What's new

The Big 3 produce the best quality of cricket when they face each other

This is cricketing of the highest level.

Not possible while playing a non Big 3 team except for sometimes against South Africa and occassionally against Pakistan.
 
freelance_cricketer said:
This is cricketing of the highest level.

Not possible while playing a non Big 3 team except for sometimes against South Africa and occassionally against Pakistan.
Click to expand...

Bowling I'd definitely agree, but bar kohli or Smith, I don't see any outstanding bat in either Australia or Indian team
 
If you want to laugh at the great Indian team, then 36 all out is funny LOL.

India are nowhere near the top 3.
 
Hasan123 said:
I'm almost certain had I put Pakistan in the OP, there wouldn't have been the outrage from some. It's difficult for Pakistan fans to admit that a majority of our games are low in quality and India are involved in some of the better played series.
Click to expand...

I would still have disagreed. Pakistan produces low quality games all the time, as does the Big 3. Pakistan produces high quality games often, as does the Big 3.

Need I remind the number of dropped catches during the current Indian tour to Australia across ODIs, T20Is, and now Tests?
 
Hasan123 said:
I'm almost certain had I put Pakistan in the OP, there wouldn't have been the outrage from some. It's difficult for Pakistan fans to admit that a majority of our games are low in quality and India are involved in some of the better played series.
Click to expand...

Like I said, the British Mamoon :)) you and him have to be parody accounts. No way can these posts be real.
 
Rajdeep said:
Enthralling test match going on between two of the best sides in the world. Big 3 indeed produces best cricket.

Ashes
Border-Gavaskar trophy
Ind-Eng tests

These are the best series to watch.
Click to expand...

This is what happens when Rajpal Yadav acts like Shah Rukh Khan Don and it all comes tumbling down within 24 hours
 
Rana said:
This is what happens when Rajpal Yadav acts like Shah Rukh Khan Don and it all comes tumbling down within 24 hours
Click to expand...

Rajdeep bhai be like :inti

mai-merko-sab-ata-hai-mai-expert-hu-1110x624.jpg
 
Hasan123 said:
There is a lot of hate for the big 3, not just for cricketing reasons. But if we are honest , they are well clear of the rest of the other cricketing nations in terms of quality and consistency.

Whenever 2 of the 3 play each other in any format, I always find the cricket to be quality and extremely competitive. I enjoy watching them do battle as well. The players seem to want to go that extra mile when playing each other.

The honest truth is they produce the best games and quality of cricket when 2 of the 3 face each other.
Click to expand...

well .... India and Australia Test Series moving towards supportting your observation.

I think what some people have got it confused with, is: "Better Quality = Interesting matches".

Although this equation does have some truth but not necessarily ... a closely fought game between Mogadishu and Timbuktu could be nerve wrecking but not necessarily of the high quality.
 
Rana said:
This is what happens when Rajpal Yadav acts like Shah Rukh Khan Don and it all comes tumbling down within 24 hours
Click to expand...

Nothing came tumbling down. Both the test matches of this series were of very high quality with constant battle between bat and ball. Its a gripping contest going on unlike the borefeast we are watching in NZ or in South Africa.
 
Disagree. Australia opened the innings in both test matches with Matthew Wade, someone who has never opened in his life. Under normal Circumstances Tim Paine and Joe Burns would also not be in the XI. This remains a very weak Australia team.
 
Thunderbolt14 said:
I would still have disagreed. Pakistan produces low quality games all the time, as does the Big 3. Pakistan produces high quality games often, as does the Big 3.

Need I remind the number of dropped catches during the current Indian tour to Australia across ODIs, T20Is, and now Tests?
Click to expand...

If I put Pakistan or another team not named India in the OP, most posters would have no issue. It's well known Pakistan fans don't like India or England.

I just gave my opinion at the time. Honestly had no idea so many people would get upset by it.
 
Rajdeep said:
Nothing came tumbling down. Both the test matches of this series were of very high quality with constant battle between bat and ball. Its a gripping contest going on unlike the borefeast we are watching in NZ or in South Africa.
Click to expand...

Rajdeep Bhai im glad to see you have come out of your coma after the first Test. Enjoy this day bro, I wont bump this thread lekin,

Kya karu oh ladies main hoo aadat se majboor
 
Hasan123 said:
If I put Pakistan or another team not named India in the OP, most posters would have no issue. It's well known Pakistan fans don't like India or England.

I just gave my opinion at the time. Honestly had no idea so many people would get upset by it.
Click to expand...

I suppose you’re right, most people wouldn’t have had an issue but that’s because this is a predominantly Pakistani forum. People will call you out more often if you make an incorrect claim that refers to Pakistan as opposed to if you made an incorrect claim about West Indies or Sri Lanka.

Also, even if India wasn’t in the Big 3, and let’s say South Africa was, you’d still be called out on it because even in that case non-big 3 members would still produce just as good and just as bad levels quality of cricket.

Your OP is another way of saying that the top 3 nations are leagues and leagues ahead of other nations whereas the real truth is they are only marginally ahead right now. The number of dropped catches in the current India-Australia tour is testament to this, no matter how many Pakistanis troll their national team for bad fielding we still have some excellent fielders in Shadab, Imad, Fakhar, Imam, Babar, Hafeez, and the best wicket keeper in the world in Rizwan.

Further, if the standard was that wide of a gulf between the big 3 and other nations, Pakistan and Sri Lanka would not both have beaten the winner and runner ups of the World Cup. Pakistan would not have had a Test mace three years ago, not the Champions Trophy, nor a number 1 T20 ranking even if the sides were depleted (though nowhere near as depleted as the sides in the Ind-Aus T20s).

No one is calling Pakistan a big three side, if you notice here on this thread. By listing my above argument I’m not saying that Pakistan is the number 1 T20 side or even number 1 ODI side for beating those finalists. I’ve said multiple times we’re comfortably a mid-table team.

But what we are saying is that the gap is nowhere near as you’re making it out to be, especially not in limited overs. In Tests, pretty much all teams these days are home bullies with the exception of India doing well in Australia. Again, Pakistan is worse than the other teams, but we are NOT multiple leagues behind. We just made day 5 in New Zealand, and are likely to make it at least to the second session - something India couldn’t do last year. Pakistan almost won the series in England this year, after drawing the last two series this decade, while England whitewashes India every other year. Is that high quality? India is a much, much better team than Pakistan. Of course. Still, to say that only the big 3 produce high quality cricket is objectively incorrect.

It also comes across as a little negative, whereas a lot of fans here do like being positive and celebrating the fact that even as a mid-table side and being at its lowest point in cricketing history, Pakistan still has days where it turns up. That’s why you’re getting a lot of responses on this thread. I respect your opinion, though, and you are entitled to have it. But I hope maybe I’m able to provide some insight on the other side of the glass pane.
 
Also, to add to the above bit on reaching Day 5 in New Zealand, I will also say we did so without Babar and after our bowling attack made Kane Williamson toil for his slowest century of all time. We actually had a better first innings for our openers than New Zealand’s openers who were 15-2! You have to give credit to the absolutely high quality innings Kane Williamson played, probably one of the best in his career. Our accuracy was fantastic, and forced New Zealand to work for their runs even without a settled bowling attack and one of our pacers 10kph down on pace. Our lack of quality is in our batting order, which collapsed, yes, but our lower order recovery was fantastic. Was India able to recover from a similar position? No, they got all out for 36 and came back fighting hard with the right playing XI changes in the next match.

I’ve had a lot of fun (despite the pain) watching this NZ-Pak match, because I do believe it was fantastically high quality barring those dropped catches - and when I tune in to the India-Australia game, I see just as many dropped catches.

Just because Pakistan, again, is a mid table side, does not mean we cannot produce high quality cricket.
 
Rajdeep said:
Nothing came tumbling down. Both the test matches of this series were of very high quality with constant battle between bat and ball. Its a gripping contest going on unlike the borefeast we are watching in NZ .....
Click to expand...

well ... it didn't turn out to be as "borefeast" as you have thought, did it?

We gave them quite a good fight and we saw a great battle.
 
Thunderbolt14 said:
I suppose you’re right, most people wouldn’t have had an issue but that’s because this is a predominantly Pakistani forum. People will call you out more often if you make an incorrect claim that refers to Pakistan as opposed to if you made an incorrect claim about West Indies or Sri Lanka.

Also, even if India wasn’t in the Big 3, and let’s say South Africa was, you’d still be called out on it because even in that case non-big 3 members would still produce just as good and just as bad levels quality of cricket.

Your OP is another way of saying that the top 3 nations are leagues and leagues ahead of other nations whereas the real truth is they are only marginally ahead right now. The number of dropped catches in the current India-Australia tour is testament to this, no matter how many Pakistanis troll their national team for bad fielding we still have some excellent fielders in Shadab, Imad, Fakhar, Imam, Babar, Hafeez, and the best wicket keeper in the world in Rizwan.

Further, if the standard was that wide of a gulf between the big 3 and other nations, Pakistan and Sri Lanka would not both have beaten the winner and runner ups of the World Cup. Pakistan would not have had a Test mace three years ago, not the Champions Trophy, nor a number 1 T20 ranking even if the sides were depleted (though nowhere near as depleted as the sides in the Ind-Aus T20s).

No one is calling Pakistan a big three side, if you notice here on this thread. By listing my above argument I’m not saying that Pakistan is the number 1 T20 side or even number 1 ODI side for beating those finalists. I’ve said multiple times we’re comfortably a mid-table team.

But what we are saying is that the gap is nowhere near as you’re making it out to be, especially not in limited overs. In Tests, pretty much all teams these days are home bullies with the exception of India doing well in Australia. Again, Pakistan is worse than the other teams, but we are NOT multiple leagues behind. We just made day 5 in New Zealand, and are likely to make it at least to the second session - something India couldn’t do last year. Pakistan almost won the series in England this year, after drawing the last two series this decade, while England whitewashes India every other year. Is that high quality? India is a much, much better team than Pakistan. Of course. Still, to say that only the big 3 produce high quality cricket is objectively incorrect.

It also comes across as a little negative, whereas a lot of fans here do like being positive and celebrating the fact that even as a mid-table side and being at its lowest point in cricketing history, Pakistan still has days where it turns up. That’s why you’re getting a lot of responses on this thread. I respect your opinion, though, and you are entitled to have it. But I hope maybe I’m able to provide some insight on the other side of the glass pane.
Click to expand...


All you keep referring to is dropped catches . The fielding has been poor but there has been some good batting and bowling. Pakistan dropped some basic catches against New Zealand as well btw.

Pakistan did well to take it that close. But New Zealand have been on top for most of the test and deserved the win.

You can make all these excuses. At the end of the day, if I didn't put India in the OP, I wouldn't have been attacked like I have been. I actually made this thread during the England vs Australia series. Which was a great ODI series. This thread is a bit harsh on South Africa and New Zealand, they can produce quality matches against the big 3 and even each other. But please don't try and put Pakistan in the conversation for regularly playing high quality cricket.
 
Well that was one boring Test match between New Zealand and Pakistan...
 
Pak vs NZ was a proper test match. All three results were possible on the 5th day. This is how test matches have been played. You can't call it a borefest. Now compare this to Ind vs Aus where dozens of catches were dropped, most of the batsman were not showing any intent to stay at the wicket and fans were putting inning of Pant over Rahane's and Jadeja's inning because Pant scored with a better strike rate lol.

Jist imagine had they(ind and aus) taken all the catches both teams would not have crossed even 150 in each of their inning. :inti
 
So Pakistan has starred in two of the most thrilling Test matches of the year 2020....but but but Big 3
 
Rana said:
So Pakistan has starred in two of the most thrilling Test matches of the year 2020....but but but Big 3
Click to expand...

NZ is also in Big 3 when it comes to test rankings so fans can't put their matches down. Ind and Aus played like club level teams especially batting and fielding has been below average in this series so far. :inti
 
Aman said:
NZ vs Pak > Aus v India series.
Click to expand...

NZ were in complete control for like 90% of the Test. Only in the latter stages of the partnership between Rizwan and Fawad did the game looked a bit in the balance.

Whereas India Vs Australia was almost 50-50 for most of the two tests. It was only until both sides collapsed in their respective second innings did it shift to the eventual winners.

Not the same thing.
 
Bhaag Viru Bhaag said:
NZ is also in Big 3 when it comes to test rankings so fans can't put their matches down. Ind and Aus played like club level teams especially batting and fielding has been below average in this series so far. :inti
Click to expand...

Indians enjoying Pakistan's lose as if they steam rolled NZ in NZ :)))
 
Hasan123 said:
All you keep referring to is dropped catches . The fielding has been poor but there has been some good batting and bowling. Pakistan dropped some basic catches against New Zealand as well btw.

Pakistan did well to take it that close. But New Zealand have been on top for most of the test and deserved the win.

You can make all these excuses. At the end of the day, if I didn't put India in the OP, I wouldn't have been attacked like I have been. I actually made this thread during the England vs Australia series. Which was a great ODI series. This thread is a bit harsh on South Africa and New Zealand, they can produce quality matches against the big 3 and even each other. But please don't try and put Pakistan in the conversation for regularly playing high quality cricket.
Click to expand...

You’re usually a sensible poster, no idea why you didn’t read my post. I was very clear about the dropped catches aspect, kindly read my followup post. The game was high quality and one I enjoyed watching every single ball of.

Your pessimism is reaching a boiling point - we played some excellent cricket during these last 5 days even if we lost in the end, definitely way better cricket than supposedly the GOAT Asian side did last year. Our bowling was precise and high quality, and let down by bad fielding (if this is a judge of low quality cricket, then the Big 3 fares no better). Two successive collapses of our entire top 4 and we still took the game into the last 5 overs. How high quality was India’s collapse of 36?

You have categorically failed to address pretty much any point I brought up about how there is indeed a difference in quality (i.e. I agree with your original post) but that it is only marginal. In other words, since you are still disagreeing with my agreement it means you do NOT think it is only a marginal difference but actually have a hidden agenda within the OP to portray the Big 3 as leagues and leagues ahead of every other country. I don’t know if this is an inferiority complex or what but I’m sorry, it’s just an entirely false misconception.

There is always a winner or a loser. Our lack of our only world class player Babar was the difference between the sides today. If your criteria is that Pakistan was not on top the entire game, then you must also using the same criteria concede that Pakistan was on top of England for the entirety of that first Test which ended up deciding the series - i.e Pakistan played the higher quality cricket and therefore a non-Big 3 nation played better than a Big 3 nation. If you shift your criteria to the fact that “oh only the end result matters” then you also concede that this same end result was achieved by a Big 3 nation, India against a non-Big-3 nation, New Zealand, with even less of a fight. You concede that Pakistan beat the two finalists in the World Cup, the same two finalists who beat pretty much all the other teams and who played the most “dominant cricket” against the other Big 3 nations, India and Australia, since only the end result matters and Pakistan won against them in high quality games. You concede the Champions Trophy wasn’t a fluke and you concede that our rise to number 1 in T20Is or Tests was just as well deserved as India and NZ making number 1 in Tests after bullying at home and NZ after beating a Pakistan without Babar. You concede that non-Big 3 nations like New Zealand produce high quality games, like the India game in the world cup, or the final, or their thrashing[/B] of India at home.

All I see is a consistently set of shifting goalposts where you are in a bit of an excited jiff to move from one set of criteria to the next when it suits your motives and use varying definitions of high quality cricket to respond fulfill your tendency to demean everything negative about Pakistan while failing to celebrate the positives, even though to do so you must revel in the inherently paradoxical nature of such claims as if you want to have your cake and eat it too. Beneath that surface all I see is your claim to be a Pakistan fan and I respect that, I really do, because you continue to watch games of such a team despite it offering absolutely no quality on you watching for your entertainment.

I respect you think you’re a good poster which is why I’m rationalizing with you - if you’re not interested in that, sure. You can revert back to your claim of me harping on about dropped catches, if that simplifies your worldview and makes things easier and less painful to process - btw, I only mentioned dropped catches in that post once.
 
Aman said:
NZ vs Pak > Aus v India series.
Click to expand...

No it was not. Pakistan shown a lot of resiliency on final day and took the game to last session. Hence the final hour looked interesting but the remaining 4 days were pure borefeast. Flat deck, hardly any assistance for bowlers, slow and incipid batting, dull commentary - everything gave a poor viewing. It was far from NZ wicket we are accustomed to see.

Compare that with Starc, Cummins and co steaming in with 145kph thunderbolts, the guile of Ashwin or Rahane playing the test innings of the year. Both the test matches in Ind-Aust tour were of better quality. Infact, many Pak posters moved to India match thread on 3rd day because it was more compelling viewing.
 
Rajdeep said:
No it was not. Pakistan shown a lot of resiliency on final day and took the game to last session. Hence the final hour looked interesting but the remaining 4 days were pure borefeast. Flat deck, hardly any assistance for bowlers, slow and incipid batting, dull commentary - everything gave a poor viewing. It was far from NZ wicket we are accustomed to see.

Compare that with Starc, Cummins and co steaming in with 145kph thunderbolts, the guile of Ashwin or Rahane playing the test innings of the year. Both the test matches in Ind-Aust tour were of better quality. Infact, many Pak posters moved to India match thread on 3rd day because it was more compelling viewing.
Click to expand...

Bro it was Test cricket, not Honk Kong sixes. Pakistan might be looking to survive but NZ were entitled to go hard in the first innings at 3.3-3.5 if they wanted to considering we had one bowler bowling at 65mph, one whos stock delivery is the short and wide ball and a spinner who doesn’t actually spin the ball at all.

Not our fault that they played 130 odd overs at 2.5
 
Rana said:
Bro it was Test cricket, not Honk Kong sixes. Pakistan might be looking to survive but NZ were entitled to go hard in the first innings at 3.3-3.5 if they wanted to considering we had one bowler bowling at 65mph, one whos stock delivery is the short and wide ball and a spinner who doesn’t actually spin the ball at all.

Not our fault that they played 130 odd overs at 2.5
Click to expand...

Actually, it is our fault. That was extremely high quality bowling. If Indian players batted in that first Test against Australia like Kane Williamson did against us, they wouldn’t have been all out for 36.
 
Thunderbolt14 said:
Actually, it is our fault. That was extremely high quality bowling. If Indian players batted in that first Test against Australia like Kane Williamson did against us, they wouldn’t have been all out for 36.
Click to expand...

It’s funny when non big 3 sides play a 5* Test match these guys produce some of the most hilarious excuses.

What exactly is an ‘entertaining’ Test match? Should it have power plays? Cheerleaders? Only 1 bouncer in the over and 4-5 slow cutters? Like what does someone like [MENTION=152021]Rajdeep[/MENTION] want to see?

Pakistan has given World cricket two enthralling Test matches within a space of 4 months but the big 3 domination cannot yet be questioned in terms of quality?
 
Rana said:
It’s funny when non big 3 sides play a 5* Test match these guys produce some of the most hilarious excuses.

What exactly is an ‘entertaining’ Test match? Should it have power plays? Cheerleaders? Only 1 bouncer in the over and 4-5 slow cutters? Like what does someone like [MENTION=152021]Rajdeep[/MENTION] want to see?

Pakistan has given World cricket two enthralling Test matches within a space of 4 months but the big 3 domination cannot yet be questioned in terms of quality?
Click to expand...

Dunno man. And not just us, NZ produces some of the most high quality games these days and whips Big 3 members India and England into submission on a regular basis. This division between Big 3 playing high quality cricket within each other (Ind-Aus, Eng-Aus, and Eng-Ind), and the rest of the world playing low quality cricket amongst both themselves as well as against the Big 3, is as farcical and artificial as they come.

It’s a narrative peddled because it suits certain people and makes their worldviews easier - I don’t blame them. It’s easier to trash Pakistan completely and avoid exposing fragile hearts to the rollercoasters of supporting the underdog.
 
Rajdeep said:
No it was not. Pakistan shown a lot of resiliency on final day and took the game to last session. Hence the final hour looked interesting but the remaining 4 days were pure borefeast. Flat deck, hardly any assistance for bowlers, slow and incipid batting, dull commentary - everything gave a poor viewing. It was far from NZ wicket we are accustomed to see.

Compare that with Starc, Cummins and co steaming in with 145kph thunderbolts, the guile of Ashwin or Rahane playing the test innings of the year. Both the test matches in Ind-Aust tour were of better quality. Infact, many Pak posters moved to India match thread on 3rd day because it was more compelling viewing.
Click to expand...

I know you are a huge pyjama league fan so you want tests to be played at the same pace. For example : when we toured NZ earlier this year we lost the first test in Session 1 of Day 4 and second test in Session 2 of Day 3. You like these IPL style test matches where both teams can't even bat for a whole day? :inti
 
Rana said:
Bro it was Test cricket, not Honk Kong sixes. Pakistan might be looking to survive but NZ were entitled to go hard in the first innings at 3.3-3.5 if they wanted to considering we had one bowler bowling at 65mph, one whos stock delivery is the short and wide ball and a spinner who doesn’t actually spin the ball at all.

Not our fault that they played 130 odd overs at 2.5
Click to expand...

I have never said its Pakistan's fault. Infact they did very well to almost draw the test. But it was borefeast by NZ with the bat against some very ordinary bowling and on a flat deck. They took so much time (with the bat) that they almost ran out of time to bowl Pakistan out twice.
 
Thunderbolt14 said:
You’re usually a sensible poster, no idea why you didn’t read my post. I was very clear about the dropped catches aspect, kindly read my followup post. The game was high quality and one I enjoyed watching every single ball of.

Your pessimism is reaching a boiling point - we played some excellent cricket during these last 5 days even if we lost in the end, definitely way better cricket than supposedly the GOAT Asian side did last year. Our bowling was precise and high quality, and let down by bad fielding (if this is a judge of low quality cricket, then the Big 3 fares no better). Two successive collapses of our entire top 4 and we still took the game into the last 5 overs. How high quality was India’s collapse of 36?

You have categorically failed to address pretty much any point I brought up about how there is indeed a difference in quality (i.e. I agree with your original post) but that it is only marginal. In other words, since you are still disagreeing with my agreement it means you do NOT think it is only a marginal difference but actually have a hidden agenda within the OP to portray the Big 3 as leagues and leagues ahead of every other country. I don’t know if this is an inferiority complex or what but I’m sorry, it’s just an entirely false misconception.

There is always a winner or a loser. Our lack of our only world class player Babar was the difference between the sides today. If your criteria is that Pakistan was not on top the entire game, then you must also using the same criteria concede that Pakistan was on top of England for the entirety of that first Test which ended up deciding the series - i.e Pakistan played the higher quality cricket and therefore a non-Big 3 nation played better than a Big 3 nation. If you shift your criteria to the fact that “oh only the end result matters” then you also concede that this same end result was achieved by a Big 3 nation, India against a non-Big-3 nation, New Zealand, with even less of a fight. You concede that Pakistan beat the two finalists in the World Cup, the same two finalists who beat pretty much all the other teams and who played the most “dominant cricket” against the other Big 3 nations, India and Australia, since only the end result matters and Pakistan won against them in high quality games. You concede the Champions Trophy wasn’t a fluke and you concede that our rise to number 1 in T20Is or Tests was just as well deserved as India and NZ making number 1 in Tests after bullying at home and NZ after beating a Pakistan without Babar. You concede that non-Big 3 nations like New Zealand produce high quality games, like the India game in the world cup, or the final, or their thrashing[/B] of India at home.

All I see is a consistently set of shifting goalposts where you are in a bit of an excited jiff to move from one set of criteria to the next when it suits your motives and use varying definitions of high quality cricket to respond fulfill your tendency to demean everything negative about Pakistan while failing to celebrate the positives, even though to do so you must revel in the inherently paradoxical nature of such claims as if you want to have your cake and eat it too. Beneath that surface all I see is your claim to be a Pakistan fan and I respect that, I really do, because you continue to watch games of such a team despite it offering absolutely no quality on you watching for your entertainment.

I respect you think you’re a good poster which is why I’m rationalizing with you - if you’re not interested in that, sure. You can revert back to your claim of me harping on about dropped catches, if that simplifies your worldview and makes things easier and less painful to process - btw, I only mentioned dropped catches in that post once.
Click to expand...




We definitely started off well with the new ball. I have said that in other threads but the pressure was released by Naseem reckless accuracy. He is a player who is not ready for test match cricket. After the new ball bowling, I am struggling to see how you can see the bowling was high quality lol. Yes we created a chances, doesn't mean it was highly quality bowling.


Across formats I do believe the big 3 and New Zealand are well ahead of Pakistan,Sri Lanka, West Indies, and Bangladesh. I'm sorry if you can't see that you are delusional.

Lol I have never said Pakistan flunked the CT,fluked the number 1 ranking. If you was on PP in them days I straight away gave praise and never said they were flukes. Why are you making stuff up?

Looking back I think I was a bit harsh to leave NZ out of the OP. But I know Pakistan have no business in this conversation that is for certain.


It is just my opinion that Pakistan are an average team, we a couple of quality players. But we don't have enough top players to challenge the big teams . If me consistently saying this infuriates you, you don't need to read my posts. I am not on here to make people happy. If I wanted to make people happy, I would be positive for the sake of it. I just say my piece.

Just for the future , don't make things up. Never said we fluked anything. Just because you don't agree with me, don't make up lies.
 
Thunderbolt14 said:
You’re usually a sensible poster, no idea why you didn’t read my post. I was very clear about the dropped catches aspect, kindly read my followup post. The game was high quality and one I enjoyed watching every single ball of.

Your pessimism is reaching a boiling point - we played some excellent cricket during these last 5 days even if we lost in the end, definitely way better cricket than supposedly the GOAT Asian side did last year. Our bowling was precise and high quality, and let down by bad fielding (if this is a judge of low quality cricket, then the Big 3 fares no better). Two successive collapses of our entire top 4 and we still took the game into the last 5 overs. How high quality was India’s collapse of 36?

You have categorically failed to address pretty much any point I brought up about how there is indeed a difference in quality (i.e. I agree with your original post) but that it is only marginal. In other words, since you are still disagreeing with my agreement it means you do NOT think it is only a marginal difference but actually have a hidden agenda within the OP to portray the Big 3 as leagues and leagues ahead of every other country. I don’t know if this is an inferiority complex or what but I’m sorry, it’s just an entirely false misconception.

There is always a winner or a loser. Our lack of our only world class player Babar was the difference between the sides today. If your criteria is that Pakistan was not on top the entire game, then you must also using the same criteria concede that Pakistan was on top of England for the entirety of that first Test which ended up deciding the series - i.e Pakistan played the higher quality cricket and therefore a non-Big 3 nation played better than a Big 3 nation. If you shift your criteria to the fact that “oh only the end result matters” then you also concede that this same end result was achieved by a Big 3 nation, India against a non-Big-3 nation, New Zealand, with even less of a fight. You concede that Pakistan beat the two finalists in the World Cup, the same two finalists who beat pretty much all the other teams and who played the most “dominant cricket” against the other Big 3 nations, India and Australia, since only the end result matters and Pakistan won against them in high quality games. You concede the Champions Trophy wasn’t a fluke and you concede that our rise to number 1 in T20Is or Tests was just as well deserved as India and NZ making number 1 in Tests after bullying at home and NZ after beating a Pakistan without Babar. You concede that non-Big 3 nations like New Zealand produce high quality games, like the India game in the world cup, or the final, or their thrashing[/B] of India at home.

All I see is a consistently set of shifting goalposts where you are in a bit of an excited jiff to move from one set of criteria to the next when it suits your motives and use varying definitions of high quality cricket to respond fulfill your tendency to demean everything negative about Pakistan while failing to celebrate the positives, even though to do so you must revel in the inherently paradoxical nature of such claims as if you want to have your cake and eat it too. Beneath that surface all I see is your claim to be a Pakistan fan and I respect that, I really do, because you continue to watch games of such a team despite it offering absolutely no quality on you watching for your entertainment.

I respect you think you’re a good poster which is why I’m rationalizing with you - if you’re not interested in that, sure. You can revert back to your claim of me harping on about dropped catches, if that simplifies your worldview and makes things easier and less painful to process - btw, I only mentioned dropped catches in that post once.
Click to expand...


One other thing, I am one of the few people on here who has defended Sri Lanka,South Africa, and West Indies when people are saying they are finished as cricketing nations. These same posters who are mocking me for this thread will say every team is finished as a nation yet I'm the one who defends them.
 
Hasan123 said:
We definitely started off well with the new ball. I have said that in other threads but the pressure was released by Naseem reckless accuracy. He is a player who is not ready for test match cricket. After the new ball bowling, I am struggling to see how you can see the bowling was high quality lol. Yes we created a chances, doesn't mean it was highly quality bowling.


Across formats I do believe the big 3 and New Zealand are well ahead of Pakistan,Sri Lanka, West Indies, and Bangladesh. I'm sorry if you can't see that you are delusional.

Lol I have never said Pakistan flunked the CT,fluked the number 1 ranking. If you was on PP in them days I straight away gave praise and never said they were flukes. Why are you making stuff up?

Looking back I think I was a bit harsh to leave NZ out of the OP. But I know Pakistan have no business in this conversation that is for certain.


It is just my opinion that Pakistan are an average team, we a couple of quality players. But we don't have enough top players to challenge the big teams . If me consistently saying this infuriates you, you don't need to read my posts. I am not on here to make people happy. If I wanted to make people happy, I would be positive for the sake of it. I just say my piece.

Just for the future , don't make things up. Never said we fluked anything. Just because you don't agree with me, don't make up lies.
Click to expand...

Firstly let’s get this clear - no one’s making up any lies.

You may not have said those things directly, but what I don’t understand is if you are conceding that those were high quality matches then how you can also paradoxically claim that only the Big 3 has the highest quality matches! It doesn’t compute!

I was, indeed, not on PP back then. But why are you so quick to establish Pakistan as not even in the conversation if we’ve achieved some fantastic feats across all three formats in just the last 4 years? The truth is, we DO play high quality cricket, and often higher quality cricket than the Big 3 plus NZ, which is how we achieved number 1 in T20Is and Tests and won the Champions Trophy.

So again, unless your argument is that those achievements were flukes (which you haven’t said, but if you did say, it would be less paradoxical), how can you say that the highest quality of cricket is only played between the Big 3?

Also, now you’re beginning to include other sides - you just included New Zealand, that’s fantastic. Maybe worth taking a step or two further.
 
Thunderbolt14 said:
I suppose you’re right, most people wouldn’t have had an issue but that’s because this is a predominantly Pakistani forum. People will call you out more often if you make an incorrect claim that refers to Pakistan as opposed to if you made an incorrect claim about West Indies or Sri Lanka.

Also, even if India wasn’t in the Big 3, and let’s say South Africa was, you’d still be called out on it because even in that case non-big 3 members would still produce just as good and just as bad levels quality of cricket.

Your OP is another way of saying that the top 3 nations are leagues and leagues ahead of other nations whereas the real truth is they are only marginally ahead right now. The number of dropped catches in the current India-Australia tour is testament to this, no matter how many Pakistanis troll their national team for bad fielding we still have some excellent fielders in Shadab, Imad, Fakhar, Imam, Babar, Hafeez, and the best wicket keeper in the world in Rizwan.

Further, if the standard was that wide of a gulf between the big 3 and other nations, Pakistan and Sri Lanka would not both have beaten the winner and runner ups of the World Cup. Pakistan would not have had a Test mace three years ago, not the Champions Trophy, nor a number 1 T20 ranking even if the sides were depleted (though nowhere near as depleted as the sides in the Ind-Aus T20s).

No one is calling Pakistan a big three side, if you notice here on this thread. By listing my above argument I’m not saying that Pakistan is the number 1 T20 side or even number 1 ODI side for beating those finalists. I’ve said multiple times we’re comfortably a mid-table team.

But what we are saying is that the gap is nowhere near as you’re making it out to be, especially not in limited overs. In Tests, pretty much all teams these days are home bullies with the exception of India doing well in Australia. Again, Pakistan is worse than the other teams, but we are NOT multiple leagues behind. We just made day 5 in New Zealand, and are likely to make it at least to the second session - something India couldn’t do last year. Pakistan almost won the series in England this year, after drawing the last two series this decade, while England whitewashes India every other year. Is that high quality? India is a much, much better team than Pakistan. Of course. Still, to say that only the big 3 produce high quality cricket is objectively incorrect.

It also comes across as a little negative, whereas a lot of fans here do like being positive and celebrating the fact that even as a mid-table side and being at its lowest point in cricketing history, Pakistan still has days where it turns up. That’s why you’re getting a lot of responses on this thread. I respect your opinion, though, and you are entitled to have it. But I hope maybe I’m able to provide some insight on the other side of the glass pane.
Click to expand...

POTW. The OP and his posts I have to double check as I get confused its written by Mamoon or him as its the same nonsense repeated again and again.

The Top 3 have almost as many one sided games as the mid-table teams. Both tests with India and Australia had completely one sided results. Pakistan and NZ was a thriller. The truth is most teams are home bullies, that's all.
 
Thunderbolt14 said:
Firstly let’s get this clear - no one’s making up any lies.

You may not have said those things directly, but what I don’t understand is if you are conceding that those were high quality matches then how you can also paradoxically claim that only the Big 3 has the highest quality matches! It doesn’t compute!

I was, indeed, not on PP back then. But why are you so quick to establish Pakistan as not even in the conversation if we’ve achieved some fantastic feats across all three formats in just the last 4 years? The truth is, we DO play high quality cricket, and often higher quality cricket than the Big 3 plus NZ, which is how we achieved number 1 in T20Is and Tests and won the Champions Trophy.

So again, unless your argument is that those achievements were flukes (which you haven’t said, but if you did say, it would be less paradoxical), how can you say that the highest quality of cricket is only played between the Big 3?

Also, now you’re beginning to include other sides - you just included New Zealand, that’s fantastic. Maybe worth taking a step or two further.
Click to expand...

What the heck? I never only big 3 matches are quality. Never said Pakistan fluked CT or number 1 ranking.

We lose nearly every game to Australia and it's not even close. Yes we produced a good game against England in the first test but England would have won the other 2 tests had it not been for rain and those games were not high quality. We get beaten black and blue everytime we play India in the games we play against them apart from the CT final. So you must live in cuckoo land if you think Pakistan produce quality matches against the big 3 .

I did not mean only the big 3. I'm saying out of international games played , the big 3 matches produce the best quality for me. It is just an opinion.

Right now it's coming across you just want to catch me to make yourself look smart instead of having an actual debate.

If you think Pakistan produce the best games against the big 3, good for you. I really don't care anymore. I gave my opinion, your not going to change it and I honestly don't care if you like or my opinions infuriate you. At least I know with my opinion, it's not some fake positivity like some.
 
Hasan123 said:
What the heck? I never only big 3 matches are quality. Never said Pakistan fluked CT or number 1 ranking.

We lose nearly every game to Australia and it's not even close. Yes we produced a good game against England in the first test but England would have won the other 2 tests had it not been for rain and those games were not high quality. We get beaten black and blue everytime we play India in the games we play against them apart from the CT final. So you must live in cuckoo land if you think Pakistan produce quality matches against the big 3 .

I did not mean only the big 3. I'm saying out of international games played , the big 3 matches produce the best quality for me. It is just an opinion.

Right now it's coming across you just want to catch me to make yourself look smart instead of having an actual debate.

If you think Pakistan produce the best games against the big 3, good for you. I really don't care anymore. I gave my opinion, your not going to change it and I honestly don't care if you like or my opinions infuriate you. At least I know with my opinion, it's not some fake positivity like some.
Click to expand...

Did you read my post? I again specifically talked about how you didn’t say it was a fluke, but if you did, it would be less paradoxical. It would actually make more sense, and I would be willing to accept we have differing opinions which I don’t mind at all.

But you’re not. You clearly do think those were high quality performances, against multiple Big 3 teams. England in CT17 and World Cup 2019 lost to us. We beat New Zealand in the World Cup. We beat India in CT17. South Africa beat Australia in the World Cup. Sri Lanka beat England in the World Cup.

New Zealand beat India 2-0 in Tests within Day 4 and 3-0 in the ODIs.

We beat Australia 1-0 in Tests in the UAE just two years ago. We beat them 3-0 in T20Is. We’re 2-2 versus England since 2016 in T20Is.

How can you say that the highest quality of cricket is played exclusively by the Big 3? No one is calling New Zealand or Pakistan or South Africa a set of Big 3 sides. We are indeed mid table. But there is really not a huge difference in quality, to be honest, between England-Pakistan and New Zealand-India.

I understand it’s your opinion and again I respect that, but you should also not have an issue with people disagreeing with you since they are also entitled to their opinions. Most sensible people will accept that some sides are better than others, including myself, but if your OP says “the Big 3 produces the best quality of cricket”, then you are indirectly saying “other sides do not produce the best quality of cricket” and this is something people will be very quick to disagree with.

I don’t think there was anything high quality about that 36, just as I think India’s win day before yesterday was exceedingly high quality (barring several dropped catches by Australia). Similarly, I do not think Pakistan’s collapse in the last session was high quality, but I absolutely loved watching Kane Williamson get tested by some of the most accurate bowling I’ve ever seen, to make his second slowest half century and slowest ever century, that too which he wouldn’t have made if we held onto our catches and were sensible about our DRS use.

Again, I’m still not clear about your definition of high quality. Pakistan, New Zealand, South Africa have all produced several better quality games in just the last 4 years than 90% of intra Big 3 games.

Lastly, no one is infuriated. I started this discussion quite respectfully and positively and I would hope it is still like that. Me pointing out paradoxical logic is no reason to call me a liar. Which I don’t mind by the way, I still enjoy reading your posts as if you were a good friend.
 
Hasan123 said:
What the heck? I never only big 3 matches are quality. Never said Pakistan fluked CT or number 1 ranking.

We lose nearly every game to Australia and it's not even close. Yes we produced a good game against England in the first test but England would have won the other 2 tests had it not been for rain and those games were not high quality. We get beaten black and blue everytime we play India in the games we play against them apart from the CT final. So you must live in cuckoo land if you think Pakistan produce quality matches against the big 3 .

I did not mean only the big 3. I'm saying out of international games played , the big 3 matches produce the best quality for me. It is just an opinion.

Right now it's coming across you just want to catch me to make yourself look smart instead of having an actual debate.

If you think Pakistan produce the best games against the big 3, good for you. I really don't care anymore. I gave my opinion, your not going to change it and I honestly don't care if you like or my opinions infuriate you. At least I know with my opinion, it's not some fake positivity like some.
Click to expand...


Not sure what else is the argument about but for the bold part, I second this opinion.

I think the question is, what is your criteria of measuring the quality?

Personally I don't have heuristic numerical data but from playing and watching cricket, I can absolutely clearly see a far better athleticism in the field. The run out throws, the boundary saving attempts, the continuous pressure on the batsman. That's one.

Second, the batting.
It's not only playing a long or crucial innings but it's the class is stroke making, the bat flow, the foot work work, the head position, the piercing of the gap, the intelligence and ability to predict what's coming.

Third, and most import. THE MATCH AWARENESS!
The aspect of match awareness among each and every player is surely a lot better than lower tier teams.

Creating interesting and closely fought games (although an important factor) is not always necessarily equivalent to QUALITY!

A nail biting game between Mogadishu and Timbuktu could be as heart throbbing as it gets, but it may just not have the quality.
 
The big 3 are the 3 best teams overall with NZ so it's normal they play some good cricket. But nothing to do while playing each other or not.

The test series so far is of very low quality from both sides in batting and fielding.
Bowling is good but nothing unplayable for the scores we are seeing in the series so far.
 
Colorblind Genius said:
Not sure what else is the argument about but for the bold part, I second this opinion.

I think the question is, what is your criteria of measuring the quality?

Personally I don't have heuristic numerical data but from playing and watching cricket, I can absolutely clearly see a far better athleticism in the field. The run out throws, the boundary saving attempts, the continuous pressure on the batsman. That's one.

Second, the batting.
It's not only playing a long or crucial innings but it's the class is stroke making, the bat flow, the foot work work, the head position, the piercing of the gap, the intelligence and ability to predict what's coming.

Third, and most import. THE MATCH AWARENESS!
The aspect of match awareness among each and every player is surely a lot better than lower tier teams.

Creating interesting and closely fought games (although an important factor) is not always necessarily equivalent to QUALITY!

A nail biting game between Mogadishu and Timbuktu could be as heart throbbing as it gets, but it may just not have the quality.
Click to expand...

Quality in terms of contests between batters and bowlers,half chances being taken , in terms of batting the shot making and playing 360 degrees versus pace and spin, hitting good bals for boundaries.

Some posters are confusing quality between competitiveness. They were bumping this thread after India got all out for 36. I'm not stupid , I know some of the games are 1 sided.
 
Hasan123 said:
Quality in terms of contests between batters and bowlers,half chances being taken , in terms of batting the shot making and playing 360 degrees versus pace and spin, hitting good bals for boundaries.

Some posters are confusing quality between competitiveness. They were bumping this thread after India got all out for 36. I'm not stupid , I know some of the games are 1 sided.
Click to expand...

Is this quality, batters and bowlers, half chances being taken, shot making, hitting good balls for boundaries not present in England-Pakistan games? Or New Zealand-India games?

Or is it just present in Aus-Ind and Eng-Ind games? I’d be happy if you said yes, since now we have a settled definition and your argument is internally consistent.
 
Funny how the usual suspects aren't bumping this thread now. Other than India 36 all out and even that was due to some high quality bowling. The quality in terms of batting and bowling has been very good. The fielding has been poor but usually these 2 teams are great in the field.

But overall this has been a very good series.
 
I don't mind New Zealand being added to the discussion. But Pakistan,Bangladesh,West Indies, and Sri Lanka I will not accept. They can produce decent games and some good quality but not high quality on a consistent basis.
 
JaDed said:
Unless Aus produces close results when they visit us , I don’t see how?
Click to expand...

OP is OP bro. Please send him a request to consider Australia's performances in India. If he approves, there isnt anything we can do about it.

"But Pakistan,Bangladesh,West Indies, and Sri Lanka I will not accept"

Australia have a good chance.
 
Big 3 are class apart right now with NZ also joining them as honourary member this year.
 
Hasan123 said:
I don't mind New Zealand being added to the discussion. But Pakistan,Bangladesh,West Indies, and Sri Lanka I will not accept. They can produce decent games and some good quality but not high quality on a consistent basis.
Click to expand...

In grand scheme of things your opinion doesn't hold any volume( neither does mine ).:rabada2
 
Ah just another great series between the big 3. Where are those who were mocking me? I swear if Australia battered India this thread would be getting bumped. But the fact India won a close game, yall are ducking for cover.

No one mentioning how good this series has been because it involves 2 of evil big 3.
 
Big 3 are a class apart and reserve cricket of the highest level when playing against each other.
 
Hasan123 said:
Ah just another great series between the big 3. Where are those who were mocking me? I swear if Australia battered India this thread would be getting bumped. But the fact India won a close game, yall are ducking for cover.

No one mentioning how good this series has been because it involves 2 of evil big 3.
Click to expand...

Another series involving 2 teams of the Big 3 coming up in two weeks :vk :root
 
This thread stung our fans like a bee but it is the truth. If you draw up the list of best contemporary cricketers in the world across formats, you will find more top cricketers in India/Australia/England than all other teams put together.

It is not surprising that matches between the big 3 have a different feel. It is a different caliber of cricket.
 
The best quality of cricket?

Australia lost at home in the Gabba against an Indian C Team.

That’s an embarrassment, not the best quality of cricket.
 
freelance_cricketer said:
Big 3 are a class apart and reserve cricket of the highest level when playing against each other.
Click to expand...

At the same time, it seems they still need approval of Pakistan fans hence the need to come to Pakistan sites to tell us about their own greatness. I wonder why this is so, it seems to me there must be something missing which they find here?
 
Mamoon said:
This thread stung our fans like a bee but it is the truth. If you draw up the list of best contemporary cricketers in the world across formats, you will find more top cricketers in India/Australia/England than all other teams put together.

It is not surprising that matches between the big 3 have a different feel. It is a different caliber of cricket.
Click to expand...

Usually I dont agree with you, but the fact remains that if one looks at the last three World Cups, or the test series, then Big 3 does produce better cricket. And it is not their fault that other teams are languishing behind. South Africa had potential, but the regressive political lobby does not allow guys like Smith and Boucher to work. They are not interested about the performance of the team, instead how much "black players" and qouta regulations are followed is the major concern of these people. Sri Lanka cricket is such a joke that whole documentary can be made out of it.

Pakistan is the saddest of them, this was a country that had great potential, was a huge cricketing market, and was still not able to make the most out of it. The case in point that how much we played in Sharah in 1990's instead of hosting teams in Pakistan was our team was filled with the stars. That would have allowed the development of the local infrastructure, and would have given the boost the local cricket but for short term gains, we sacrificed the long term health of the game. Trust me when I say this but if Pakistan was a huge money spinner, then no country would have had any objections coming here regardless of the country's situation. Case in point when England was playing in India after 2008 attacks, because they had a fair idea that how much they are the mercy of the BCCI. Again, off late Pakistani's are good at becoming trolls but its not us but the rest of the world who is having a last laugh.
 
Another sterling big 3 series. So much talent and skill shown by both sides.

An ODI tri-series between these three sides in front of packed Indian stadiums would be the stuff of dreams.

The NZC board does not have the same clout but in terms of quality of cricket, they have been right up there for a while now.

The four great teams in the world are the only sides worth watching these days. The standard of cricket they produce, especially when they play each other, is incredible.

We need more matches between them across formats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Suleiman
Are we witnessing a revitalized Pakistan–West Indies rivalry? Can these two teams push each other to the pinnacle of world cricket once again?
Replies
8
Views
304
Champ_Pal
C
Ball Blazer
  • Poll Poll
Test Twenty - AB de Villiers and other legendary cricketers back newly-introduced cricket format
Replies
25
Views
498
TheSultan
T
Hitman
Pat Cummins, Travis Head rejected offer of $10 million each to quit Australian cricket for T20
Replies
74
Views
1K
kron
K
BouncerGuy
Bangladesh tour of UAE (2025) - [3 T20Is and 3 ODIs against Afghanistan]
8 9 10
Replies
721
Views
4K
Hellion
H
The Bald Eagle
Was the tag of "2nd Best Team in Asia" too big to handle for the Afghanistan team?
2 3 4
Replies
251
Views
4K
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
Back
Top