One of the worst eras in the history of cricket currently?

[shaz619]

I grew up watching the following stars: Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Shoaib Akhtar, Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara, Adam Gilchrist, Shane Bond, Bret Lee, Lance Klusner, Shaun Pollock, Shane Warne, Younis Khan, Saqlain Mushtaq, Mushtaq Ahmed, Saeed Anwar, Darren Gough, Andrew Flintoff, Simon Jones, Matthew Hoggard, Glen Mcgrath, Bracken, Murali, Jayasuria, Sangakara, Anil Kumble, Hayden, Langer, Ponting etc

I could go on and on ! quiet frankly we took the talent and quality of cricket for granted in the 90s through to about 2010, it is insane how so many legends, first ballot hall of famers and all time greats were playing together simultaneously.

When we look at the game now, there are maybe one or two stars who have the potential to be ATG's and it might be cliche to say this but the current era doesn't compare to the good ol days and the talent is inferior to in my opinion as a package, in the past I'd go out of my way to watch a game even if it were a dead rubber or meaningless ODI series but it's not the case anymore.

The quality of talent pools in the past made the game a lot more entertaining, I think we always overlook tis in favour of the valid criticisms directed at all the rule changes which are constantly evolving to get more people interested in a sport which is now surviving on leg side hoiks and ugly cross batted slogs, pitches are always flat, we have 2 new balls etc and batting techniques are mostly equipped to deal with friendly conditions but cricketers are generally very rubbish compared to prime talents from 1990-2000 and 2001 - 2010.

The game having evolved is largely a factor which results in such poor quality entertainment among others but it's sad that someone like me who use to be a big fan tunes in just to see an injured Dale Steyn have a net as far as the cricket is concerned because he is a joy to watch in all his glory given his skill even with no shoulders ! I miss all those duels in the past, Akhtar v Sachin, Lara v Spin, Warne v Sachin, Flintoff v Kallis, KP v Murali and Lara v Mcgrath.

It all reminds me of the heavyweight boxing division in the 2000's, everyone was a bare bum barring a couple of fighters such as Vitali and Wladmir who were so dominant that they held all the titles at one point simultaneously, they passed the eye test in that they'd get into the HOF and probably been decent contenders in the golden era but very few would sing their praises to the point where you'd see them beating a Frazier or even Ken Norton. But despite their dominance they killed interest in the one division which drove the sport due to their boring European jab and grab style.

We were very lucky, we took those past legends of cricket for granted; so much quality in every team and even Zimbabwe ! I feel sorry for all the people who genuinely believe they are watching quality entertainment and bare witnessing some of the greatest cricketers of all time. The Pak / India and Ashes rivalries will always keep the sport alive but a big part of what made cricket special is dead, got to give it those who are able to follow the sport so religiously and passionately at present.

 

[CadPakFan]

This is just what happens when little kids grow up to idolize mindless sloggers.

 

[Mamoon]

It is normal to overrate the era in which you grew up, happens to nearly everyone in every sport.

The people who grew up in a particular era always overrate the players of that era, and this will happen in the future as well.

Yes the likes of Tendulkar, Lara, Wasim, Gilchrist etc. are all-time greats, but usually these players do not come in every era.

Virat Kohli, Dhoni and de Villiers are the two biggest legends of this era, and players like them didn’t come before them and probably won’t come again, but it doesn’t mean this era is better than other eras.

Also you named players like Bracken, Lee, Langer, Gough, Jones, Hoggard, Mushtaq Ahmed etc. who were very good players, but there are a lot of better players than them in this era.

Kids growing up today are fascinated by the top players today just like you are fascinated by the top players of your time, and they will hold today’s players in higher esteem.

Similarly, people who have been watching the game for 30-40 years would not consider the likes of Bracken, Hoggard, Lee etc. anything special.

 

[Mamoon]

This is just what happens when little kids grow up to idolize mindless sloggers.

Kids idolize anyone who has made a name for himself at the top level in their time, it is normal human behavior. They grow up watching them and develop affinity towards them.

A lot of average players of yesteryears are put on a pedestal today because of nostalgia. It is laughable to mention the likes of Bracken, Hoggard, Jones etc. as one of the greats.

A lot of bowlers today are comfortably better than these names.

 

[Brodipet_baadshah]

Saeed Anwar, mustaq ahmed, simon jones? Seriously? Are ppl saying current cricket circuit doesn’t have these kind of players? And ppl are missing these guys?lolll

 

[Rishta Aunty]

I grew up watching the following stars: Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Shoaib Akhtar, Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara, Adam Gilchrist, Shane Bond, Bret Lee, Lance Klusner, Shaun Pollock, Shane Warne, Younis Khan, Saqlain Mushtaq, Mushtaq Ahmed, Saeed Anwar, Darren Gough, Andrew Flintoff, Simon Jones, Matthew Hoggard, Glen Mcgrath, Bracken, Murali, Jayasuria, Sangakara, Anil Kumble, Hayden, Langer, Ponting etc

I could go on and on ! quiet frankly we took the talent and quality of cricket for granted in the 90s through to about 2010, it is insane how so many legends, first ballot hall of famers and all time greats were playing together simultaneously.

When we look at the game now, there are maybe one or two stars who have the potential to be ATG's and it might be cliche to say this but the current era doesn't compare to the good ol days and the talent is inferior to in my opinion as a package, in the past I'd go out of my way to watch a game even if it were a dead rubber or meaningless ODI series but it's not the case anymore.

The quality of talent pools in the past made the game a lot more entertaining, I think we always overlook tis in favour of the valid criticisms directed at all the rule changes which are constantly evolving to get more people interested in a sport which is now surviving on leg side hoiks and ugly cross batted slogs, pitches are always flat, we have 2 new balls etc and batting techniques are mostly equipped to deal with friendly conditions but cricketers are generally very rubbish compared to prime talents from 1990-2000 and 2001 - 2010.

The game having evolved is largely a factor which results in such poor quality entertainment among others but it's sad that someone like me who use to be a big fan tunes in just to see an injured Dale Steyn have a net as far as the cricket is concerned because he is a joy to watch in all his glory given his skill even with no shoulders ! I miss all those duels in the past, Akhtar v Sachin, Lara v Spin, Warne v Sachin, Flintoff v Kallis, KP v Murali and Lara v Mcgrath.

It all reminds me of the heavyweight boxing division in the 2000's, everyone was a bare bum barring a couple of fighters such as Vitali and Wladmir who were so dominant that they held all the titles at one point simultaneously, they passed the eye test in that they'd get into the HOF and probably been decent contenders in the golden era but very few would sing their praises to the point where you'd see them beating a Frazier or even Ken Norton. But despite their dominance they killed interest in the one division which drove the sport due to their boring European jab and grab style.

We were very lucky, we took those past legends of cricket for granted; so much quality in every team and even Zimbabwe ! I feel sorry for all the people who genuinely believe they are watching quality entertainment and bare witnessing some of the greatest cricketers of all time. The Pak / India and Ashes rivalries will always keep the sport alive but a big part of what made cricket special is dead, got to give it those who are able to follow the sport so religiously and passionately at present.

I can understand your point, but you undermine it by listing some pretty mediocre names as greats in that list. The fundamental problem has been the changing balance between bat and ball. One of the best examples would be Inzi, whose strike rate of 74 in ODI's would classify him as a below average bat in this era(!). Add in the lack of matches between Pak-Ind (the defining rivalry in the sport), heavily one-sided series between some teams and T20 leagues taking over and things feel underwhelming.

However, we have some absolutely incredible bowlers recently, especially considering how they've adapted to the game being stacked against them. Starc, Rabada, Hasan, Bumrah, Rashid, Kuldeep are all top talents that would have been gamewinners in any era. Let's not forget that!

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Cricket has changed a lot since 2003 world cup shazzy. Even I preferred watching cricket from back then especially ODI cricket when 300 was still a massive score. But it's gotten interesting in recent years with the revival of wrist spin . A few years ago it was all about darters and it's certainly improved on that front. We just need to see more swing/turn and reverse in ODI cricket and it will be interesting again. For me 2011-2017 was when ODI cricket was it's most boring. Pakistan winning the CT and what has followed since then has certainly brought me back to the format.

 

[Raja Sab]

I grew up watching the following stars: Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Shoaib Akhtar, Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara, Adam Gilchrist, Shane Bond, Bret Lee, Lance Klusner, Shaun Pollock, Shane Warne, Younis Khan, Saqlain Mushtaq, Mushtaq Ahmed, Saeed Anwar, Darren Gough, Andrew Flintoff, Simon Jones, Matthew Hoggard, Glen Mcgrath, Bracken, Murali, Jayasuria, Sangakara, Anil Kumble, Hayden, Langer, Ponting etc

I could go on and on ! quiet frankly we took the talent and quality of cricket for granted in the 90s through to about 2010, it is insane how so many legends, first ballot hall of famers and all time greats were playing together simultaneously.

When we look at the game now, there are maybe one or two stars who have the potential to be ATG's and it might be cliche to say this but the current era doesn't compare to the good ol days and the talent is inferior to in my opinion as a package, in the past I'd go out of my way to watch a game even if it were a dead rubber or meaningless ODI series but it's not the case anymore.

The quality of talent pools in the past made the game a lot more entertaining, I think we always overlook tis in favour of the valid criticisms directed at all the rule changes which are constantly evolving to get more people interested in a sport which is now surviving on leg side hoiks and ugly cross batted slogs, pitches are always flat, we have 2 new balls etc and batting techniques are mostly equipped to deal with friendly conditions but cricketers are generally very rubbish compared to prime talents from 1990-2000 and 2001 - 2010.

The game having evolved is largely a factor which results in such poor quality entertainment among others but it's sad that someone like me who use to be a big fan tunes in just to see an injured Dale Steyn have a net as far as the cricket is concerned because he is a joy to watch in all his glory given his skill even with no shoulders ! I miss all those duels in the past, Akhtar v Sachin, Lara v Spin, Warne v Sachin, Flintoff v Kallis, KP v Murali and Lara v Mcgrath.

It all reminds me of the heavyweight boxing division in the 2000's, everyone was a bare bum barring a couple of fighters such as Vitali and Wladmir who were so dominant that they held all the titles at one point simultaneously, they passed the eye test in that they'd get into the HOF and probably been decent contenders in the golden era but very few would sing their praises to the point where you'd see them beating a Frazier or even Ken Norton. But despite their dominance they killed interest in the one division which drove the sport due to their boring European jab and grab style.

We were very lucky, we took those past legends of cricket for granted; so much quality in every team and even Zimbabwe ! I feel sorry for all the people who genuinely believe they are watching quality entertainment and bare witnessing some of the greatest cricketers of all time. The Pak / India and Ashes rivalries will always keep the sport alive but a big part of what made cricket special is dead, got to give it those who are able to follow the sport so religiously and passionately at present.

Amen brother

 

[Usman Chadda]

Fast bowling standards have suffered tremendously. With batters getting better against raw pace, T20 cricket and the new regulations effectively killing quality pace bowling. Steyn is probably the last all format world class fast bowler cricket will ever see. Starc is second best, but not in the league of peak Steyn, let alone the legends of yesteryear. However, spin bowling in modern cricket is quite a notch above. Only Murali would have been successful in today's cricket IMO

 

[happydavy]

Cricket fans in general and specifically many PPers are the only sports fans who say that past is better than present. Every sport from tennis to football to athletics, the news stars perform better than the ones in the best. It's because sports is far more professional today and sophisticated training ensures that you become better than your peers in the past.

Usain Bolt runs faster than Carl Lewis or Donovan Bailey. Even Justin Gatlin of 2018 runs faster than Justin Gatlin of 2004, when he won olympics. Federer has won 20 grand slams and is considered the best ever, not Agasi nor Pete Sampras. Serena Williams is considered the best ever, no one says Martina Navratilova or Steffi Graff were better. ESPN and other publications now openly call LeBron James as the best ever to have played basketball, better than Michael Jordan. Ronaldo and Messi are called the best ever to have played the game, they score more goals day in day out than all the past era players, but no one says that defense in football is now worse than how it used to be in 80s. Michael Phelps is considered the greatest swimmer ever, not Ian Thorpe. People understand that this is the law of nature that baring some individual exceptions, by and large players of new era are much better than players of previous era, and there is not a single sport that dispute that.

All the new stars in every sport are better skilled than the ones in the past, but if this forum is to be believed that cricket is the only sport where past cricketers with ordinary fitness and third grade umpires were better than the ones playing today. Ironically, i find it humorous that people long for 90s era. Funny because every person on this forum knows that 90s was the dirtiest phase of world cricket as none of us know how many matches were played clean in that era. From Azharudin to Wasim Akram to Hansie Cronje, so many captains were busy making money while losing matches, wots the sanctity of a leg flick or a reverse swinging yorker, when the idea is to lose the match and just do a little bit of showmanship in the process.

 

[Saj]

Good OP.

I think the number of genuine world-class cricketers is very low and short boundaries, 2 new balls in ODIs and a generation of cricketers looking to make quick money from T20s is hurting cricket.

I grew up watching cricketers whose priority was Test cricket - nowadays most players don't give a damn about Test cricket.

 

[aloo paratha]

there are no real fast bowlers, bowling 145-155 kph, reverse swinging the ball. Watching videos of Lee, Bond, Akhtar from 2003 WC is really entertaining. Nobody can really do that anymore, maybe Starc once in a while.

 

[aloo paratha]

Similarly, people who have been watching the game for 30-40 years would not consider the likes of Bracken, Hoggard, Lee etc. anything special.

Lee was better than most fast bowlers playing today, only Rabada is better than him.

 

[aloo paratha]

People who truly think cricket has gotten better in the last 5-10 years are probably just T20 fans. Only fielding has improved compared to 20 years ago. Back then there were bowlers like McGrath, Lee, Akram, Younis, Bond, Pollock, Donald, Warne, Murali. Even the hitters pretty much on par with some of the ones today. Give someone like Roy or Hales a bat from 20 years ago and I can pretty much gaurantee they won't be hitting the ball as far.

Also the rules have made the game less entertaining in my eyes, especially ODIs. Reverse swing is pretty much completely dead and all we see nowadays are 300+ scores every game.

 

[90MPH]

For me these 20/20 leagues have been a total utter disaster for the game of cricket.

More money doesn’t mean more quality. Simply put the priorities have changed for many upcoming cricketers.

 

[90MPH]

^^I totally agree about the bats - thankfully the ICC have finally put some sensible measures to curtail their ridiculous size. I remember starting a thread about this a few years ago.

 

[Hitman]

I blame the ICC and ICC alone for making a joke out of the once beautiful ODI format. That is my biggest gripe with cricket in today's era.

 

[shaz619]

It is normal to overrate the era in which you grew up, happens to nearly everyone in every sport.

The people who grew up in a particular era always overrate the players of that era, and this will happen in the future as well.

Yes the likes of Tendulkar, Lara, Wasim, Gilchrist etc. are all-time greats, but usually these players do not come in every era.

Virat Kohli, Dhoni and de Villiers are the two biggest legends of this era, and players like them didn’t come before them and probably won’t come again, but it doesn’t mean this era is better than other eras.

Also you named players like Bracken, Lee, Langer, Gough, Jones, Hoggard, Mushtaq Ahmed etc. who were very good players, but there are a lot of better players than them in this era.

Kids growing up today are fascinated by the top players today just like you are fascinated by the top players of your time, and they will hold today’s players in higher esteem.

Similarly, people who have been watching the game for 30-40 years would not consider the likes of Bracken, Hoggard, Lee etc. anything special.

There is an element to lean towards stars who you grew up watching but you are overlooking that while we can make a comparison between the B level cricketers of today to those of the past, how many right now compare to or have the potential to compare to the likes of Lara, Wasim, Waqar, Akhtar, Warne, Ponting, Lara, Donalld, Sachin, Pollock, Bond, Murali, Sanga, Jayasuriya, Kallis, Hayden, Dravid and Glen Mcgrath among others?

I find it hard to believe you or anyone watching for 40 years enjoy cricket more now then you did from 95-2010 and believe the quality to be better in terms of skill levels among the elite talents in the world. We were very fortunate that so many legends were playing simultaneously.

 

[DeadBall]

There was an actual competition between bat and ball back then and was treated as an art. Now it's just a competition about who can tonk it over the boundary line the most with over sized bats on flat roads for morons who just enjoy watching the ball flying over their heads.

 

[shaz619]

Good OP.

I think the number of genuine world-class cricketers is very low and short boundaries, 2 new balls in ODIs and a generation of cricketers looking to make quick money from T20s is hurting cricket.

I grew up watching cricketers whose priority was Test cricket - nowadays most players don't give a damn about Test cricket.

Very well said, this point just can't be emphasised enough! You have a small number of stars who can genuinely be deemed world class and beyond that there are others who have the potential but very unproven but people are quick to put such talents on a pedestal. The overall quality of cricket now is very poor without a doubt in comparison.

 

[todfod 11]

90s was the best era because it was all about ODI cricket specially India Pakistan. I grew up watching that cricket so matter what Cricket will never be as much fun anyways.
In this era players have no real charisma that star power which would pull crowd. Every sports need a lil bit of drama which cricket is lacking high time now. You need some in your face cricketer, Now rules are way too strict.
Also major factor has been bilateral series since late 2000s, they r the reason cricket is declining in smaller cricket playing nations. These useless test matches with no meaning. India will be playing 5 test matches versus England, Jeez it sounds So boring Now, Think how bored everyone will be after the third test specially if it starts to go one way.
And then India vs Pakistan series, these were the series in 90s which would make heroes everyday. Be it Ijaz Ahmeds 139 in karachi, Afridis 109, kumbles 10fer Sachins hundred.
Same like 90s can never come back so cricket will never be the same.. Decline has already started in Windies , Sri lanka Australia (to some extent). quality will keep going down.

 

[Sachin136]

In terms of quality you can argue that it isn't as good as the 90s and 00s. But before that, as is apparent from the footage available, the standard of cricket wasn't close to how it is now.

 

[Suleiman]

I don't think it's that bad but what is seriously bringing quality of cricket down is playing pathetic teams like Zimbabwe and West Indies again and again and again instead of more triangular series of the past. If Aussies put aside their discount IPL... sorry I mean BBL, then it'd be a terrific place to hold those triangle series of the past once again.

Am personally sick of seeing Zimbabwe v Pakistan promos/ads/threads let alone the low quality games.

 

[Tusker]

I grew up watching the following stars: Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Shoaib Akhtar, Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara, Adam Gilchrist, Shane Bond, Bret Lee, Lance Klusner, Shaun Pollock, Shane Warne, Younis Khan, Saqlain Mushtaq, Mushtaq Ahmed, Saeed Anwar, Darren Gough, Andrew Flintoff, Simon Jones, Matthew Hoggard, Glen Mcgrath, Bracken, Murali, Jayasuria, Sangakara, Anil Kumble, Hayden, Langer, Ponting etc

I could go on and on ! quiet frankly we took the talent and quality of cricket for granted in the 90s through to about 2010, it is insane how so many legends, first ballot hall of famers and all time greats were playing together simultaneously.

When we look at the game now, there are maybe one or two stars who have the potential to be ATG's and it might be cliche to say this but the current era doesn't compare to the good ol days and the talent is inferior to in my opinion as a package, in the past I'd go out of my way to watch a game even if it were a dead rubber or meaningless ODI series but it's not the case anymore.

The quality of talent pools in the past made the game a lot more entertaining, I think we always overlook tis in favour of the valid criticisms directed at all the rule changes which are constantly evolving to get more people interested in a sport which is now surviving on leg side hoiks and ugly cross batted slogs, pitches are always flat, we have 2 new balls etc and batting techniques are mostly equipped to deal with friendly conditions but cricketers are generally very rubbish compared to prime talents from 1990-2000 and 2001 - 2010.

The game having evolved is largely a factor which results in such poor quality entertainment among others but it's sad that someone like me who use to be a big fan tunes in just to see an injured Dale Steyn have a net as far as the cricket is concerned because he is a joy to watch in all his glory given his skill even with no shoulders ! I miss all those duels in the past, Akhtar v Sachin, Lara v Spin, Warne v Sachin, Flintoff v Kallis, KP v Murali and Lara v Mcgrath.

It all reminds me of the heavyweight boxing division in the 2000's, everyone was a bare bum barring a couple of fighters such as Vitali and Wladmir who were so dominant that they held all the titles at one point simultaneously, they passed the eye test in that they'd get into the HOF and probably been decent contenders in the golden era but very few would sing their praises to the point where you'd see them beating a Frazier or even Ken Norton. But despite their dominance they killed interest in the one division which drove the sport due to their boring European jab and grab style.

We were very lucky, we took those past legends of cricket for granted; so much quality in every team and even Zimbabwe ! I feel sorry for all the people who genuinely believe they are watching quality entertainment and bare witnessing some of the greatest cricketers of all time. The Pak / India and Ashes rivalries will always keep the sport alive but a big part of what made cricket special is dead, got to give it those who are able to follow the sport so religiously and passionately at present.

If you ask the old ERA fanatics like [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] he will tell you that the 80s and 70s were even better )

 

[JattMaula]

Cricket was best when all this fancy protection was unavailable.

#Realbattersbatwithoutpadsandglovesandbox

 

[Shutdown Corner]

Back then the bowlers were good because bats were made of cardboard and batsmen had crap techniques. Pitches were also more sporting most of the time from what I hear.

Some of the fast bowlers going around are quite good. And there probably hasn't been a richer era in terms of the wrist-spinners who are out there now. 7-8 to very good wrist spinners...maybe none of them are as good as Warne, but collectively better than what was on offer in the 90s.

 

[Lefthanded]

Every era has ageing men looking backwards with some idolatry, looking for the earlier thrills the sport provided.

I'm skeptical of more than a few names on the list, but the truth is that this generation does not have a Lara, a Tendulkar, a Dravid, a Ponting, an Akram or a Waqar, a Murali or Sanga, a McGrath or a Warne.

Heck, it doesn't even have a Kevin Pietersen, whose greatness is best measured in his big performances.

It does however have a fading Steyn and a recently departed ABD.

Still:

Rabada has a good chance of being a worthy successor to Steyn.

But, the Fab Four aren't a fearsome quartet.

Root is over-rated and likely to be an England great. Williamson doesn't get to play enough Tests to really show his class. Smith, we'll have to see how he does when gets back.

However, Kohli seems to be on his way to ATG-ness.

As for ARs: Stokes has been plagued by injury since his return from his boxing ban, and I think Shakib doesn't get to play enough Tests abroad.

That's not particularly impressive and comparable to be honest.

[I'm only speaking of Tests here].

The skill level of ODI guys is really impressive, but the batsmen are inflated by a heap of unfair advantages and white ball cricket is usually just batting pornography.

 

[Josh]

Teams like Zim, Windies and Australia getting players with lesser skills makes it feel like that.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Lee was better than most fast bowlers playing today, only Rabada is better than him.

In odis yes across formats no.
Rabada, starc, Hazelwood, philander, anderson are all better than him.

 

[Prashant]

The names that will be great in this era would that be of players who are good in limited overs. Your example to include dhoni is what the issue is with the current crop. Everyone now consider superstars of limited overs to be great whereas most of the names in the original argument were test greats

 

[Mamoon]

Lee was better than most fast bowlers playing today, only Rabada is better than him.

I have seen Lee’s whole career. He was a superstar and was extremely popular because of his speed and persona, but as a bowler, he was overrated.

Not only Rabada, but Steyn, Philander, Starc, Boult, Cummins, Hazlewood and even Amir on his day are better, more rounded bowlers.

 

[Mamoon]

There is an element to lean towards stars who you grew up watching but you are overlooking that while we can make a comparison between the B level cricketers of today to those of the past, how many right now compare to or have the potential to compare to the likes of Lara, Wasim, Waqar, Akhtar, Warne, Ponting, Lara, Donalld, Sachin, Pollock, Bond, Murali, Sanga, Jayasuriya, Kallis, Hayden, Dravid and Glen Mcgrath among others?

I find it hard to believe you or anyone watching for 40 years enjoy cricket more now then you did from 95-2010 and believe the quality to be better in terms of skill levels among the elite talents in the world. We were very fortunate that so many legends were playing simultaneously.

It is true that there are less “big names” in this era compared to the 90s and 2000s, but we still have players like Kohli, de Villiers, Dhoni, Steyn, Smith, Williamson, Starc, Rabada etc. who are as good any one.

Moreover, the B grade players of this era like Amla, Amir, Yasir, Philander, Taylor, Guptill, Pujara, Rahane etc. are as good - if not better - than the B grade players of the previous eras.

Calling it the worst era of cricket is a stretch, because this era has players that have the potential to be the very best ever in their roles/positions.

- Kohli is arguably the greatest ODI batsman ever.

- Smith could statistically end up as the best Test batsman since Bradman

- Starc is potentially the best ODI pacer ever

- Rabada, Hazlewood have ATG potential.

- Root and Williamson will probably end up as the best batsmen England and New Zealand have respectively produced.

- Babar can break all ODI batting records of Pakistan, etc. etc.

Any era that produces players of such pedigree cannot be labeled as the worst era. No doubt the nature of the game has changed and it is not to everyone’s taste, but every sport evolves with time, which is why a direct comparison with previous era players cannot be established.

For example, some of the great bowlers of the past will get routinely smashed in Limited Overs today. Waqar floored many batsmen with his yorkers, but modern players like de Villiers, Buttler, Maxwell etc. might scoop the same deliveries over the keeper’s head for fours.

 

[big_gamer007]

[MENTION=46929]shaz619[/MENTION]

It’s called nostalgia.

Prime example is wrestling, people who grew up watching attitude era or new gen gen era find today’s product garbage.. While growing up I loved segments of funaki, hurricane, dawn marie, MoM, Warlord, papa Shango, al snow, Ken shamrock etc etc

Now all the above guys were mediocre however as a kid I loved them.. Similarly today’s kid will love the mediocre guys of today.. It’s just how it is.

Yes the top notch talent was slightly higher back then but had limitations so people like Rock, Austin, hogan were probably better superstars but inferior technical wrestlers than someone say Daniel Bryan, AJ styles or nakamura.

Similarly 90’s had many players like Tendulkar, Lara etc who were legends no doubts but they can’t do what someone like AB can do play 360.

Bowlers like Wasim etc benefitted from bowling friendly conditions, rules, ground sizes, bar sizes, not enough technology to get away with tampering and were superstars however today’s bowlers like Starc, rabada etc don’t have those luxury but still perform well and have innovated themselves with slower ball, knuckle ball, slower bouncer etc..

Kids love them today cricket is innovating as a game and changes are happening all the time just that it’s much more in favour of batsman than bowlers..

 

[Majid Khan]

I grew up watching the following stars: Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Shoaib Akhtar, Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara, Adam Gilchrist, Shane Bond, Bret Lee, Lance Klusner, Shaun Pollock, Shane Warne, Younis Khan, Saqlain Mushtaq, Mushtaq Ahmed, Saeed Anwar, Darren Gough, Andrew Flintoff, Simon Jones, Matthew Hoggard, Glen Mcgrath, Bracken, Murali, Jayasuria, Sangakara, Anil Kumble, Hayden, Langer, Ponting etc

I could go on and on ! quiet frankly we took the talent and quality of cricket for granted in the 90s through to about 2010, it is insane how so many legends, first ballot hall of famers and all time greats were playing together simultaneously.

When we look at the game now, there are maybe one or two stars who have the potential to be ATG's and it might be cliche to say this but the current era doesn't compare to the good ol days and the talent is inferior to in my opinion as a package, in the past I'd go out of my way to watch a game even if it were a dead rubber or meaningless ODI series but it's not the case anymore.

The quality of talent pools in the past made the game a lot more entertaining, I think we always overlook tis in favour of the valid criticisms directed at all the rule changes which are constantly evolving to get more people interested in a sport which is now surviving on leg side hoiks and ugly cross batted slogs, pitches are always flat, we have 2 new balls etc and batting techniques are mostly equipped to deal with friendly conditions but cricketers are generally very rubbish compared to prime talents from 1990-2000 and 2001 - 2010.

The game having evolved is largely a factor which results in such poor quality entertainment among others but it's sad that someone like me who use to be a big fan tunes in just to see an injured Dale Steyn have a net as far as the cricket is concerned because he is a joy to watch in all his glory given his skill even with no shoulders ! I miss all those duels in the past, Akhtar v Sachin, Lara v Spin, Warne v Sachin, Flintoff v Kallis, KP v Murali and Lara v Mcgrath.

It all reminds me of the heavyweight boxing division in the 2000's, everyone was a bare bum barring a couple of fighters such as Vitali and Wladmir who were so dominant that they held all the titles at one point simultaneously, they passed the eye test in that they'd get into the HOF and probably been decent contenders in the golden era but very few would sing their praises to the point where you'd see them beating a Frazier or even Ken Norton. But despite their dominance they killed interest in the one division which drove the sport due to their boring European jab and grab style.

We were very lucky, we took those past legends of cricket for granted; so much quality in every team and even Zimbabwe ! I feel sorry for all the people who genuinely believe they are watching quality entertainment and bare witnessing some of the greatest cricketers of all time. The Pak / India and Ashes rivalries will always keep the sport alive but a big part of what made cricket special is dead, got to give it those who are able to follow the sport so religiously and passionately at present.

Sadly that's true, the quality and standard of international cricket overall is just not the same as it used to be.

True, times change and the way the game is played today has also changed - but at the end of the day, the basics are still the same - they still play with a bat and a ball, batsmen are still there looking to score runs and bowlers to take wickets.

I am a passionate cricket fan and still watch highlights of old games from the 70s/80s/90s era on youtube - from the likes of Viv Richards, Zaheer Abbas, Majid Khan, Greg Chappel, Gordon Greenidge, Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting, Saeed Anwar, Inzamam, Yousuf, VVS Laxman, Azharuddin, Aravinda De Silva, Sanath Jayasuriya, to mention a few names (some of these won't even make it into all-time great lists) --- and compare those guys with today's batsmen, Virat Kohli and AB DeVilliers aside, its like watching a B-grade Bollywood modern day remake of The Godfather and comparing it to the original - the quality just isn't there today.

And same with fast bowling , can someone tell me the last time they saw an exciting spell of fast bowling with stumps carwheeling, with a bowler virtually on his own running through a batting line up - now go back to the 80s and 90s and early 2000s these were regular part of watching cricket, with Holding, Marshall, Ambrose, Wasim, Waqar, Donald, Pollock, McGrath, Shoaib, Lee,.

As far as those who think no it's just nostalgia of the past -- than maybe the modern day West Indies team is also full of the same talent and calibre as great as Clive Lloyd's team of the 70s/80s - we just don't appreciate them.. indeed.

 

[shaz619]

It is true that there are less “big names” in this era compared to the 90s and 2000s, but we still have players like Kohli, de Villiers, Dhoni, Steyn, Smith, Williamson, Starc, Rabada etc. who are as good any one.

Moreover, the B grade players of this era like Amla, Amir, Yasir, Philander, Taylor, Guptill, Pujara, Rahane etc. are as good - if not better - than the B grade players of the previous eras.

Calling it the worst era of cricket is a stretch, because this era has players that have the potential to be the very best ever in their roles/positions.

- Kohli is arguably the greatest ODI batsman ever.

- Smith could statistically end up as the best Test batsman since Bradman

- Starc is potentially the best ODI pacer ever

- Rabada, Hazlewood have ATG potential.

- Root and Williamson will probably end up as the best batsmen England and New Zealand have respectively produced.

- Babar can break all ODI batting records of Pakistan, etc. etc.

Any era that produces players of such pedigree cannot be labeled as the worst era. No doubt the nature of the game has changed and it is not to everyone’s taste, but every sport evolves with time, which is why a direct comparison with previous era players cannot be established.

For example, some of the great bowlers of the past will get routinely smashed in Limited Overs today. Waqar floored many batsmen with his yorkers, but modern players like de Villiers, Buttler, Maxwell etc. might scoop the same deliveries over the keeper’s head for fours.

Not saying it is the worst era ever but could be one of them, you had solid B cricketers which were complimented by those big names which made cricket more enjoyable.

Statistically many batsman in this era will surpass everyone else in history really but that doesn't necessarily advocate their greatness above the legends in the past, this era has different challenges compared to the past and vice versa. But one thing we can agree on is that the overall talent pool now is weaker and that we enjoyed the superior quality of cricket in the 90s and 2000s.

We can't really say those players would routinely get smashed for sure because they'd have to adapt their game to the current time period and besides, most batsman these days have poor awareness outside their off stump and struggle against a tiny bit of movement given how conditions and rules favour them so much, this is why in Test cricket there are few who do as well away compared to home.

 

[AlizeeFan]

I grew up watching the following stars: Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Shoaib Akhtar, Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara, Adam Gilchrist, Shane Bond, Bret Lee, Lance Klusner, Shaun Pollock, Shane Warne, Younis Khan, Saqlain Mushtaq, Mushtaq Ahmed, Saeed Anwar, Darren Gough, Andrew Flintoff, Simon Jones, Matthew Hoggard, Glen Mcgrath, Bracken, Murali, Jayasuria, Sangakara, Anil Kumble, Hayden, Langer, Ponting etc

I could go on and on ! quiet frankly we took the talent and quality of cricket for granted in the 90s through to about 2010, it is insane how so many legends, first ballot hall of famers and all time greats were playing together simultaneously.

When we look at the game now, there are maybe one or two stars who have the potential to be ATG's and it might be cliche to say this but the current era doesn't compare to the good ol days and the talent is inferior to in my opinion as a package, in the past I'd go out of my way to watch a game even if it were a dead rubber or meaningless ODI series but it's not the case anymore.

The quality of talent pools in the past made the game a lot more entertaining, I think we always overlook tis in favour of the valid criticisms directed at all the rule changes which are constantly evolving to get more people interested in a sport which is now surviving on leg side hoiks and ugly cross batted slogs, pitches are always flat, we have 2 new balls etc and batting techniques are mostly equipped to deal with friendly conditions but cricketers are generally very rubbish compared to prime talents from 1990-2000 and 2001 - 2010.

The game having evolved is largely a factor which results in such poor quality entertainment among others but it's sad that someone like me who use to be a big fan tunes in just to see an injured Dale Steyn have a net as far as the cricket is concerned because he is a joy to watch in all his glory given his skill even with no shoulders ! I miss all those duels in the past, Akhtar v Sachin, Lara v Spin, Warne v Sachin, Flintoff v Kallis, KP v Murali and Lara v Mcgrath.

It all reminds me of the heavyweight boxing division in the 2000's, everyone was a bare bum barring a couple of fighters such as Vitali and Wladmir who were so dominant that they held all the titles at one point simultaneously, they passed the eye test in that they'd get into the HOF and probably been decent contenders in the golden era but very few would sing their praises to the point where you'd see them beating a Frazier or even Ken Norton. But despite their dominance they killed interest in the one division which drove the sport due to their boring European jab and grab style.

We were very lucky, we took those past legends of cricket for granted; so much quality in every team and even Zimbabwe ! I feel sorry for all the people who genuinely believe they are watching quality entertainment and bare witnessing some of the greatest cricketers of all time. The Pak / India and Ashes rivalries will always keep the sport alive but a big part of what made cricket special is dead, got to give it those who are able to follow the sport so religiously and passionately at present.

Number of potential ATGs in 90s - 3

SRT
Lara
Waugh

Number of potential ATGs of 2010s - at least 4
Smith
Kohli
Root
Williamson

And overall batting was really on weaker side in 90s.

 

[AlizeeFan]

Good OP.

I think the number of genuine world-class cricketers is very low and short boundaries, 2 new balls in ODIs and a generation of cricketers looking to make quick money from T20s is hurting cricket.

I grew up watching cricketers whose priority was Test cricket - nowadays most players don't give a damn about Test cricket.

Boundaries were short earlier also. Batsmen are now taking advantage of that.

 

[marlonbrowndo]

I blame the ICC and ICC alone for making a joke out of the once beautiful ODI format. That is my biggest gripe with cricket in today's era.

I agree with this

 

[shaz619]

Sadly that's true, the quality and standard of international cricket overall is just not the same as it used to be.

True, times change and the way the game is played today has also changed - but at the end of the day, the basics are still the same - they still play with a bat and a ball, batsmen are still there looking to score runs and bowlers to take wickets.

I am a passionate cricket fan and still watch highlights of old games from the 70s/80s/90s era on youtube - from the likes of Viv Richards, Zaheer Abbas, Majid Khan, Greg Chappel, Gordon Greenidge, Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting, Saeed Anwar, Inzamam, Yousuf, VVS Laxman, Azharuddin, Aravinda De Silva, Sanath Jayasuriya, to mention a few names (some of these won't even make it into all-time great lists) --- and compare those guys with today's batsmen, Virat Kohli and AB DeVilliers aside, its like watching a B-grade Bollywood modern day remake of The Godfather and comparing it to the original - the quality just isn't there today.

And same with fast bowling , can someone tell me the last time they saw an exciting spell of fast bowling with stumps carwheeling, with a bowler virtually on his own running through a batting line up - now go back to the 80s and 90s and early 2000s these were regular part of watching cricket, with Holding, Marshall, Ambrose, Wasim, Waqar, Donald, Pollock, McGrath, Shoaib, Lee,.

As far as those who think no it's just nostalgia of the past -- than maybe the modern day West Indies team is also full of the same talent and calibre as great as Clive Lloyd's team of the 70s/80s - we just don't appreciate them.. indeed.

Very well said, we can't directly compare era's in terms of the distinct rules / regulations but how many currently pass the eye test ? not many. Fast bowling resources are at an all time low and barring a few names batting is just one big slogathon. You don't need to be technically sound to succeed in the current era and people may enjoy this B-grade Bollywood modern day remake of The Godfather but I prefer the original and it's nothing to do with nostalgia but quality.

 

[Majid Khan]

Very well said, we can't directly compare era's in terms of the distinct rules / regulations but how many currently pass the eye test ? not many. Fast bowling resources are at an all time low and barring a few names batting is just one big slogathon. You don't need to be technically sound to succeed in the current era and people may enjoy this B-grade Bollywood modern day remake of The Godfather but I prefer the original and it's nothing to do with nostalgia but quality.

Batting is indeed more or less a big slogathon in limited overs cricket, and while you could argue that watching cricket today should be more entertaining because there are so many sixes being hit and high scoring matches - but in eras like this you realise even more that real excitement is not in just seeing the ball go into the stands with a six, but the duel between a quality batsman and quality bowler ---- imagine, a lightning fast bowler like Alan Donald running in and trying to test the batsman's reaction with a short ball, and the batsman being Brian Lara reacts by hooking or pulling the short ball for a six - the thrill and enjoyment of watching that ONE six beats watching 100 sixes of today with no-bodies dancing down the wicket to slog pie-chucking no-bodies out of the ground.

 

[Aman]

Number of potential ATGs in 90s - 3

SRT
Lara
Waugh

Number of potential ATGs of 2010s - at least 4
Smith
Kohli
Root
Williamson

And overall batting was really on weaker side in 90s.

Kane and Root wont get there.

 

[someone21]

Disagree with many here. Cricket has changed, and the idea that a bowler has to "respected" has gone. Respected for what? His name, records? That's now all irrelevant, and every bowler is there for the taking.

Earlier, batsman used to respect the bowlers, and there was a common idea to play out the opening overs or certain bowlersThat's changed, and batsman test out the bowlers from the first ball. In cricket, bowling is all about confidence, momentum and getting smashed destroys it. Had T20s been around earlier, the likes of Akram, Akthar, Brett Lee, Mcgrath would have fared much worse, and their records would be less. It's also not just cricket, look at football, there aren't any traditional great defenders nowadays. The sport has changed, and it has to be appreciated.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Kane and Root wont get there.

Add Smith too after what he did recently.

 

[gazza619]

It is normal to overrate the era in which you grew up, happens to nearly everyone in every sport.

The people who grew up in a particular era always overrate the players of that era, and this will happen in the future as well.

Yes the likes of Tendulkar, Lara, Wasim, Gilchrist etc. are all-time greats, but usually these players do not come in every era.

Virat Kohli, Dhoni and de Villiers are the two biggest legends of this era, and players like them didn’t come before them and probably won’t come again, but it doesn’t mean this era is better than other eras.

Also you named players like Bracken, Lee, Langer, Gough, Jones, Hoggard, Mushtaq Ahmed etc. who were very good players, but there are a lot of better players than them in this era.

Kids growing up today are fascinated by the top players today just like you are fascinated by the top players of your time, and they will hold today’s players in higher esteem.

Similarly, people who have been watching the game for 30-40 years would not consider the likes of Bracken, Hoggard, Lee etc. anything special.

Though I agree with you in principle that people tend to overrate their own era, but you seriously need to closely watch the teams of today. Only England, New Zealand and India appear to have better players than their previous era. I have excluded Bangladesh as their pretty much didn’t exist in the previous era.
If you look at Pakistan, West Indies, Australia, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Sri Lanka the quality has diminished to an all time low.
Now if you see what the better players of England, New Zealand and India bring to the table, and what poorer players of Pakistan, West Indies, Australia, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Sri Lanka have to offer, there will be a big deficit to the game of cricket.

 

[marlonbrowndo]

I agree. Most games these days are awful and watching bat dominate ball this much is fun for Mickey Mouse league fans but not for me

 

[sam_ahm]

My interest in cricket is at an all time low, that is for sure. It has become so monotonous... and more one sided games than ever before.

 

[Itachi]

I think its the competitiveness which is going down. Two weak teams can make a great match same as two great teams.

But the problem is, its always one of the top three teams and the other is a weak one.

 

[Aman]

Yeah, I feel the same way.

Cricket just isn't the same nowadays, lack of quality is a big reason why.

 

[Stewie]

What you call lack of quality is believe is a result of the imbalance between bat n ball.

Why Viv was and is such a legend is not because of his average or SR, if you compare it with batsmen of today, he is a legend because of the era he played in. There was a balance between bat and ball. He had to fight for those runs and be extremely daring and talented to score the way he did. These days any Tom,’dick and Harry can do it. Most top teams have at least one batsman who can score andaddy hundred in an ODi.. in those days it was only Viv and maybe a couple others who could do it.

Which is also why there are no bowling legends anymore. You can get mystery spinners now who fade out once they get sorted out. But express pace doesn’t get you much now because the ball usually travels in a straight line these days.


So with no bowling legends to be, you are only looking at batting legends with their worth adjusted for the imbalance,.. well.... of course it will be inflated, wouldn’t it?

 

[BlackShadow]

Pakistan and West Indies falling from grace is one big reason why Cricket isn't same today. It is always between India, English, Aussies and SA, and that can be quite boring for a good number of Cricket fans.

 

[Tusker]

What you call lack of quality is believe is a result of the imbalance between bat n ball.

Why Viv was and is such a legend is not because of his average or SR, if you compare it with batsmen of today, he is a legend because of the era he played in. There was a balance between bat and ball. He had to fight for those runs and be extremely daring and talented to score the way he did. These days any Tom,’dick and Harry can do it. Most top teams have at least one batsman who can score andaddy hundred in an ODi.. in those days it was only Viv and maybe a couple others who could do it.

Can you post any of the footage that shows Viv fighting for runs against bowlers who you like to paint as unplayable or tough to score against? I don't believe in words from anybody only in real evidence that I can see for myself. So please feel free to post a clip or two that proves your point and explain the technical aspects of bowling, batting and fielding.

 

[sam_ahm]

Imbalance between bat and ball in LOI cricket has a lot to do with my lack of interest. Even a close match now is like can 30 runs be scored in 12 balls?

Earlier a close match was like 60 runs in 55 balls where bowlers had a great chance to pick wickets and turn the game on it's head.

Now even a close match is determined by "how much can your batsman hit".

 

[Stewie]

Can you post any of the footage that shows Viv fighting for runs against bowlers who you like to paint as unplayable or tough to score against? I don't believe in words from anybody only in real evidence that I can see for myself. So please feel free to post a clip or two that proves your point and explain the technical aspects of bowling, batting and fielding.

Are you serious? How old are you really?

Lol.. Bhai go watch full first four or five World Cup games. Go check what was a competitive total in an ODI game... look at SR of premier batsmen of those days.. meray se clip maang raha hai jaisey mein tuhmarey pyo ki video ki dukaan per mulazim hoon..
Hud hoti hai!

 

[ravisurya]

With the bat dominating, the game has become monotonous and boring and the authorities havent done anything to restore balance.

 

[Stewie]

Thanks to all those who seem to be agreeing with me here on the imbalance between bat n ball and not asking me to post any videos here to support my argument... JEEZ!!!

 

[Tusker]

Are you serious? How old are you really?

Lol.. Bhai go watch full first four or five World Cup games. Go check what was a competitive total in an ODI game... look at SR of premier batsmen of those days.. meray se clip maang raha hai jaisey mein tuhmarey pyo ki video ki dukaan per mulazim hoon..
Hud hoti hai!

Thought so ... no logic no rationale certainly no facts and evidence to back up the tall words but no shortage of peurile bluster to compensate for the bakwas.

Go look at Viv Richards stats against his own WI bowlers when he played them in county or domestic FC matches but then that might require some more high octane bluster barrage to account for that.

 

[Hasan123]

I don't follow cricket as much as I once did tbh but this certainly isn't the worst era of cricket. Run rates in test are improving and also fielding standards have improved.

ICC haven't helped by not expanding the game and also by increasing boundary sizes and not encouraging sporting pitches.

 

[Majid Khan]

Not sure which direction this discussion is going - but the fact of the matter is this, the quality and calibre of majority of cricketers is noticeably lesser today then it has been in previous eras.

Yes there are two or three exceptional players today like Kohli, AB DeVillers, or Dale Steyn.... But overall in 30 odd years of following and watching the game, for me there are very rare moments in today's top level cricket where I can say WOW and admire that stunning hook/pull or cover drive, or that cracker of a delivery from a bowler to dismiss a batsman.

Compared with the standard of cricket in previous eras, you could sit back in awe and admire the skills and talent on display of even players like Saleem Malik, Azharuddin, Aravinda De Silva, Mohammed Yousaf, who won't even get mentioned in ATG discussions and yet I feel privileged to have watched these guys play cricket.

 

[Tusker]

Not sure which direction this discussion is going - but the fact of the matter is this, the quality and calibre of majority of cricketers is noticeably lesser today then it has been in previous eras.

Yes there are two or three exceptional players today like Kohli, AB DeVillers, or Dale Steyn.... But overall in 30 odd years of following and watching the game, for me there are very rare moments in today's top level cricket where I can say WOW and admire that stunning hook/pull or cover drive, or that cracker of a delivery from a bowler to dismiss a batsman.

Compared with the standard of cricket in previous eras, you could sit back in awe and admire the skills and talent on display

What Iam saying is please prove it using footage and technical explanation instead of long paragraphs. It should be really easy.

What I can promise you is that for every such passage of play from the last century I can produce same or better quality cricket from today's Era.

 

[Robert]

If you ask the old ERA fanatics like [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] he will tell you that the 80s and 70s were even better )

Well, [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] is only young. He lacks experience enough to know that the 'fifties was the strongest era.

 

[marlonbrowndo]

People who prefer this era of cricket are intellectually inferior

 

[idrizzy]

All sports will have eras where there are highlights and lowlights. Tennis post-Federer, Nadal, Djok will look pretty mediocre. Football beyond Ronaldo and Messi will seem empty with the lack of an ATG.

Cricket has been blessed with a lot of stars in the past, but it's not like ATGs are born overnight. It creates time to become a world class batsman or bowler. Kohli, Dhoni, ABDV, Gayle (for his own achievements), Steyn, Smith, Root, Williamson are the current stars we have in this era along with a few others. Obviously some of them are not playing as much or at all for their own reasons, but it doesn't mean we're lacking in a star in world cricket.

The thing that made the names you mentioned greats is the fact that they played for a long time and were consistent. So far there are a lot of great talents in the world but the quality can be said to be less due to changes to favour the batsmen, to the demise of bowlers. But overall I don't think we have anything to worry about. Youth is the way forward, and there's a lot of youth coming through with a lot of teams. Think the next 10 years of cricket will be exciting.

 

[Titan24]

ICCs rule of two new balls in current ODI era has definitely effected the current bowlers and upcoming bowlers looking to play cricket. This has also made reverse swing to almost go out of the picture which was one of the main weapons of faster bowlers in middle overs in 90s.

I dont know how Buttler, Rohit, Warner etc would have fared against a good pacy reverse swing in an ODI because its almost gone and we might never know as ICC looks to be happy with two new balls and by the 40th over each ball is only 20 overs old.

Doosra has also been taken out of the picture for one reason or another.

 

[Tusker]

Well, [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] is only young. He lacks experience enough to know that the 'fifties was the strongest era but don't you dare question it. It is a true story because I said so

Yep and there is that .... I should have known ) Anyhow I fixed your post and added the Red bit which is the main problem with most old era fanatics.

 

[Majid Khan]

What Iam saying is please prove it using footage and technical explanation instead of long paragraphs. It should be really easy.

What I can promise you is that for every such passage of play from the last century I can produce same or better quality cricket from today's Era.

So what you are implying is basically that times change but quality remains constant?

Okay maybe the West Indies team still have cricketers of the highest quality but we just don't appreciate them, and live in nostalgia of the 80s era.. and maybe Mohammed Hafeez is the modern day Zaheer Abbas and as classy as the legend but fans like us just live in the past.

 

[Tusker]

So what you are implying is basically that times change but quality remains constant?

Okay maybe the West Indies team still have cricketers of the highest quality but we just don't appreciate them, and live in nostalgia of the 80s era.. and maybe Mohammed Hafeez is the modern day Zaheer Abbas and as classy as the legend but fans like us just live in the past.

Hafeez's technique is much better than the avg player from the past century but the quality of bowling and fielding is such that it still isnt good enough to score runs consistently. Besides that nobody considers Hafeez to be the benchmark of any sort. Same as why we dont consider Chris Broad from the 80s as a benchmark for anything.

If you think Hafeez's technique is like that of really mediocre batsmen from the past century then please tell us why so instead of making sarcastic comments.

Here is one of Viv Richards most famous Test innings the 56 ball 100 against Eng.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CWOzoqxTC0

What exactly is so special about the bowling attack that makes it a high quality knock that Iam missing ?

 

[shaz619]

[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] Stay on topic we are comparing the 90s / 2000s to the 2010s in terms of quality , your views ?

 

[Buffet]

Best left arm pacer in history
Best leg spinner in history
Best off spinner in history
Toe crusher and white lightening
Clinical McGrath and Ambrose

So much variety and top class bowling. I don't think any decade had more variety and top class bowlers. Now batting was not really superior in 90s despite having SRT, Lara and few others. One can argue that batting was not that great due to having the best decade when it comes to bowling, but I still think that batting was not that great outside of few batsmen.

Bowling in 90s >> Current era
Batting of current era => batting in 90s.
Fielding in current era >> Fielding in 90s.

 

[Ab Fan]

The thing is we dont get to see many quality bowling spells and as a result the fear factor that a fast bowler or even a spinner like Murali/Warne comes up with is very rare to see in today's era.

Only Starc has that fear factor and that also is limited to LO only.

 

[Stewie]

Some people think its a must to prove your point using empirical evidence.. some debates are more subjective... quality itself is subjective..

You can believe what you want, at the end of the day, the fact still remains that the quality of batsmen in yesteryears was better simply because the played on uncovered pitches, with regular bats, balls that swung more.. they were physically not as fit as players these days probably but that doesn’t change the fact that they were technically better than the batsmen these days..

Bowlers these days on the other hand have more skills and variety than bowlers of old simply because they need to evolve based on bat friendly conditions. Kapil dev, Ian botham and the likes will be considered military medium these days and will be tonked all over the park by batsmen had they played in this era.

Similarly with dead wickets these days and thicker bats I am sure bowlers like Marshall, Imran, holding, Lillee would not be as feared as they were in their time.

These are all “opinions” based on personal experiences and some logical thinking, if someone wants to Butt in and demand video evidence to back your opinion, well what do you say to that?

Bottom line, the quality of players may or may not be better these days but the game is definitely NOT as good now due to the imbalance between bat and ball.

The way cricket is these days, it’s all about big sixes and tremendous catches.. fielding feats are glorified and sixes are measured in meters, but not much focUs is on bowling quality.. bowler ab sirf pitney jata hai.. a good bowler is one jo kum pittey.. it’s no longer about bat vs ball.. more like bat vs bat..

And just for that the game is worse off, IN MY OPINION! N

 

[Tusker]

Some people think its a must to prove your point using empirical evidence.. some debates are more subjective... quality itself is subjective..

You may not know this but the real world works only on facts basis. Otherwise I might as well say Iam Tendulkar/Kohli/Lara whatever.

You can believe what you want, at the end of the day, the fact still remains that the quality of batsmen in yesteryears was better simply because the played on uncovered pitches, with regular bats, balls that swung more.. they were physically not as fit as players these days probably but that doesn’t change the fact that they were technically better than the batsmen these days..

So therefore it should be really really easy for you and the numerous other old era fanatics to just prove that with some real evidence that we can all see and shut up us unbelievers once and forever ... Right ?

So what seems to be the problem in taking that route ? Perhaps you know deep down that you will never ever be able to back those big words with tangible evidence ?

It is quite amazing to see almost every single old era fanatic never ever ever touch the video footage with a 10 foot pole. Same thing happened in the Barry Richards thread where me and [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] dissected Barry Richards technique and immediately the usual suspects got defensive and the thread took the usual diversions.

Pathetic. Have some shame and debate like a man instead of ranting raving and throwing barbs and adhominem attacks like a highschool kid.

 

[Tusker]

[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] Stay on topic we are comparing the 90s / 2000s to the 2010s in terms of quality , your views ?

My point is this old vs new is as old as the game itself. Biggest disease that affects cricket. 20-30 yrs from now when the current era player will be running the game they will do the same thing and claim everything was better in their day. You think anyone will stand up and question the likes of Kohli , MSD etc ? ... fat chance.

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

I do miss the raw pace of a Lee or Bond or Akhtar kinda bowler. Also never really understood the mastery of Warne at that time and why he was rated so highly.

The fact is that Akram could bowl five balls in an over that if any modern bowler is able to replicate any one of that only once in their entire spell we would rave that skill for days and be glued to the highlight reel of that delivery.

However, this era has a different kind of charm to it. The advancement in broadcasting technology is also good to see - adds to the overall spectator experience. I would however want some breakout stars to keep popping in nations other than India and Australia to keep a level playing field. The rise of West Indies would also add a lot of flavor to cricket and would make it more competitive.

In terms of cricket, countries like South Africa, Pakistan, New Zealand, West Indies, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Ireland, and Afghanistan have to ensure that they remain relevant and create interest in cricket. England would do well to also produce a couple of good fast bowlers akin to Gough and Harmison. India can keep doing what they are doing (as the internet slang goes, India you doing good sweetie), and Australia even at their weakest have some really good players.

The onus is firmly on the middle-tier and bottom-tier countries to produce quality. A few good associate performances would be handy. All in all, this era of cricket is a 7/10 in terms of quality and needs a lot of improvement.

 

[shaz619]

My point is this old vs new is as old as the game itself. Biggest disease that affects cricket. 20-30 yrs from now when the current era player will be running the game they will do the same thing and claim everything was better in their day. You think anyone will stand up and question the likes of Kohli , MSD etc ? ... fat chance.

But you're not answering the simple question:

We are comparing the 90s / 2000s to the 2010s in terms of quality , your views ?

Everything else beyond that is irrelevant and you're free to create threads on nostalgia or what causes people to have certain views but here strictly the quality of cricket is what we are discussing.

 

[Stewie]

You may not know this but the real world works only on facts basis. Otherwise I might as well say Iam Tendulkar/Kohli/Lara whatever.




So therefore it should be really really easy for you and the numerous other old era fanatics to just prove that with some real evidence that we can all see and shut up us unbelievers once and forever ... Right ?

So what seems to be the problem in taking that route ? Perhaps you know deep down that you will never ever be able to back those big words with tangible evidence ?

It is quite amazing to see almost every single old era fanatic never ever ever touch the video footage with a 10 foot pole. Same thing happened in the Barry Richards thread where me and [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] dissected Barry Richards technique and immediately the usual suspects got defensive and the thread took the usual diversions.

Pathetic. Have some shame and debate like a man instead of ranting raving and throwing barbs and adhominem attacks like a highschool kid.

I feel like I am arguing with a 12 year old and I probably am, but as I have insisted multiple times in my post, that is my opinion. Yours is different from mine. There are some subjective debates that you simply can’t provide any empirical evidence for. Batsman vs Tendulkar or Lakers’s ten for vs Kumble’s ten for, or which was the best test side in the history of cricket? The invincibles or the Windies of 70s and 80s or Waugh’s Aussies.. you ask multiple experts and you may get multiple different answers.

That’s my whole point, you might be hellbent in feeling you are absolutely 100% justified and factually correct, in what is in fact also an opinion, but I am not. You have it’s and I have mine.


But I digress, I am not even comparing the players of different eras, because it’s a pointless debate but all I am saying here is that there is an imbalance in the game and it has become too bat friendly and thus is not as quality as past eras. If you wish to debate that point, and disagree, can you please provide any facts/stats/empirical evidence that proves your point? For instance the argument in my favor would be to compare average scores since say 2000- now with scores from 1980-2000.

 

[Tusker]

But I digress, I am not even comparing the players of different eras, because it’s a pointless debate but all I am saying here is that there is an imbalance in the game and it has become too bat friendly and thus is not as quality as past eras. If you wish to debate that point, and disagree, can you please provide any facts/stats/empirical evidence that proves your point? For instance the argument in my favor would be to compare average scores since say 2000- now with scores from 1980-2000.

You feel there is an imbalance because you grew up watching Test Cricket played at ~2 RPO. You were told that the players who were playing were gladiators because they were experts in leaving alone the good balls and score of the bad balls. We all know is how the old ERA operated. Give the 1st hour/session to the bowler was one of the many mantras with heavy emphasis on defence. There are plenty other such things that went into the psyche of Test Cricket but you get the gist.

Now over a period of time many a talented batsmen have come up and have dared to change these age-old beliefs. The greatest example is Sehwag. He was one of the first batsmen to look at the New ball as an opportunity to score runs because of the over attacking field settings. He ofcourse had the talent and belief to put that into practice and succeed at his game. This left the traditionalists scratching their heads. Not known for acknowledging their mistakes these "experts" went ahead and started downplaying his achievements but to his credit Sehwag stuck to his style and produced a stunning Test career where his strike rate was good enough for ODI's ( Lara's ODI S/R of 79.5 is lesser than Sehwags Test Match S/R 82.2) and both faced the same set of bowlers by and large due to overlapping careers.

So therefore the problem here is people measuring todays Cricket using yesterdays yardsticks. Today if anyone bowls like Ian Botham'esque dibbly dobbly seamers they will go for runs even in Test Cricket. No question about that. This does not mean that the conditions are in favor of batting. It means that the skill levels are much higher than what the old era fans want us to believe and this is not me saying it for the sake of argument. It is very much visible in any video footage from the old ERA's. The further back you go in time the larger the difference in standard. There is no longer default respect for bowlers no matter how great you are. The only respect that is given is for the actual bowling quality. Otherwise batsmen back themselves to score off good balls. This does not mean that everyone bats like this. There are still the Pujaras and Azar Ali's but unlike in the past such players will no longer make it to their ODI sides. In the future they perhaps will not even make it to Test Cricket. Time will tell.

Conversely for the bowlers just because they are not going at 2 RPO anymore does not mean they are of lower quality because now they have to deal with batsmen who can score off good balls. Hence the emphasis on fielding to help the bowlers. And they quickly realize that better fitness helps fielding which is why the avg cricketer today is significantly much fitter than the cricketer in the past. This why I say that the quality of cricket today is much higher than in the past.

 

[Tusker]

But you're not answering the simple question:


Everything else beyond that is irrelevant and you're free to create threads on nostalgia or what causes people to have certain views but here strictly the quality of cricket is what we are discussing.

Some things are better now and somethings were better back in the 90s. By and large I will take current ERA but 90s was not far behind at all. The real comparison should be with 70s and before thats when you start to see significant difference.

But otherwise Kohli, ABD, Smith, Warner, Root, Williamson, Rahul, Dhawan, Cook, Sharma etc are just as good as anyone from the 90s if not better. And they definitely play more attacking cricket today than ever before in all formats.

 

[kingusama92]

I'm not a fan of glorifying the past but this is definitely true.

 

[Corridor of Uncertainty]

Every era, athletes improve.

The correct way to judge eras is how, in that era, certain athletes rose way above their contemporaries.

Those who have seen different eras in cricket can tell how magnificent some athletes were compared to competition.

This era is definitely not great - many many also rans, hardly any super star. Too many stars who are hero one day and zero the next.

Maybe it has to do with so much round the clock cricket, much of that T20. There is less myth to the athletes nowadays.

Definitely some have done better than the others - like Kohli, ABDV etc. But far too few of those.

 

[giri26]

It is true and even though there are lots of people complaining about posters romanticising the past, it is true that the batsmanship has declined over the years. The only reason they are flourishing, except for a few (Disclaimer here as I know there are some great players in this era as well) is because of the flat pitches and short boundaries. When the ball starts to deviate even an inch (Spin and pace), the same batsmen struggle like tailenders. The applies to all countries, the bowling again except for few aren't in the same level as the ones from the past as well.

Again want to make sure people don't get too ahead of themselves, we are talking about overall quality of cricket here, no one is saying that players like Kohli, Root, ABD, Smith, Rabada, Hasan, Starc, Steyn etc are not greats. But we are talking about a decade (90's) where even Zimbabwe was a very competitive team, the overall quality of players has definitely declined over the past decade or so.