…..and it really only works in high-scoring matches on batting-friendly surfaces.

But Bazball has been hiding a terrible truth – this is the weakest era of Test cricket for at least 50 years. And it is weaker by a massive margin.

Australia are the recently-crowned World Test Champions. Congratulations to them.

But they have just drawn a home Test series against a pitifully weak West Indies team, and kept allowing a comically-mismanaged Pakistan team to extend them in the home series before that.

But it’s even worse than that.

This Australia team has exactly the same bowling line-up (Starc, Hazlewood, Cummins, Marsh and Lyon) which was massacred in South Africa in 2017-18, and was massacred when they were at their peaks and bowling far more dangerously than today.

The batting is the same batting which has lost two recent home Test series to a fairly mediocre India, to Shardul Thakur and Washington Sundar, to be precise. Except that Steve Smith and Marnus Labuschagne are both in decline and Dave Warner has already gone.

The deterioration in quality is visible everywhere.

Mohammad Siraj is India’s “young” fast bowler….at the age of 30 in three weeks’ time. The team is as reliant on the ancient Rohit Sharma, R Ashwin and Ravendra Jadeja as it ever has been.

Pakistan are even worse. The so-called spinners are (much, much) worse at spin bowling than batsmen like Mushtaq Muhammad were fifty years ago. Meanwhile the pace attack is the slowest Pakistan “attack” that I have seen in fifty years – and I saw the attack of Azeem Hafeez, Tahir Naqqash and Shahid Mahboob!

England stand at the same historic low point as the others. Jimmy Anderson is in his forties and is the only Test class quick who is ever fit, with Mark Wood having taken a grand total of 108 Test wickets at the age of 34. Their spinners are as bad as Pakistan’s, and the batting is just Root, Stokes and several interchangeable flat-track bullies who wouldn’t be able to survive a session on a greentop against Ireland, let alone India.

South Africa are in a terrible state. Their bowling is fine, but they no longer have a single international-quality Test batsman. They have no batsman who would, for example, have even got close to selection into the 1980’s Zimbabwe team ahead of the likes of Houghton, the Flowers, Pycroft and Hick.

New Zealand have discovered one proven Test player in the last decade – Kyle Jamieson. But Williamson is their only Test-quality batsman and their seamers – Southee, Boult and Wagner are 35, almost 35 and almost 38 years old.

It’s too painful to even discuss Sri Lanka and the West Indies, given that no player from either country would have made their own country’s Third Eleven in the 1980s.

It’s hard to fathom just how quickly Test cricket has plummeted in the last five years. The format is worth saving. But letting sloggers be Flat Track Bullies on batting paradises is not saving Test cricket, it is killing it.

You could have saved all these pages by saying India is on top so Test cricket is on decline.

 

[uppercut]

By definition a golden era of Test cricket requires two or more outstanding teams which can go half a decade without losing a series at home or away.

And how does a team get classified as an "Outstanding team" ( or not ) ? See the problem ?

In my lifetime we have had two, one which we saw play out and the other which we knew was happening, but couldn't watch.

The three West Indies v Pakistan Test series which were all drawn 1-1 from 1986-87 to 1990-91 were the first. The West Indies were unbeaten anywhere in that period, and Pakistan only lost a rain-ruined 1-0 series in Australia in those five years.

The one we didn't see was from 1976 to 1982, when we saw the best West Indian and South African players play side by side in county cricket, but Apartheid robbed us of actual series between them.

Meanwhile, at the same time there was Lillee, Thomson and Greg Chappell and Gower, Botham and Willis and Zaheer, Javed and Imran

The other great era which fell a little short was when Australia and South Africa were at their best between around 1999 and 2008, but it couldn't quite live up to the hoped-for standard.

There is many hours of Ashes cricket from the 70s and 80s available freely on Youtube. Pick the most outstanding piece of cricketing action from that and post the link here. Your search query on Youtube would be "Ashes Cricket 1970s" or "Ashes Cricket 1980s" and it will spit out a long list of videos. Pick one that YOu think has the highest quality and post it here and I will dissect it to your hearts content and drill holes based purely on Technical analysis as I know my cricket. I do not need to rely on any "Expert" commentator who will have conflicts of interest.

Let me know.

 

[uppercut]

You could have saved all these pages by saying India is on top so Test cricket is on decline.

Conversely, since Pakistan are not at the top therefore the world must be closer to the end.

 

[Junaids]

You could have saved all these pages by saying India is on top so Test cricket is on decline.

But they are not on top, so why would I say that?

India have not one either the 2021 or the 2023 World Test Championship. They are good at home but can't win series in places like England, South Africa and New Zealand.

 

[Junaids]

And how does a team get classified as an "Outstanding team" ( or not ) ? See the problem ?






There is many hours of Ashes cricket from the 70s and 80s available freely on Youtube. Pick the most outstanding piece of cricketing action from that and post the link here. Your search query on Youtube would be "Ashes Cricket 1970s" or "Ashes Cricket 1980s" and it will spit out a long list of videos. Pick one that YOu think has the highest quality and post it here and I will dissect it to your hearts content and drill holes based purely on Technical analysis as I know my cricket. I do not need to rely on any "Expert" commentator who will have conflicts of interest.

Let me know.

But England were not a top Test team in that era.

The Australia of 74-75 and 75-76 was good in home conditions, and obviously far better than the current team. But they were nowhere near as good as West Indies or Pakistan from 1976 to 1993.

I've been very explicit: West Indies were the world's best team from 1976-1995. And to be honest, South Africa clearly had the best players of any country from 1967 to 1976.

The standard was still OK a decade ago. But right now players who were getting soundly beaten when they were at their peak half a decade ago are beating the opposition, which shows how weak the current opposition is.

 

[MANU ROY]

But they are not on top, so why would I say that?

India have not one either the 2021 or the 2023 World Test Championship. They are good at home but can't win series in places like England, South Africa and New Zealand.

So which Team is top test team at the moment, India is not exactly a top team I take that

 

[Buzzinga]

Guys,

OP, by his own admission is a troll.

PSA: don't feed trolls

While I don't agree with Junaids on many things, I think he is spot on on this one.

Test cricket is seriously played by only 3 countries now. England is making mockery of it by this bazball nonsense.

India is a cricket fanatic country where you'll always find fans watching even women's cricket (no disrespect to their cricket but its mediocre tbf), oldies(Road safety, Masters league etc).

Australia is in massive decline. Be it popularity of the game or the players. From the likes of Hayden, Damien Martin, Ponting, Clarke, Hussey, Lee, McGrath, Warne, Gilly, Gillespie to the current bunch. What a downgrade!!!

Less said about other countries,the better. Likes of Pakistan, WI etc are only good for T20s while SL, SA players perform once in a while here and there. BD, Ireland etc are nonexistent.

This definitely is the weakest era of Cricket especially Test cricket.

 

[Junaids]

So which Team is top test team at the moment, India is not exactly a top team I take that

This is my whole point.

Currently Australia are the rightful World Test Champions, but clearly markedly inferior to the South African and Pakistani teams which were numbers 3 and 4 thirty years ago.

India are a little below Australia because of their serial losses overseas. But both Australia and India are ageing teams in decline, rather than up and coming teams.

South Africa are at the level of Zimbabwe in the era of Houghton, Streak, Flower and Brandes.

Pakistan are at the level of India in the 1980s, which is not a compliment.

Consider this ranking of Test teams in 1994:

1. West Indies
2. Australia
3. South Africa
4. Pakistan
5. New Zealand
6. India
7. Sri Lanka
8. Zimbabwe

Today's Australia would be roughly where South Africa and Pakistan are. India would be between the 1994 Pakistan and New Zealand.

I dread to think where the rest of today's teams would be. I suspect all around the 1994 Zimbabwe level.

 

[shortbread]

I dread to think where the rest of today's teams would be. I suspect all around the 1994 Zimbabwe level.

Bruv, I feel you should stop 'thinking', period.

 

[jnaveen1980]

This is more an effort to undermine teams that win matches rather than anything else lol Australia losing to WI won't make them bad. They still didn't lose the series. It is a pink ball test where anything can happen. WI found a great fast bowler. Instead of appreciating an individual who made that possible trying to discredit them by saying "West Indies won only because Australia is bad" is a false narrative. Sometimes Australia falters against some random fast bowler at home. All-conquering Australia lost to Agarkar's 6 wicket haul and Dean Headley's six-wicket haul. Teams go through transition. Things can be erratic and unpredictable. You sound like Pakistan won the series in Australia? They lost 0-3 at home against England, lost to Australia at home, and couldn't beat NZ. You say INdia relies on Rohit and also you blame Australia that lost to India without Rohit's contribution or presence of Kohli, Ashwin, Jadeja at Gabba. How about Pakistan team that lost home series to India led by two rookie bowlers IRfan pathan and Balaji?

 

[uppercut]

But England were not a top Test team in that era.

The Australia of 74-75 and 75-76 was good in home conditions, and obviously far better than the current team. But they were nowhere near as good as West Indies or Pakistan from 1976 to 1993.

I've been very explicit: West Indies were the world's best team from 1976-1995. And to be honest, South Africa clearly had the best players of any country from 1967 to 1976.

The standard was still OK a decade ago. But right now players who were getting soundly beaten when they were at their peak half a decade ago are beating the opposition, which shows how weak the current opposition is.

So since Eng, Aus ( and of course India automatically as was NZ ) ruled out, how does it make sense to accept that WI was the true Outstanding team from 1976 when by your own admission there was nobody worthy of giving them a proper challenge ?

Next ... how do you explain the lowly Indian team drawing a 4 Test series in Pakistan circa 1989 if Pakistan was such an out standing team during those years. Also I think Imran lost a test to SL during that time. Thats like India losing to WI/AFG/BD/IRL today.

Furthermore .... how do you explain India winning the 1983 WC beating WI on a green track ( twice ) in absolutely alien conditions ?

 

[anikrc1]

This whole previous generation was better Theory fall flat when you look at the fact batsmen like Miandad and Border averaging more than Kohli and Root. Anyone with two eyes can see that Kohli and Root are talent wise two levels above Miandad and Border.

 

[jnaveen1980]

This whole previous generation was better Theory fall flat when you look at the fact batsmen like Miandad and Border averaging more than Kohli and Root. Anyone with two eyes can see that Kohli and Root are talent wise two levels above Miandad and Border.

In real DRS era, neutral umpire error, camera monitoring era lot of stats from the past would have been completely different.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Again, to highlight what is NOT a golden era.

The Australian team which won in South Africa in 2008-9 was Hughes, Katich, Ponting, Hussey, Clarke, North, Haddin, McDonald, Siddle, Hilfenhaus and Johnson.

Only four, maybe five, were top class international cricketers.

Similarly, while South Africa had the likes of Smith, De Villiers, Kalis and Steyn, they also had much lower quality players like McKenzie (who was a shadow of the player his dad was), Duminy and Harris.

Your golden era is never returning. Best to watch re runs of classic matches than wasting time over substandard fare dished out nowadays.

 

[WengerOut]

Test cricket quality has gone down in this millenium, i accept that. But you cannot go back in time and play those brilliant teams. You can only play the teams infront of you.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

This is my whole point.

Currently Australia are the rightful World Test Champions, but clearly markedly inferior to the South African and Pakistani teams which were numbers 3 and 4 thirty years ago.

India are a little below Australia because of their serial losses overseas. But both Australia and India are ageing teams in decline, rather than up and coming teams.

South Africa are at the level of Zimbabwe in the era of Houghton, Streak, Flower and Brandes.

Pakistan are at the level of India in the 1980s, which is not a compliment.

Consider this ranking of Test teams in 1994:

1. West Indies
2. Australia
3. South Africa
4. Pakistan
5. New Zealand
6. India
7. Sri Lanka
8. Zimbabwe

Today's Australia would be roughly where South Africa and Pakistan are. India would be between the 1994 Pakistan and New Zealand.

I dread to think where the rest of today's teams would be. I suspect all around the 1994 Zimbabwe level.

So why is this ranking more authentic than current ranking?

Because Pakistan is higher than India?

Or is it because India are lower than everyone bar Zim and Sri Lanka which helps control the nocturnal nightmares?

 

[rpant_gabba]

So why is this ranking more authentic than current ranking?

Because Pakistan is higher than India?

Or is it because India are lower than everyone bar Zim and Sri Lanka which helps control the nocturnal nightmares?

for a guy who has serious profession, the tone and timing of his posts reveals a lot about him as person. sad really.

 

[jnaveen1980]

for a guy who has serious profession, the tone and timing of his posts reveals a lot about him as person. sad really.

For all his analysis end goal is to undermine wins especially anyone who wins in Australia. It is not easy to win there. If it is easy look at the record of teams in Australia in the last 10 years

 

[WengerOut]

For all his analysis end goal is to undermine wins especially anyone who wins in Australia. It is not easy to win there. If it is easy look at the record of teams in Australia in the last 10 years

I doubt he was a doctor when Pak last won in Aus

 

[Ahmed216]

T20 has ruined the game of cricket not just the test format

 

[rpant_gabba]

For all his analysis end goal is to undermine wins especially anyone who wins in Australia. It is not easy to win there. If it is easy look at the record of teams in Australia in the last 10 years

not sure why you spend time putting this stuff together to counter his "points".

It is like wrestling with a pig in pigsty. you get filthy and the pig enjoys it.

 

[rpant_gabba]

T20 has ruined the game of cricket not just the test format

blame england for giving that format time of day

 

[jnaveen1980]

T20 has ruined the game of cricket not just the test format

There is still room for Pujaras, Elgars, Brathwhites. You have to back proper first class players for Tests instead of backing T20 players.

 

[uppercut]

This is my whole point.

Currently Australia are the rightful World Test Champions, but clearly markedly inferior to the South African and Pakistani teams which were numbers 3 and 4 thirty years ago.

India are a little below Australia because of their serial losses overseas. But both Australia and India are ageing teams in decline, rather than up and coming teams.

South Africa are at the level of Zimbabwe in the era of Houghton, Streak, Flower and Brandes.

Pakistan are at the level of India in the 1980s, which is not a compliment.

Considering that in the 80s India Drew a test series in Aus , came close to winning it in 85/86 but for rain and horrific umpring, and ofcourse winning the Word Cup and the B&H World Championship , Winning a test series in Eng and drawing a series in Pakistan I think the WI and Pakistani teams from the past would take offense to your "Ranking" system

Consider this ranking of Test teams in 1994:

1. West Indies
2. Australia
3. South Africa
4. Pakistan
5. New Zealand
6. India
7. Sri Lanka
8. Zimbabwe

Today's Australia would be roughly where South Africa and Pakistan are. India would be between the 1994 Pakistan and New Zealand.

I dread to think where the rest of today's teams would be. I suspect all around the 1994 Zimbabwe level.

Since England is missing from this list altogether ... does that make them minnows / associate level of that era in your "Ranking" system ?

 

[MANU ROY]

blame england for giving that format time of day

They already found a stupid new format the 100 now what will be next the 50

 

[Junaids]

So why is this ranking more authentic than current ranking?

Because Pakistan is higher than India?

Or is it because India are lower than everyone bar Zim and Sri Lanka which helps control the nocturnal nightmares?

I'm not saying that the ranking in 1994 was better than 2024, I'm saying the quality was.

And I don't know why I'm being accused of being partisan towards Pakistan, given that I have clearly said that India are much better now than Pakistan is.

 

[RyanRyan10]

Hamare zamane mein. The best era was when it was our youth. Once people grow old they get bitter and better at dissing everything.

That doesn't apply on the OP considering he believed that Pakistan would have stood a chance to beat Aus with Shadab Khan and Faheem Ashraf playing key roles.

 

[NishanKonar]

Every sport has this " past was better than present" nostalgia but in cricket it has reached delusional levels

No way a team from the 90s can ever be superior to a team from 2023

In the 90s cricket was amateurish. Fitness standards were abysmal. Pot bellied players like David Boon, Ranatunga, Inzimam were common. Fielding standards was average. Concept of diving to take catches or saving runs was alien. Batting was safety first approach. Fast bowlers became medium pacers after their first spell. Players ate biriyani & chicken tikka for lunch & cookies during tea break. Going to gyms was unthinkable

The modern day cricketers are far more professional. Much more stronger, fitter & athletic. Lot more planning & data analytics. Every player gets dissected - his weaknesses probed & identified.

So no way any 90s team will survive against a team from the 2023.

Frankly it applies to all sports. Just like no tennis player from the 70s can survive against someone from 2023. Imagine 5ft 9in Rod Laver or 5ft 6in Ken Rosewall against power & athleticism of players like Novak Djokovic or Alavarez. U think Laver or Rosewall will stand a chance ?

Imagine a football team from the 70s against the relentless pressing game of Man City & Liverpool. U think those past teams will stand a chance. At half time they will be run out of steam

 

[NishanKonar]

Pakistan are at the level of India in the 1980s, which is not a compliment.

In the 80s India beat England in England, drew twice against Australia in Australia - should have won in 1986 but could not due to atrocious umpiring & bad weather. Drew against West Indies at home in 1987

This Pakistan team got whitewashed at home by England ! Not won a test at home for more than a year. And gets routinely whitewashed overseas

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Secondly, people like McCullum and Stokes have lost their fear of losing. But players like Viv Richards and Imran Khan were who they were because they simply refused to lose. When defeat loses its stigma, quality dies.

A test defeat has lost its stigma among fans too. My fathers and elderly uncles perceived a test defeat as something that should induce mourning. There was no such thing as a test dead rubber, nothing glamorous about trying to win from a guaranteed loss, they would prefer a draw and a chance to regroup and go again.

Nowadays the average fan isn't too bothered by a test loss. Players like Shaheen are happy to skip a 'dead rubber' to prepare for a T20 series and captains like Stokes would rather lose a game stylishly than try to win.

 

[Junaids]

Every sport has this " past was better than present" nostalgia but in cricket it has reached delusional levels

No way a team from the 90s can ever be superior to a team from 2023

In the 90s cricket was amateurish. Fitness standards were abysmal. Pot bellied players like David Boon, Ranatunga, Inzimam were common. Fielding standards was average. Concept of diving to take catches or saving runs was alien. Batting was safety first approach. Fast bowlers became medium pacers after their first spell. Players ate biriyani & chicken tikka for lunch & cookies during tea break. Going to gyms was unthinkable

The modern day cricketers are far more professional. Much more stronger, fitter & athletic. Lot more planning & data analytics. Every player gets dissected - his weaknesses probed & identified.

So no way any 90s team will survive against a team from the 2023.

Frankly it applies to all sports. Just like no tennis player from the 70s can survive against someone from 2023. Imagine 5ft 9in Rod Laver or 5ft 6in Ken Rosewall against power & athleticism of players like Novak Djokovic or Alavarez. U think Laver or Rosewall will stand a chance ?

Imagine a football team from the 70s against the relentless pressing game of Man City & Liverpool. U think those past teams will stand a chance. At half time they will be run out of steam

Actually I strongly disagree.

Cricket's physical sport science is actually largely borrowed from rugby league and Australian Rules football, and has very clearly led to fast bowlers who bowl far fewer overs per year than their predecessors but suffer more injuries even though they bowl at a slower pace than fast bowlers did fifty years ago. We know to two decimal figures that Jeff Thomson bowled 161K, Andy Roberts 159K and even a 36 year old John Snow was still bowling at 138K in 1976.

Strategies change. But Cruyff and Beckenbauer would still be the world's best two footballers fifty years on from 1974, they would just be fitter and even better. But take Messi back forty years to play against Gentile or the Butcher of Bilbao and he probably wouldn't find it easy.

The suggestion that Shaheen Shah Afridi is better - or even faster - than Wasim Akram is comical. Or that Naseem Shah is as quick as Imran Khan or Waqar Younis was.

Fred Trueman's body was optimised for fast bowling because he bowled 700 overs per season, every season.

As for tennis, it's a bit like cricket. Modern racquets favour 6'6 Djokovics. But give him a 1960's wooden racquet and he probably would struggle to cope with a Rosewall or a Laver who could return every serve with ease.

The power game in modern cricket has wrecked batting techniques. Put Rohit Sharma at the other end to Victor Trumper on an uncovered grassy, bumpy Golden Age pitch, and I know who I would put my money on to score runs.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

The OP seems to be more of a dig at Bazball than anything else so I'm not sure why it is so controversial to our Indian friends.

 

[WengerOut]

The OP seems to be more of a dig at Bazball than anything else so I'm not sure why it is so controversial to our Indian friends.

Maybe because they read the full post and not just the title.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Maybe because they read the full post and not just the title.

It criticises every team and starts and ends with a criticism of Bazball.

Thats thing with you guys. You laud Tendulkar by saying he played in the most difficult era of test cricket when it suits you and romanticise the past.

But when someone else criticises the modern era you declare war.

 

[WengerOut]

It criticises every team and starts and ends with a criticism of Bazball.

Thats thing with you guys. You laud Tendulkar by saying he played in the most difficult era of test cricket when it suits you and romanticise the past.

But when someone else criticises the modern era you declare war.

Actually if you looked the thread, i agreed with him. The problem is those statements like today's top team are at the level of Zimbabwe in the 90s.. That is just plain exaggeration and disrespectful..

 

[kron]

Conversely, since Pakistan are not at the top therefore the world must be closer to the end.

Tbf the greatest team ever would definitely be the w.indies side between 1976 to 87 88


4 pronged attack was untouchable. In saying that, there are great teams in every era.

This like comparing Mike tyson vs tyson fury or usyk all over again.all great fighters of their era. Would do well in any era. H2h we have no idea about how things will unfold. You are a product of your time. I do think Aussies of 2000 to 2008 are a tad bit overrated. W indies of 80s were more dominant.

 

[uppercut]

Actually I strongly disagree.

Cricket's physical sport science is actually largely borrowed from rugby league and Australian Rules football, and has very clearly led to fast bowlers who bowl far fewer overs per year than their predecessors but suffer more injuries even though they bowl at a slower pace than fast bowlers did fifty years ago. We know to two decimal figures that Jeff Thomson bowled 161K, Andy Roberts 159K and even a 36 year old John Snow was still bowling at 138K in 1976.

Lets see some evidence to back that up

Strategies change. But Cruyff and Beckenbauer would still be the world's best two footballers fifty years on from 1974, they would just be fitter and even better. But take Messi back forty years to play against Gentile or the Butcher of Bilbao and he probably wouldn't find it easy.

The suggestion that Shaheen Shah Afridi is better - or even faster - than Wasim Akram is comical. Or that Naseem Shah is as quick as Imran Khan or Waqar Younis was.

Fred Trueman's body was optimised for fast bowling because he bowled 700 overs per season, every season.

As for tennis, it's a bit like cricket. Modern racquets favour 6'6 Djokovics. But give him a 1960's wooden racquet and he probably would struggle to cope with a Rosewall or a Laver who could return every serve with ease.

The power game in modern cricket has wrecked batting techniques. Put Rohit Sharma at the other end to Victor Trumper on an uncovered grassy, bumpy Golden Age pitch, and I know who I would put my money on to score runs.

Ahh the good old Romanticism about bygone eras.

Here is a footage of Trumper -->

If you think that technique would work today ( even on the flattest surface but against modern day bowlers ) then I am sorry but you simply do not understand/comprehend the very nitty gritty of Cricket. You are just completely consumed by nostalgia and will go to extreme lengths to keep it that way.

 

[NishanKonar]

Actually I strongly disagree.

Cricket's physical sport science is actually largely borrowed from rugby league and Australian Rules football, and has very clearly led to fast bowlers who bowl far fewer overs per year than their predecessors but suffer more injuries even though they bowl at a slower pace than fast bowlers did fifty years ago. We know to two decimal figures that Jeff Thomson bowled 161K, Andy Roberts 159K and even a 36 year old John Snow was still bowling at 138K in 1976.

Strategies change. But Cruyff and Beckenbauer would still be the world's best two footballers fifty years on from 1974, they would just be fitter and even better. But take Messi back forty years to play against Gentile or the Butcher of Bilbao and he probably wouldn't find it easy.

The suggestion that Shaheen Shah Afridi is better - or even faster - than Wasim Akram is comical. Or that Naseem Shah is as quick as Imran Khan or Waqar Younis was.

Fred Trueman's body was optimised for fast bowling because he bowled 700 overs per season, every season.

As for tennis, it's a bit like cricket. Modern racquets favour 6'6 Djokovics. But give him a 1960's wooden racquet and he probably would struggle to cope with a Rosewall or a Laver who could return every serve with ease.

The power game in modern cricket has wrecked batting techniques. Put Rohit Sharma at the other end to Victor Trumper on an uncovered grassy, bumpy Golden Age pitch, and I know who I would put my money on to score runs.

Shaheen Shah is nowhere close to Wasim Akram

But Pat Cummins, Bumrah, Mitchell Starc, Anderson, Trent Boult are at the same level if not better than the likes of Wasim, Walsh, McGrath, Ambrose

ALso Jeff Thomspon never bowled 161 kph or Andy Roberts never bowled 159 kph during a match, It was hyped up tv show with dodgy technologies. Plus forget 70s, even 20 years back speed guns were very dodgy. During 1999 World Cup geoff ALlot was clocked at 145 kph and he was typical medium pacer

Yes Cruyff & Beckenbauer wud be the best if they play today - but they wont be playing like they were in the 70s. They wont be partying all night, wud e more disciplined, spending more time in gym. Cruyff spend whole nights during 1974 World Cup partying & drinking in a hotel pool. Can u imagine doing such stuff now ?

Fred Trueman bowled at about 135-140 kph. Without endless travel & foreign tours of present day cricket. Without spending half the year living out of a hotel room - away from home & family. Not apples & oranges.

Regarding tennis - John McEnroe was unbeatable in 1984 but from 1985 onwards never won a Grand Slam again once Boris Becker ushered in new era of power tennis.

Talking techniques, modern day batter don't get to pad away spinners, don't get same level of benefit-of-doubt due to DRS, don't get friendly umpires. Also batter face far greater scrutiny due to endless data analytics

 

[James]

Every sport has this " past was better than present" nostalgia but in cricket it has reached delusional levels

No way a team from the 90s can ever be superior to a team from 2023

In the 90s cricket was amateurish. Fitness standards were abysmal. Pot bellied players like David Boon, Ranatunga, Inzimam were common. Fielding standards was average. Concept of diving to take catches or saving runs was alien. Batting was safety first approach. Fast bowlers became medium pacers after their first spell. Players ate biriyani & chicken tikka for lunch & cookies during tea break. Going to gyms was unthinkable

The modern day cricketers are far more professional. Much more stronger, fitter & athletic. Lot more planning & data analytics. Every player gets dissected - his weaknesses probed & identified.

So no way any 90s team will survive against a team from the 2023.

Frankly it applies to all sports. Just like no tennis player from the 70s can survive against someone from 2023. Imagine 5ft 9in Rod Laver or 5ft 6in Ken Rosewall against power & athleticism of players like Novak Djokovic or Alavarez. U think Laver or Rosewall will stand a chance ?

Imagine a football team from the 70s against the relentless pressing game of Man City & Liverpool. U think those past teams will stand a chance. At half time they will be run out of steam

Absolutely spot on. I just quietly giggle to myself when I hear one of the old farts going on again about how some porky batsman from the 70s who jogged between the wickets and would often play with a beer induced hangover could slaughter today’s bowling attacks with his eyes closed. There is no point even bothering to argue with this stuff anymore.

 

[James]

Talking techniques, modern day batter don't get to pad away spinners, don't get same level of benefit-of-doubt due to DRS, don't get friendly umpires. Also batter face far greater scrutiny due to endless data analytics

Yes, there are many stories of certain high profile gentleman batters who when they played in their home country just wouldn’t get given out by the umpire. Appeals for lbw and caught behind would be quickly waved away as an unspoken matter of respect and because there was too much fear of retribution from the crowd. Ridiculous lol.

 

[kron]

Actually if you looked the thread, i agreed with him. The problem is those statements like today's top team are at the level of Zimbabwe in the 90s.. That is just plain exaggeration and disrespectful..

Today's top teams would honestly brutalise teams of yesteryear who benefited a lot from running rules, no drs, no no ball umpire and less protection for batsmen. Bowlers are better now.

Transplant all those modern greats to current era and I am 100% sure their averages will take a huge hit.

 

[kron]

Today's top teams would honestly brutalise teams of yesteryear who benefited a lot from running rules, no drs, no no ball umpire and less protection for batsmen. Bowlers are better now.

Transplant all those modern greats to current era and I am 100% sure their averages will take a huge hit.

Autocorrect stuffed me. I meant past greats to modern era.

And also rubbish rules with unlimited bouncers. Lot of time if you watch old videos, west Indians were over stepping. Not to mention ball tampering etc.

West Indians of 80s were goat side but even they would face huge challenges in modern era.

Don't forget all teams have tapes and videos to follow up on. Find out ways to neutralise opponents etc. They study them.

 

[Vikram1989]

I think once a professor said in an interview "A top student from any generation can be a top student at any point of time.But an average student of older times will struggle now and will be less successful than a present average student as there is lot of fierce competence and methodical approach now.".It goes for any professional or sports.I think @mammon have wrote a great analysis on this past romanticism.

 

[James]

Autocorrect stuffed me. I meant past greats to modern era.

And also rubbish rules with unlimited bouncers. Lot of time if you watch old videos, west Indians were over stepping. Not to mention ball tampering etc.

West Indians of 80s were goat side but even they would face huge challenges in modern era.

Don't forget all teams have tapes and videos to follow up on. Find out ways to neutralise opponents etc. They study them.

And friendly/home umpires. Some umpires were basically cheerleaders for the home team, there was no close up replay and zero accountability.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Actually if you looked the thread, i agreed with him. The problem is those statements like today's top team are at the level of Zimbabwe in the 90s.. That is just plain exaggeration and disrespectful..

Its a slight exaggeration but on paper they could probably go toe to toe with most teams outside of the big 3.

 

[Rajdeep]

You could have saved all these pages by saying India is on top so Test cricket is on decline.

Killed the thread by this one liner...terrific post my friend. OP has habbit of going overboard whenever India does well. Still remember his meltdown after India winning the Gabba test. Prior to the series he was adamant that India team won't be allowed to enter mainland Australia due to Covid and will play in places like Darwin etc.

One of his another gem was - "Do runs against SL even count?" after Rohit scored 264.

If test cricket in such a decline, then why in the middle of the world cup OP was critical of white ball cricket and opened the thread "Is anybody even preparing Pak tour of Australia?" and called it blue riband of our sport?

 

[kron]

And friendly/home umpires. Some umpires were basically cheerleaders for the home team, there was no close up replay and zero accountability.

Yeah. Like our series vs australia. Inzi was out several times lol. Wasn't given against mcg. Still got slaughtered anyway

Maybe he wanted the game to be competitive haha

 

[NishanKonar]

Today's top teams would honestly brutalise teams of yesteryear who benefited a lot from running rules, no drs, no no ball umpire and less protection for batsmen. Bowlers are better now.

Transplant all those modern greats to current era and I am 100% sure their averages will take a huge hit.

The only thing is those past greats wud probably adjust their games to meet present day standards.

But players like Inzimam, Ranatunga, David Boon wud struggle to fit in the modern day game unless they spend hours in the gym & trimmed down

Reason Sharjeel Khan & Azam Khan face so much scrutiny due to their weight is bcoz its 2024. In the 80s & 90s such players uwd have no problems

 

[Vikram1989]

And friendly/home umpires. Some umpires were basically cheerleaders for the home team, there was no close up replay and zero accountability.

U can think of famous Steve Waugh statement about miandad ," u have to break all three wickets to get him out in Pakistan."

 

[James]

Yeah. Like our series vs australia. Inzi was out several times lol. Wasn't given against mcg. Still got slaughtered anyway

Maybe he wanted the game to be competitive haha

I recently watched highlights of an England series from 2001, which is fairly recent, and the amount of errors was amazing. Batsman getting given not out (eg) when he gloves it to slip, is clearly caught behind, lbw appeal and it would be hitting the middle stump - batsman would stand there and if not given out he just carries on batting for another session. Embarrassing really.

 

[kron]

The only thing is those past greats wud probably adjust their games to meet present day standards.

But players like Inzimam, Ranatunga, David Boon wud struggle to fit in the modern day game unless they spend hours in the gym & trimmed down

Reason Sharjeel Khan & Azam Khan face so much scrutiny due to their weight is bcoz its 2024. In the 80s & 90s such players uwd have no problems

To be fair for exceptional talents weight shouldn't affect selection. Look at pant, not obese but he is still chubby.

Then there's sarfraz now. He looks tubby but he scores and has stamina to bat long.

 

[NishanKonar]

I think once a professor said in an interview "A top student from any generation can be a top student at any point of time.But an average student of older times will struggle now and will be less successful than a present average student as there is lot of fierce competence and methodical approach now.".It goes for any professional or sports.I think @mammon have wrote a great analysis on this past romanticism.

Absolutely true

 

[NishanKonar]

To be fair for exceptional talents weight shouldn't affect selection. Look at pant, not obese but he is still chubby.

Then there's sarfraz now. He looks tubby but he scores and has stamina to bat long.

Sarafraz , Pant are slightly overweight but fairly athletic

Ranatunga , Inzimam were fat. In this T20 era, they wud have struggled to take those quick 1s & 2s that's critical for strike rotation in T20s & ODIs. Also they wud be slow on the field

 

[kron]

I recently watched highlights of an England series from 2001, which is fairly recent, and the amount of errors was amazing. Batsman getting given not out (eg) when he gloves it to slip, is clearly caught behind, lbw appeal and it would be hitting the middle stump - batsman would stand there and if not given out he just carries on batting for another session. Embarrassing really.

Yea unfortunately there is nothing we could do given the lack of technology at the time. All I can say is comparing era's is futile.

Top teams of every era would do well anywhere to be honest. Transplant them into different era's and you will see no difference. Sure they may swap positions between 1 to 3 but a top side of any era would always be a top side regardless.

 

[kron]

Sarafraz , Pant are slightly overweight but fairly athletic

Ranatunga , Inzimam were fat. In this T20 era, they wud have struggled to take those quick 1s & 2s that's critical for strike rotation in T20s & ODIs. Also they wud be slow on the field

Fair call but inzi had exceptional talent. No way I would want him dropped. He had stamina to bat long tbh. Yea t20 lmao would have been hard. Running between wickets would be a comedy fest

 

[NishanKonar]

I recently watched highlights of an England series from 2001, which is fairly recent, and the amount of errors was amazing. Batsman getting given not out (eg) when he gloves it to slip, is clearly caught behind, lbw appeal and it would be hitting the middle stump - batsman would stand there and if not given out he just carries on batting for another session. Embarrassing really.

One reason I respect Sunil Gavaskar is he is probably the only top tier batter who had better average overseas than at home. Which is huge anomaly given most batters of that era has better average at home due to biased umpiring

 

[James]

One reason I respect Sunil Gavaskar is he is probably the only top tier batter who had better average overseas than at home. Which is huge anomaly given most batters of that era has better average at home due to biased umpiring

Yes definitely and it’s also worth looking at bowlers who had an ATG average at home but a totally rubbish one away. There are quite a few of those. Used to get all the lbws at home even if it hit outside the line and was missing a fifth stump, just by making some noise and getting crowd up.

 

[sweep_shot]

So which Team is top test team at the moment, India is not exactly a top team I take that

Australia is #1 in Test currently.

Their WTC win also solidified that fact.

 

[uppercut]

The power game in modern cricket has wrecked batting techniques. Put Rohit Sharma at the other end to Victor Trumper on an uncovered grassy, bumpy Golden Age pitch, and I know who I would put my money on to score runs.

Here are two Cricketers from the "Golden" age of cricket in action. This was the standard of Cricket in Trumpers era. You must be joking if you think Rohit Sharma would struggle against such bowlers. The only way I see him getting out to such bowling would be if he couldnt control laughing his butt off to that bowling.

 

[NishanKonar]

Yes definitely and it’s also worth looking at bowlers who had an ATG average at home but a totally rubbish one away. There are quite a few of those. Used to get all the lbws at home even if it hit outside the line and was missing a fifth stump, just by making some noise and getting crowd up.

Why Imran Khan was unplayable against India in that 1983 series - took 5 consecutive 5 wicket hauls - but never produced similar results in India

If u check some of those lbw dismissals from that 1983 series - its borderline laughable !

 

[NishanKonar]

Here are two Cricketers from the "Golden" age of cricket in action. This was the standard of Cricket in Trumpers era. You must be joking if you think Rohit Sharma would struggle against such bowlers. The only way I see him getting out to such bowling would be if he couldnt control laughing his butt off to that bowling.

Harold Larwood who terrorized Australia during Bodyline bowled at around 85 mph ( as per Don Bradman himself )

Imagine getting terrorized by someone bowling at the same pace as Bhuvi & Hasan Ali !

 

[sweep_shot]

I agree with @Junaids.

I think Test cricket is dying and this era is the weakest Test era in history.

There are only 3-4 good quality Test teams. Competition is far less in this era than previous eras.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

So which Team is top test team at the moment, India is not exactly a top team I take that

Australia is the top ranked side and also hold the WTC.

 

[kumjsr]

Fred Trueman's body was optimised for fast bowling because he bowled 700 overs per season, every season.

As for tennis, it's a bit like cricket. Modern racquets favour 6'6 Djokovics. But give him a 1960's wooden racquet and he probably would struggle to cope with a Rosewall or a Laver who could return every serve with ease.

The power game in modern cricket has wrecked batting techniques. Put Rohit Sharma at the other end to Victor Trumper on an uncovered grassy, bumpy Golden Age pitch, and I know who I would put my money on to score runs.

Fast bowlers of past were so optimised for fast bowling that they could also bowl at over rate of 20-25 while bowling at 90 mph, while modern day pacers can hardly bowl at over rate of 13-14 and spinners at rate of 15-16.

Even then modern bowlers get tired after bowling 90 overs while those bowlers of past used to bowl 120-130 overs in a day.

Even after bowling just 90 overs these bowlers need break of 5-7 days between test matches, while bowlers of past could play FC cricket with just 1-2 days gap over a period of 2-3 months.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Harold Larwood who terrorized Australia during Bodyline bowled at around 85 mph ( as per Don Bradman himself )

Imagine getting terrorized by someone bowling at the same pace as Bhuvi & Hasan Ali !

Did Bradman wear a helmet, chest guard, thigh pad etc?

Did have the sams protection levels with his pads and gloves?

If not then it's not beyond the realms of imagination to be terrorised by a bouncer barrage on those wickets. I think if you take any modern player they would have been similarly terrorized.

 

[sweep_shot]

Did Bradman wear a helmet, chest guard, thigh pad etc?

Did have the sams protection levels with his pads and gloves?

If not then it's not beyond the realms of imagination to be terrorised by a bouncer barrage on those wickets. I think if you take any modern player they would have been similarly terrorized.

Modern day Indian fans don't seem to respect previous generations.

Players from previous eras didn't have protections like today's cricketers. Batters were batting without adequate protections. Today's cricketers are very pampered.

Let's see how Rohit does without a helmet and guards against a 80-90 KMH bowler.