[VIDEOS] Bazball cannot disguise Test cricket's weakest era

[jnaveen1980]

Draw means you did not win and you did not lose. It has no impact on inflating or deflating your W/L ratio.

If you have a W/L of 0.1 in any era, it's certified minnow level.

Back then Draw was an acceptable result for most teams. I remember a series where Jimmy Adams west indies survived an entire series by padding everything Kumble bowled. In modern era he wouldn't last one over with that strategy.

 

[sweep_shot]

Draw means you did not win and you did not lose. It has no impact on inflating or deflating your W/L ratio.

If you have a W/L of 0.1 in any era, it's certified minnow level.

Draw mattered for a young Test team like Zimbabwe. It takes time to start winning in Test.

It took New Zealand 45 years to win their first Test.

During those days, draws were respectable.

 

[NishanKonar]

Draw means you did not win and you did not lose. It has no impact on inflating or deflating your W/L ratio.

If you have a W/L of 0.1 in any era, it's certified minnow level.

Zimbabwe got a slightly inflated reputation in the 90s thanks to their victories in ODI cricket against England who were awful in ODIs in that era.

But one thing that British media does is hype up teams that do well against them. Not to mention a lot of those white Zimbabwean cricketers were British passport holders like Andy Flower with one foot in England. Eddo Brandes owes his entire legacy to his exploits against ODI

They did win a test series in Pakistan but you know that 90s Pakistan team & their ties with match fixing.

 

[Buffet]

Back then Draw was an acceptable result for most teams. I remember a series where Jimmy Adams west indies survived an entire series by padding everything Kumble bowled. In modern era he wouldn't last one over with that strategy.

Yah, due to DRS, you can't get away with those tactics.

 

[Buffet]

Draw mattered for a young Test team like Zimbabwe. It takes time to start winning in Test.

It took India 26 years to win their first Test.

That's a different point and India was considered a minnow in those 26 years. I am not saying that draw did not matter to Zim back then. Draw will matter a lot to any minnow in any era.

 

[sweep_shot]

Zimbabwe got a slightly inflated reputation in the 90s thanks to their victories in ODI cricket against England who were awful in ODIs in that era.

But one thing that British media does is hype up teams that do well against them. Not to mention a lot of those white Zimbabwean cricketers were British passport holders like Andy Flower with one foot in England. Eddo Brandes owes his entire legacy to his exploits against ODI

They did win a test series in Pakistan but you know that 90s Pakistan team & their ties with match fixing......

Zimbabwe won an ODI series against New Zealand in New Zealand.

They also won a Test series in Pakistan.

They beat India in 1999 World Cup also.

 

[NishanKonar]

NZ best team without any doubt is their recent team. It's not even close.

Their 90s team had bowlers like Dion Nash, Simon Doull, Gavin Larsen

That's supposedly better than Boult, Southee, Ferguson , Santner !

 

[sweep_shot]

Their 90s team had bowlers like Dion Nash, Simon Doull, Gavin Larsen

That's supposedly better than Boult, Southee, Ferguson , Santner !

NZ had better batters in the 90's.

Bowling wasn't too bad either.

90's NZ team were superior. Modern day team look good because other teams declined.

 

[Ab Fan]

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

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

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

QED the standard has fallen by a lot!

That loss in South Africa was many years ago, back then AB de Villiers was playing international cricket.

New Zealand were having their golden team with 4 quality pacers when they played WTC Final in 2021. It was arguably their best ever team. They have declined a bit in last two years but still going good.

 

[Buffet]

Zimbabwe got a slightly inflated reputation in the 90s thanks to their victories in ODI cricket against England who were awful in ODIs in that era.

But one thing that British media does is hype up teams that do well against them. Not to mention a lot of those white Zimbabwean cricketers were British passport holders like Andy Flower with one foot in England. Eddo Brandes owes his entire legacy to his exploits against ODI

They did win a test series in Pakistan but you know that 90s Pakistan team & their ties with match fixing......

Without getting into match-fixing mid 90s to mid 00s,

Pakistan lost at home against SA, Ind, Aus, Eng, SL, Zim. NZ also drew in Pakistan in that period.

Pakistan was the easiest place to visit for any team in that period. Pretty much every team won in Pakistan in those 10 years.

 

[NishanKonar]

NZ had better batters in the 90's.

Bowling wasn't too bad either.

90's NZ team were superior. Modern day team look good because other teams declined.

Stephen Fleming - avg 40
Nathan Astle - Avg 37
Roger Twose - avg 25
Craig MAcmillan - avg 38

Kane Williamson - avg 56
Daryl Mitchell - avg 53
Tom Latham - avg 40
Dvon conway - avg 41

Which batting is better ?

 

[NishanKonar]

Without getting into match-fixing mid 90s to mid 00s,

Pakistan lost at home against SA, Ind, Aus, Eng, SL, Zim. NZ also drew in Pakistan in that period.

Pakistan was the easiest place to visit for any team in that period. Pretty much every team won in Pakistan in those 10 years.

A big reason why Pakistan fans think the 90s team was the Golden generation is bcoz they sued to dominate India and present team is poor bcoz they lose so often to India

These fans dont realise that Pakistan dominated India coz India was woefully poor in the 90s. And today India dominates Pakistan bcoz India is vast superior team. Not bcoz Pakistan declined as a team

 

[jnaveen1980]

NZ had better batters in the 90's.

Bowling wasn't too bad either.

90's NZ team were superior. Modern day team look good because other teams declined.

Lol NZ was a joke team in the 90s. Any team that could bowl fast rattle them. That was the case still into 2000s. Sami, waqar, Akhtar even Sami had his best figured against NZ. They were uber lazy bringing down the bat in time. Their only strength was strategy.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Biased umpiring, match fixing, ball tampering everything ruled in the 90s. Lot of terrible players. Azhaurddin dropping those two of the simplest of catches will live long in my memory.

 

[Ab Fan]

Lol NZ was a joke team in the 90s. Any team that could bowl fast rattle them. That was the case still into 2000s. Sami, waqar, Akhtar even Sami had his best figured against NZ. They were uber lazy bringing down the bat in time. Their only strength was strategy.

Yes NZ were awful team in 90s.

NZ in 80s were good because they were carried by the legendary Richards Hadlee who won them a series in Australia,1986. Martin Crowe also retired in 1995.

NZ in 90s and 00s were bad. NZ in 2010s were much better with Boult, Southee, Williamson, Latham, Taylor, McCullum, Watling till 2021. Some names retired and are in last legs but now they still have Mitchell, Conway, Jamieson etc.

 

[Buffet]

NZ had better batters in the 90's.

Bowling wasn't too bad either.

90's NZ team were superior. Modern day team look good because other teams declined.

Avg runs per wickets for all sides in 90s: 31 runs per wicket NZ batting unit Average in 90s:29 runs per wicket

Avg runs/wicket all sides in last 10 years:31 runs per wicket NZ batting unit last 10 years: 36 runs per wicket

It would be weird to argue that in both periods runs per wicket by all teams were 31, but NZ with an average of 29 was superior to NZ with an average of 36.

I have watched both periods. There is no comparison. NZ has far superior batting and bowling both in the last 10 years. It's reflected in their relative stats as well.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Yes NZ were awful team in 90s.

NZ in 80s were good because they were carried by the legendary Richards Hadlee who won them a series in Australia,1986. Martin Crowe also retired in 1995.

NZ in 90s and 00s were bad. NZ in 2010s were much better with Boult, Southee, Williamson, Latham, Taylor, McCullum, Watling till 2021. Some names retired and are in last legs but now they still have Mitchell, Conway, Jamieson etc.

90s was transition period for a lot of teams. For India , they phased out Kapil dev, Ravi shastri , Sidhu, Manjrekar. Dravid, Ganguly, Laxman became regular in the late 90s. Match fixing turmoil rocked India later SA. Kumble just started his career. Srilanka became a force only after 1996. But mostly in ODIs. It took a while for them to establish themselves in Tests. WI had mixed results.Above all when S achin hit the peak India hardly played any tests. That was a travesty.

 

[jnaveen1980]

In the 90s people would turn off the TV once Tendulkar got out. True story. You don't see that now for any player.

 

[NishanKonar]

Most people dont understand that modern day game is lot more disciplined & organised. The 90s era was amateurish. Players trained lightly. They often drank & partied before matches. David Boon once drank 50 beer cans on a flight to England for an Ashes series. Imagine any player doing that today. he wud be immediately packed home.

Ian Botham once survived an entire India tour on beer & chicken kababs. Today England brings a professional chef with a strict dietary regime while on tour. They have support team bigger than their actual squad of players

One reason is the game is more competitive & there is lot more money. Players know if they excel they can land a massive IPL contract & earn million bucks. Hence they are more focussed , disciplined & train harder than their 80s/90s generation

Some nations like Pakistan / West Indies have become laggards simply bcoz they did not change with the times. They still behave as if its the 90s

 

[NishanKonar]

Most people dont understand that modern day game is lot more disciplined & organised. The 90s era was amateurish. Players trained lightly. They often drank & partied before matches. David Boon once drank 50 beer cans on a flight to England for an Ashes series. Imagine any player doing that today. he wud be immediately packed home.

Ian Botham once survived an entire India tour on beer & chicken kababs. Today England brings a professional chef with a strict dietary regime while on tour. They have support team bigger than their actual squad of players
One reason is the game is more competitive & there is lot more money. Players know if they excel they can land a massive IPL contract & earn million bucks. Hence they are more focussed , disciplined & train harder than their 80s/90s generation

Some nations like Pakistan / West Indies have become laggards simply bcoz they did not change with the times. They still behave as if its the 90s

Garry Sobers used to party & drink all night before a test match. Can u imagine modern day players doing such things. No way

 

[Statpadder Inc]

No they were not. Sri Lanka in 1994 created a dubious record where they got whitewashed by innings defeats in all 3 tests against India. That was how poor they were. They were mostly invited for one off tests by SENAW nations bcoz they were seen as minnows in test cricket. Their first full test series in England was in 2001 and in Australia was in 1995 and in West Indies was in 1997. Before that it was all one-off tests

South Africa in the 90s for all the hype failed to beat a bang average England team in England , never won a series against Australia at home or away. They bullied teams like India & Pakistan on fast bouncy pitches

New Zealand in the 90s was slightly better than Zimbabwe. When New Zealand beat England in England in 1999 - it was seen as one of lowest points in English cricket

I agree but atleast that saffer managed to win a series against england at home, something they havent done for more than 2 decades now. They even whitewashed India away

 

[Statpadder Inc]

Some people on this site say anything. I remember the kiwis being an absolute joke in the 90s, just slightly better than Zimbabwe.

Nasser Hussian cried when they defeated England away, they were the laggards of world cricket

 

[sweep_shot]

Avg runs per wickets for all sides in 90s: 31 runs per wicket NZ batting unit Average in 90s:29 runs per wicket

Avg runs/wicket all sides in last 10 years:31 runs per wicket NZ batting unit last 10 years: 36 runs per wicket

It would be weird to argue that in both periods runs per wicket by all teams were 31, but NZ with an average of 29 was superior to NZ with an average of 36.

I have watched both periods. There is no comparison. NZ has far superior batting and bowling both in the last 10 years. It's reflected in their relative stats as well.

NZ batters faced tougher bowlers in the 90's.

Also, during those days, there were biased/horrible umpiring. There was no DRS. Batters had to work harder for their runs.

I would say 1 run in the 90's is worth 5 runs in modern day.

 

[sweep_shot]

Stephen Fleming - avg 40
Nathan Astle - Avg 37
Roger Twose - avg 25
Craig MAcmillan - avg 38

Kane Williamson - avg 56
Daryl Mitchell - avg 53
Tom Latham - avg 40
Dvon conway - avg 41

Which batting is better ?

Who did Fleming, Astle, Twose, and McMillan face? They faced legendary bowlers.

Who are Williamson, Mitchell, Latham, and Conway facing? Mostly T20 hacks.

You also have to consider things like biased/horrible umpiring, worse pitches, lack of DRS etc. 90's was a tough period for the batters.

 

[Buffet]

NZ batters had to face better bowlers in the 90's.

Bowling quality isn't the same in this era. Much weaker.

Also, during those days, there were biased/horrible umpiring. There was no DRS. Batters had to work harder for their runs.

I hope you understand that I put all batting units( all teams) averages there as well. Everyone was batting under the same conditions and NZ averaged near the bottom. Now all teams are batting under the same conditions and NZ is appearing near the top. DRS, umpiring etc was true for everyone in both eras.

You are now making ridiculous claims like all batsmen and all bowlers were better in the older era on average. That is simply not true. That's an argument of the good old days and has no merit.

 

[jnaveen1980]

NZ batters faced tougher bowlers in the 90's.

Also, during those days, there were biased/horrible umpiring. There was no DRS. Batters had to work harder for their runs.

I would say 1 run in the 90's is worth 5 runs in modern day.

For that team even Mukesh kumar from current era would have been tougher. They were that bad.

 

[jnaveen1980]

I hope you understand that I put all batting units( all teams) averages there as well. Everyone was batting under the same conditions and NZ averaged near the bottom. Now all teams are batting under the same conditions and NZ is appearing near the top. DRS, umpiring etc was true for everyone in both eras.

You are now making ridiculous claims like all batsmen and all bowlers were better in the older era on average. That is simply not true. That's an argument of the good old days and has no merit.

I am not sure he watched NZ in the 1990s. Any bowler that could bowl around 140 would steam roll them. Almost all pak bowlers had their best numbers against NZ. Even Bangladesh of current era would beat them easily

 

[Dr_Bassim]

I have no qualms accepting that newer Era has better discipline and standards and that Hasan Ali > Spofforth, Larwood and all the other greats of the game.

But it is strikingly funny, that based on "fair standards principle" somehow from 1986 the day Tendulkar debuted, all the records become meaningful, worthwhile and all the bowlers start having meaning and substance. It is as soon as the 16 year old debuted, everything changed in cricket suddenly.

If we are willing to accept that teams were drastically poor in the 90s, then surely all the records of Tendulkar were made against teams who were bang average at best and were not really at top of their game. If bowling now is tougher than it was in 92, surely batsmen like Tendulkar had it easy then because the SR were so low for that era.

If batting and bowling both have improved then Rohit Sharma with his 3 double hundreds and Kohli as an ATG > Tendulkar because they can do all he could and then some more at a higher SR and higher abilities especially against bowlers who have to consistently bowl at a certain pace and length to preserve their pedigree.

In my opinion, cricket has always got better.

Someone from 1880s cannot be as good as 1950s and someone from 1950s cannot be as good as 1990s. And someone from 1990s cannot be as good as 2020. Simply because of "fair principles standard" where it is much harder to bowl now with continuous DRS reviews, attacking batsmen and no longer able to get easy lbws. It is also harder to bat now, because if you miss a straight bowl you will be given LBW, bowlers have multiple tricks above their sleeves and their is more video footage to study weaknesses of batsmen.

In my opinion Kohli, Sharma, and all the modern Australian, Pakistani, West Indian or NZ batters are > Tendulkar simply because it is harder to reproduce results of 90s when you could play at 70-80 SR and be called a great.

Lets listen to opposing arguments now.

 

[NishanKonar]

I have no qualms accepting that newer Era has better discipline and standards and that Hasan Ali > Spofforth, Larwood and all the other greats of the game.

But it is strikingly funny, that based on "fair standards principle" somehow from 1986 the day Tendulkar debuted, all the records become meaningful, worthwhile and all the bowlers start having meaning and substance. It is as soon as the 16 year old debuted, everything changed in cricket suddenly.

If we are willing to accept that teams were drastically poor in the 90s, then surely all the records of Tendulkar were made against teams who were bang average at best and were not really at top of their game. If bowling now is tougher than it was in 92, surely batsmen like Tendulkar had it easy then because the SR were so low for that era.

If batting and bowling both have improved then Rohit Sharma with his 3 double hundreds and Kohli as an ATG > Tendulkar because they can do all he could and then some more at a higher SR and higher abilities especially against bowlers who have to consistently bowl at a certain pace and length to preserve their pedigree.

In my opinion, cricket has always got better.

Someone from 1880s cannot be as good as 1950s and someone from 1950s cannot be as good as 1990s. And someone from 1990s cannot be as good as 2020. Simply because of "fair principles standard" where it is much harder to bowl now with continuous DRS reviews, attacking batsmen and no longer able to get easy lbws. It is also harder to bat now, because if you miss a straight bowl you will be given LBW, bowlers have multiple tricks above their sleeves and their is more video footage to study weaknesses of batsmen.

In my opinion Kohli, Sharma, and all the modern Australian, Pakistani, West Indian or NZ batters are > Tendulkar simply because it is harder to reproduce results of 90s when you could play at 70-80 SR and be called a great.

Lets listen to opposing arguments now.

Its difficult to say who wud have succeeded if they played in today's era

Like Bradman wud probably average 65 if he played today - which is still extraordinary

Pele wud have been as good as Messi & Cristiano but probably not reached the 1000 goal mark

Some past greats though I have doubts. Like I doubt Rod Laver wud have succeeded if he played in this era. he was just 5ft 9 and slight built compared to the 6ft plus monsters we see on tennis courts today like Djokovic / Nadal / Alvarez. Same way I have doubts whether Muhammad Ali wud have ben heavyweight champion as he was 6ft 3 & 220 pounds - more like a modern day cruiserweight & considerably smaller than modern day heavyweights

I strongly believe Sachin & Lara wud have been top 5 batters if they played today - coz they had technique to excel in any era. I am not sure about Javed Miandad bcoz he used to shuffle a lot & prone to lbw but saved by biased home umpires

I am sure Wasim Akram , Ambrose , Denis Lilee & Malcolm Marshall wud have been very successful in this era. But not so sure about Michale Holding or Jeff Thompson bcoz they had pace but nothing much apart from it. Or Waqar Younis who excelled with reverse swing but wud have not got those doctored balls as today there are far more vigilant tv cameras

 

[jnaveen1980]

It is a highly result oriented era. Would be nice to check how many matches ended in draws yearwise over the course of last 30 years.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Its difficult to say who wud have succeeded if they played in today's era

Like Bradman wud probably average 65 if he played today - which is still extraordinary

Pele wud have been as good as Messi & Cristiano but probably not reached the 1000 goal mark

Some past greats though I have doubts. Like I doubt Rod Laver wud have succeeded if he played in this era. he was just 5ft 9 and slight built compared to the 6ft plus monsters we see on tennis courts today like Djokovic / Nadal / Alvarez. Same way I have doubts whether Muhammad Ali wud have ben heavyweight champion as he was 6ft 3 & 220 pounds - more like a modern day cruiserweight & considerably smaller than modern day heavyweights

I strongly believe Sachin & Lara wud have been top 5 batters if they played today - coz they had technique to excel in any era. I am not sure about Javed Miandad bcoz he used to shuffle a lot & prone to lbw but saved by biased home umpires

I am sure Wasim Akram , Ambrose , Denis Lilee & Malcolm Marshall wud have been very successful in this era. But not so sure about Michale Holding or Jeff Thompson bcoz they had pace but nothing much apart from it. Or Waqar Younis who excelled with reverse swing but wud have not got those doctored balls as today there are far more vigilant tv cameras

Tendulkar played across multiple eras. Started playing against Hadlee, Imran Khan even Botham. Ended up playing against Dale Steyn. He didn't have any issues at any point. He can adapt across the eras. So can Lara. Thsoe are exceptions though. Kohli and Tendulkar played 31 matches together. The stats are absolutely identical.

 

[NishanKonar]

Tendulkar played across multiple eras. Started playing against Hadlee, Imran Khan even Botham. Ended up playing against Dale Steyn. He didn't have any issues at any point. He can adapt across the eras. So can Lara. Thsoe are exceptions though. Kohli and Tendulkar played 31 matches together. The stats are absolutely identical.

Yes Sachin scored a test hundred against peak Dale Steyn & Mourne Morkel at Capetown at the age of 37. So he wud have excelled in this era

 

[Technics 1210]

I thought this thread was going to be a critique of Bazball!

So we have some Indian fans suggesting we shouldn't romanticise about the past, well can we start by ignoring Tendulkar's achievements, heck, if the cricket of the past was of a lower standard then it only exposes the likes of Tendulkar - scored 100 international countries in an era of weak cricket.

Plus why stop at sport? Maybe the same Indian fans should stop romanticising India's cultural history, with what is alleged to be the Golden era of Indian cricket (which isn't) under a nationalist GoI that is desperate to rekindle the old Bharat flame.

And anyway, it IS easier to bat in today's games, nothing to do with how players and quality have improved but more so to do with other aspects such as change in laws, bat sizes, and cheerleaders.

In 20 years time the same lot telling us not to romanticise on the past will be defending their generation of Cricket.

Personally, the reason why Cricket has transformed into a comedy show is because the money generated to develop the game, is now hogged by BCCI.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I thought this thread was going to be a critique of Bazball!

So we have some Indian fans suggesting we shouldn't romanticise about the past, well can we start by ignoring Tendulkar's achievements, heck, if the cricket of the past was of a lower standard then it only exposes the likes of Tendulkar - scored 100 international countries in an era of weak cricket.

Plus why stop at sport? Maybe the same Indian fans should stop romanticising India's cultural history, with what is alleged to be the Golden era of Indian cricket (which isn't) under a nationalist GoI that is desperate to rekindle the old Bharat flame.

And anyway, it IS easier to bat in today's games, nothing to do with how players and quality have improved but more so to do with other aspects such as change in laws, bat sizes, and cheerleaders.

In 20 years time the same lot telling us not to romanticise on the past will be defending their generation of Cricket.

Personally, the reason why Cricket has transformed into a comedy show is because the money generated to develop the game, is now hogged by BCCI.

Indian fans change their baseline for measuring Tendulkars greatness more times

 

[greatest]

Sachin would have doubled what he achieved in his era. Compared to the 90's and before, nowadays the standard of bowling especially fast-bowling is quite average.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Indian fans change their baseline for measuring Tendulkars greatness more times

There is no baseline he played across 4 decades.

 

[Mesozoic]

Anybody who thinks that 90s New Zealand was a better side than the current one , is either partaking in some really lame trolling or have no idea what they're talking about.

No three ways about it.

 

[Chip32]

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

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

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

Blud put Jaiswal and Cam Green in the same sentence.

Green has shown next to nothing at the international level. I said this a while back as well, but just watching him play you can tell he isn't a natural batsman and looks more comfortable bowling. His ceiling as a test batsman is a number 6 averaging in the late 30's. Why Australia is hell bent on giving him the number 4 spot instead of a genuine batsman is beyond me.

This entire Australian side, Cummins aside, is on a downwards spiral. Losing to the Windies is only the beginning. I can genuinely see them being whitewashed by India at home.

 

[Junaids]

@Junaids, you correctly attack India for their poor away record but fail to mention the fact that aus have lost 4 series in a row to India, and havent won a series in ind, sl, sa, eng and bang

Actually, the whole premise of this thread is that Australia may be the best current Test team, but they are still rubbish.

The current level of quality is appalling.

The 2017-18 South Africans were their worst team since Re-Entry, and they still smashed this current Australian team 3-1.

Six years on, the exact same Aussie players are mainly in decline, and are all the wrong side of thirty, yet they are better than the rest of the world's teams.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Sachin would have doubled what he achieved in his era. Compared to the 90's and before, nowadays the standard of bowling especially fast-bowling is quite average.

So which is it ?

The standards of bowling were better in late 80s and 90s and early 2000 when Sachin peaked?

If they were indeed better, then you have to agree with @Junaids that 70s and 80s bowlers were of higher skill than todays bowlers.

But when you try to say with a straight face that bowlers before Sachins time were worse and ONLY better when Sachin was playing and then again became worse when he retired, thats trolling of highest level to try to portray Sachin as someone superhuman.

I am sorry.

People need to either accept that cricketers of 80s and 90s could have been really great just like present era OR if they were terrible, than batsmen of that era had it easy.

This seems a desperate attempt to have and eat your cake by Indian fans.

 

[Junaids]

Let me put it this way

Compare the 2023 team vs 1993 teams

Australia- 2023 was superior
England - 2023 vastly superior
India - 2023 vastly superior
Pakistan - 1993 team slightly better
South Africa - equal
Sri Lanka - equal
West Indies - 1993 vastly superior
New Zealand - 2023 superior

In essence u have 2 teams almost equal, 4 teams were superior & 2 teams fallen behind - Pakistan & West Indies

Net net today's teams are superior

People often forget how poor Sri Lanka ( before 1996 WC) , England & New Zealand were in the 90s. New Zealand went thru such a rough phase in the 90s that they sacked all seniors & appointed a debutant Lee Germon as captain for his debut game. Sri Lanka were seen as minnows away from home ( much like Bangladesh ). England lost every Ashes so badly that questions arose over future of English cricket

2 teams - West Indies & Pakistan have definitely moved backwards. More so in West Indies. While Pakistani fans remember 90s with a rose tinted glasses - in real life they lost home test series against Sri Lanka, Australia, England, South Africa & even Zimbabwe

This post is almost delusional.

The 1993 Aussies had Taylor, Slater, two Waughs, Boon, Border, Healy, Warne, McDermott, May and Merv. The only current players who would get close to that team are Cummins and Hazlewood.

England had Gooch, Gatting, Atherton, Hick, Hussain, Stewart, Fraser, Malcolm, Emburey and Caddick. The only 2024 players who would get into that team are Root and Stokes.

New Zealand had Crowe, Jones, Rutherford, Parore, Cairns, Morrison and Nash. The only current players who would get into that team - which won the First Test in South Africa the next year - are Williamson and Jamieson.

And you think that Saleem Malik, Saeed Anwar, Aamer Sohail, Rashid Latif/Moin Khan, Mushtaq Ahmed, Waqar Younis and Wasim Akram are only "slightly superior" to the current Pakistanis?

 

[greatest]

So which is it ?

The standards of bowling were better in late 80s and 90s and early 2000 when Sachin peaked?

If they were indeed better, then you have to agree with @Junaids that 70s and 80s bowlers were of higher skill than todays bowlers.

But when you try to say with a straight face that bowlers before Sachins time were worse and ONLY better when Sachin was playing and then again became worse when he retired, thats trolling of highest level to try to portray Sachin as someone superhuman.

I am sorry.

People need to either accept that cricketers of 80s and 90s could have been really great just like present era OR if they were terrible, than batsmen of that era had it easy.

This seems a desperate attempt to have and eat your cake by Indian fans.

You have misunderstood my post. I had mentioned that Sachin would have doubled now what he achieved in his era, which means that compared to the 80s and 90s, nowadays the bowling standards are quite ordinary. In fact Sachin really peaked after 00's when most of the great bowlers had retired.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

You have misunderstood my post. I had mentioned that Sachin would have doubled now what he achieved in his era, which means that compared to the 80s and 90s, nowadays the bowling standards are quite ordinary. In fact Sachin really peaked after 00's when most of the great bowlers had retired.

Hmm.

So do you agree with @Junaids that Trueman, Larwood and Fred Spofforth were just as good as Imran, Wasim, Holding, Ambrose etc.

And that standards of bowling have dipped nowadays?

 

[greatest]

Hmm.

So do you agree with @Junaids that Trueman, Larwood and Fred Spofforth were just as good as Imran, Wasim, Holding, Ambrose etc.

And that standards of bowling have dipped nowadays?

Without a doubt, the bowling standards now especially due to the importance given to the shorter formats has declined alarmingly.

 

[uppercut]

I've been looking all day - I'm guessing it's no longer up, but the moderators will know.

Perhaps there was no such thing to begin with?

 

[greatest]

Bowlers in the pre 90's era used to concentrate just on Test and first-class cricket and to succeed in the longer formats a bowler's needs to develop the art of taking wickets. Without wickets in your bag you were a non entity. With the expansion of ODIs in the 00's and especially T20's in which a bowler's main job is basically containment and defensive bowling, nowadays bowlers have lost the art of taking wickets and are very ordinary compared to the bowlers of yesteryears.

 

[uppercut]

Without a doubt, the bowling standards now especially due to the importance given to the shorter formats has declined alarmingly

Have you looked at the footage that I posted earlier in this thread ? The footage is from what is officially considered as the golden era of cricket.


please take a look and let me know what you think... its not too long and you can skip to the middle of the clip if you want to just see the cricketing action.

 

[Junaids]

NZ best team without any doubt is their recent team. It's not even close.

Recent.

Not current.

 

[jnaveen1980]

This post is almost delusional.

The 1993 Aussies had Taylor, Slater, two Waughs, Boon, Border, Healy, Warne, McDermott, May and Merv. The only current players who would get close to that team are Cummins and Hazlewood.

England had Gooch, Gatting, Atherton, Hick, Hussain, Stewart, Fraser, Malcolm, Emburey and Caddick. The only 2024 players who would get into that team are Root and Stokes.

New Zealand had Crowe, Jones, Rutherford, Parore, Cairns, Morrison and Nash. The only current players who would get into that team - which won the First Test in South Africa the next year - are Williamson and Jamieson.

And you think that Saleem Malik, Saeed Anwar, Aamer Sohail, Rashid Latif/Moin Khan, Mushtaq Ahmed, Waqar Younis and Wasim Akram are only "slightly superior" to the current Pakistanis?

Merely printing team names won't make that era better than other eras lol Nash, Morrison, Rutherford, Caddick, EMburey, Fraser, Hick, Parore seriously. i lived through that era. WItnessed how embarrassingly pathetic ENgland was against couple of average spinners and Kumble. Venkatpathy Raju, Rajesh Chauhan. Imagine them facing Ashwin/Jadeja/Kuldeep. So many trundlers in all the bowling line up. 120 to 130 kph balls. Hardly any other skill like doosra, carrom ball. You take a dig at Australia for losing to WIndies at home despite having a W/L ratio at home 5.000 in the last 10 years. It is better than what Australia did in the 1990s. Pakistan team despite your bragging lost home series to Zimbabwe and Srilanka in the 90s lol What will you call that? Once the cameras started capturing ball tampering quality of bowling dipped alarmingly.

 

[Junaids]

Their 90s team had bowlers like Dion Nash, Simon Doull, Gavin Larsen

That's supposedly better than Boult, Southee, Ferguson , Santner !

Dion Nash was probably the most skilled Kiwi quick after Hadlee, he just didn't have the body to make a career.

Boult was the third best Kiwi quick after Hadlee and Bond, but he's only about 60% of the bowler he used to be now.

Ferguson is a nobody. He's 32 and has played a Test but never taken a Test wicket. He will never be the bowler that Chris Harris was, let alone Gavin Larsen - and they were both ODI specialists too.

Santner is a complete zero as a Test cricketer too. He's 32 too and has played 26 Tests....and has a grand total of 53 Test wickets.

You don't understand that Glenn Turner discarded the Kiwi Test team in 1995 for puritanical lifestyle reasons. Hence Germon in for Parore and Harris in for Cairns. But their 1990s team was fairly similar in quality to the post-Taylor team now. And Cairns-Morrison-Nash were a superb pace trio.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Test cricket's weakest era was when Bradman was playing. With a bit of talent he feasted on that era.

 

[Buffet]

Sachin would have doubled what he achieved in his era. Compared to the 90's and before, nowadays the standard of bowling especially fast-bowling is quite average.

You have misunderstood my post. I had mentioned that Sachin would have doubled now what he achieved in his era, which means that compared to the 80s and 90s, nowadays the bowling standards are quite ordinary. In fact Sachin really peaked after 00's when most of the great bowlers had retired.

Not true at all.

In 90s, the top 5 averaging batsmen were,

1 - SRT 58

2 - Steve 53
3 - Lara 51
4 - Gooch 51

5 - Desilva 46



In 00s, the top 5 averaging batsmen were,

1- kallis - 58
2 - Moyo - 58
3 - Ponting - 58
4 - Inzzi 55
5 - Jaya 55
...
...
Way down the list

SRT - 53


SRT averaged 58 in 90s when no one else was even close to that average and he averaged way below with many averaging 58 in 00s.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Pakistan bashed two teams in the 90s. England and NZ. So NZ "has to be" good. I don't see any other reason anyone would hype a 90s NZ team. I don't think even NZ fan will agree with this.

Test cricket after 1980

Success in the 1980s New Zealand test cricket came of age in the 1980s. The New Zealand team played 59 tests, won 17 and lost only 15, with 27 games drawn. They were unbeaten at home, winning seven series and drawing four. New Zealand won its first series at home ...

teara.govt.nz

 

[jnaveen1980]

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

Walloped by the West Indies​

New Zealand were at a low ebb in 1995 and hit rock bottom at the Basin Reserve against a star-studded West Indies side.

Sri Lankan stinker​

New Zealand's battling test side of the mid 1990s sank to another low in the Hawke’s Bay sun in March 1995.

 

[greatest]

Have you looked at the footage that I posted earlier in this thread ? The footage is from what is officially considered as the golden era of cricket.


please take a look and let me know what you think... its not too long and you can skip to the middle of the clip if you want to just see the cricketing action.

Bro, I have already seen a lot of footages from the golden era. I'm sure you know that cricket was very different in those times compared to now. You know that in those days they used to play on uncovered pitches, right? The ball used to have a more pronounced seam and being an expert of cricket bowling I think you know that in that time bowlers still used to bowl more round-arm, which is basically a type of slingy action. Fast bowling actions have evolved from underarm to roundarm to overarm to straight arm etc

And as far as footage is concerned, in those days the cameras were not HD or 50 fps, they very very jerky and a bowler used to look like a robot. In the 50s when Fred Trueman saw his footage he said he looked like he was bowling half the pace.

 

[Buffet]

Pakistan bashed two teams in the 90s. England and NZ. So NZ "has to be" good. I don't see any other reason anyone would hype a 90s NZ team. I don't think even NZ fan will agree with this.

Test cricket after 1980

Success in the 1980s New Zealand test cricket came of age in the 1980s. The New Zealand team played 59 tests, won 17 and lost only 15, with 27 games drawn. They were unbeaten at home, winning seven series and drawing four. New Zealand won its first series at home ...

teara.govt.nz

Why not just look at how good the NZ were in 90s directly? NZ W/L ratio puts it at 2nd last spot, just above Zim.

 

[greatest]

Not true at all.

In 90s, the top 5 averaging batsmen were,

1 - SRT 58

2 - Steve 53
3 - Lara 51
4 - Gooch 51

5 - Desilva 46



In 00s, the top 5 averaging batsmen were,

1- kallis - 58
2 - Moyo - 58
3 - Ponting - 58
4 - Inzzi 55
5 - Jaya 55
...
...
Way down the list

SRT - 53


SRT averaged 58 in 90s when no one else was even close to that average and he averaged way below with many averaging 58 in 00s.

I don't judge by stats, I have seen that era. India played just one Test Series in the 90s in Australia where Sachin performed well. Besides in other Test series in South Africa, West Indies, England, New Zealand he was rather inconsistent by his standards.

 

[sweep_shot]

I don't judge by stats, I have seen that era. India played just one Test Series in the 90s in Australia where Sachin performed well. Besides in other Test series in South Africa, West Indies, England, New Zealand he was rather inconsistent by his standards.

I agree with your view. Stats don't always give us full pictures.

Stats don't include factors like biased umpiring, lack of DRS, quality of bowlers etc.

90's batters had far more challenges.

 

[Junaids]

Pakistan bashed two teams in the 90s. England and NZ. So NZ "has to be" good. I don't see any other reason anyone would hype a 90s NZ team. I don't think even NZ fan will agree with this.

Test cricket after 1980

Success in the 1980s New Zealand test cricket came of age in the 1980s. The New Zealand team played 59 tests, won 17 and lost only 15, with 27 games drawn. They were unbeaten at home, winning seven series and drawing four. New Zealand won its first series at home ...

teara.govt.nz

I lived in New Zealand in the 1990s, as some of you will recall.

It was a strange era. The Hadlee/Crowe team had been very difficult to beat, and 1990-1993 was a tough period.

By the time they toured England in 1994, Fleming was about to break through, Nash had broken through and Vettori was a year away.

The problems go back to the 94-95 tour of South Africa. The Kiwis won the First Test and were aggrieved by appalling umpiring in the next, which led to outright dissent by skipper Ken Rutherford, who had finally blossomed into both a genuine Test batsman - at last! - and a superb skipper.

Then they got caught smoking weed at a winery between Tests, and the Forces of Injured Conservatism demanded blood.

Everyone knew that Glenn Turner was sitting idle in Dunedin, just waiting for a chance to get rid of "modern cricketers" like Parore and Cairns who he thought needed to do what they were told. (The same Turner who, like Boycott, "retired" from Test cricket rather than face the Windies pace attack).

So what should have been the start of a Golden Era after victory in South Africa became a very dark period indeed, in which an officious and bitter supremo basically replaced his best players with Yes Men.

But don't think that there was no talent. It was a period in which the forces of darkness were able to destroy their own country's Test team.

 

[jnaveen1980]

No team completely dominated the 90s. Windies regressed mid way through. They started losing more matches after 1995. Australia progressed from the late 90s. SA made a steady progress. NZ was in transition period throughout the decade. England was also in transition. India was impacted by match fixing scams and was in transition. Also played far too less tests in that period. Mere 69 tests in 10 years. Zimbabwe/Srilanka were noob teams at test level. Pakistan probably had the right resources for the entire decade as they were a fully locked and loaded for entire decade.They still couldn't dominate. Basically almost all teams were in transition at some point of the 90s except Pakistan.

 

[Buffet]

I don't judge by stats, I have seen that era. India played just one Test Series in the 90s in Australia where Sachin performed well. Besides in other Test series in South Africa, West Indies, England, New Zealand he was rather inconsistent by his standards.

If a player averages 58 with a large sample size in 90s and averages 53 with a large sample size in 00s then it makes no sense to say that 00s was his peak. It makes even less sense to say that he was insistent while averaging 58 with a large sample size.

In 90s, he had tons in Nottingham, Capetown, Sydney, Birmingham, Manchester, Melbourne, Perth, Wellington, Johannesburg

He was not batting better in 00s. In fact, after the elbow injury, he stopped playing some shots and became less aggressive. I watched his entire career and the first time I heard anyone say that his peak was not in 90s and it was in 00s.

 

[jnaveen1980]

If a player averages 58 with a large sample size in 90s and averages 53 with a large sample size in 00s then it makes no sense to say that 00s was his peak. It makes even less sense to say that he was insistent while averaging 58 with a large sample size.

In 90s, he had tons in Nottingham, Capetown, Sydney, Birmingham, Manchester, Melbourne, Perth, Wellington, Johannesburg

He was not batting better in 00s. In fact, after the elbow injury, he stopped playing some shots and became less aggressive. I watched his entire career and the first time I heard anyone say that his peak was not in 90s and it was in 00s.

India played 81 tests in 1980
69 in 1990
105 in 2000
107 in 2010

It is a travesty when he was going through purple patch he hardly had any tests to play. Even the ones he played were not long series. 3 test series mostly. One dayers took over gradually. Especially that sharjah scam totally pushed Tests to back seat.

 

[WengerOut]

I don't judge by stats, I have seen that era. India played just one Test Series in the 90s in Australia where Sachin performed well. Besides in other Test series in South Africa, West Indies, England, New Zealand he was rather inconsistent by his standards.

It seems you dint even see the era as well. India played 2 series in Australia and he had centuries at Perth and Sydney as a 19 year old. Also had a century in Melbourne in 1999.

 

[greatest]

If a player averages 58 with a large sample size in 90s and averages 53 with a large sample size in 00s then it makes no sense to say that 00s was his peak. It makes even less sense to say that he was insistent while averaging 58 with a large sample size.

In 90s, he had tons in Nottingham, Capetown, Sydney, Birmingham, Manchester, Melbourne, Perth, Wellington, Johannesburg

He was not batting better in 00s. In fact, after the elbow injury, he stopped playing some shots and became less aggressive. I watched his entire career and the first time I heard anyone say that his peak was not in 90s and it was in 00s.

I respect your points but having seen that era in my opinion in Tests he was not dominating bowlers like Ambrose, Donald, etc or in testing pitches overseas. Even Sidhu got a double ton on a flat track at Jamaica...now we can't say that Sidhu was one of the best in the 90's.

I'm not denying Sachin greatness but according to me after 2000 his batting really peaked like in 2003/04 and 2007/08 tours of Australia, in Pakistan in 2003/04 etc.

Once again I agree with you but it's just my opinion.

 

[greatest]

It seems you dint even see the era as well. India played 2 series in Australia and he had centuries at Perth and Sydney as a 19 year old. Also had a century in Melbourne in 1999.

In my post I had already mentioned that he played well in the 1991/92 series in Australia. The next Indian tour when he got a hundred in Melbourne was in 1999/00. Both series lost heavily.

 

[jnaveen1980]

It seems you dint even see the era as well. India played 2 series in Australia and he had centuries at Perth and Sydney as a 19 year old. Also had a century in Melbourne in 1999.

His most telling knock was as a 17 year old helped India draw a test with 68 & 111*. They had about 5 or 6 slips for him

 

[WengerOut]

In my post I had already mentioned that he played well in the 1991/92 series in Australia. The next Indian tour when he got a hundred in Melbourne was in 1999/00. Both series lost.

He played well in 1999 also. So that is 2 out of 2 in the 90s. He had 2 series in SA as well and scored attacking hundreds in both series.

 

[WengerOut]

His most telling knock was as a 17 year old helped India draw a test with 68 & 111*. They had about 5 or 6 slips for him

You know they are desperate when they retort with intangibles like "not dominating bowlers " etc...

 

[greatest]

He played well in 1999 also. So that is 2 out of 2 in the 90s. He had 2 series in SA as well and scored attacking hundreds in both series.

It's an endless debate. I'll end by saying Sachin scored and dominated bowlers in Tests in the 90s and India ended up losing those series, while after 00s he scored big especially in Australia, Pakistan, England etc and India won.
Brian Lara too dominated bowlers in 90s especially the Australians in that 1999 series and also single handedly won two Tests in Jamaica and Barbados.

 

[jnaveen1980]

You know they are desperate when they retort with intangibles like "not dominating bowlers " etc...

He got to 100 with a hooked six against Walsh at Nagpur during his 179. I have to say he underachieved given his skill partly due to bias umpiring. And also that noball dismissals in West Indies when he had all the bowlers at his mercy also played a part. Especially the on drives he unleashed was breathtaking to watch. He was still a youngster. Hence he gifted his wicket many times. Also there was no real continuity in his career during that period. In 1995 he played just 3 tests. 1998 just 5 tests.

 

[WengerOut]

It's an endless debate. I'll end by saying Sachin scored and dominated bowlers in Tests in the 90s and India ended up losing those series, while after 00s he scored big especially in Australia, Pakistan, England etc and India won.
Brian Lara too dominated bowlers in 90s especially the Australians in that 1999 series and also single handedly won two Tests in Jamaica and Barbados.

So for Brian Lara you chose home tests. Sachin won the Chennai test in 1998 and 2001. And please note Lara won zilch even having ATG fast bowlers. India had no team. Even Dravid was a nobody in Aus. Less said about the bowlers the better. It is age old tactics of bringing down Sachin pointing out team failures. That wont wash. It is common knowledge that he was restricted from 2004 due to tennis elbow. Before that he was dominating in all conditions.

 

[greatest]

So for Brian Lara you chose home tests. Sachin won the Chennai test in 1998 and 2001. And please note Lara won zilch even having ATG fast bowlers. India had no team. Even Dravid was a nobody in Aus. Less said about the bowlers the better. It is age old tactics of bringing down Sachin pointing out team failures. That wont wash. It is common knowledge that he was restricted from 2004 due to tennis elbow. Before that he was dominating in all conditions.

Once again I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm not comparing Sachin with Lara. In fact I'm complementing both were batting stars of the 90s.

 

[Buffet]

I respect your points but having seen that era in my opinion in Tests he was not dominating bowlers like Ambrose, Donald, etc or in testing pitches overseas. Even Sidhu got a double ton on a flat track at Jamaica...now we can't say that Sidhu was one of the best in the 90's.

I'm not denying Sachin greatness but according to me after 2000 his batting really peaked like in 2003/04 and 2007/08 tours of Australia, in Pakistan in 2003/04 etc.

Once again I agree with you but it's just my opinion.

I have a different recollection of him getting a ton in pretty much every series he played in SA, Aus, Eng etc in 90s. I don't think he was playing that well in 00s. No ATG bowler is going to get dominated all the time.

Think of it this way, in 90s we had Ambrose, Warne, McGrath, Donald, Pollock, Wasim, Murali etc playing and in the same decade he averaged 58. When these bowlers were not playing then he averaged far less. I did not get the impression that you are denying his greatness. I think you are probably getting influenced by his tons coming more in wins in 00s than in 90s, but that's due to India having a better team.

Sidhu point has a flaw because any batsman can score big in one match or even in one series due to getting a flat pitch or just playing a blinder. But if you do it with a large sample size having all kinds of venues against all kinds of oppositions then things even out and your stats are close to your actual skills/output. That's why Sidhu did not average high in 90s.

We just have to agree to disagree on this point.

 

[greatest]

I have a different recollection of him getting a ton in pretty much every series he played in SA, Aus, Eng etc in 90s. I don't think he was playing that well in 00s. No ATG bowler is going to get dominated all the time.

Think of it this way, in 90s we had Ambrose, Warne, McGrath, Donald, Pollock, Wasim, Murali etc playing and in the same decade he averaged 58. When these bowlers were not playing then he averaged far less. I did not get the impression that you are denying his greatness. I think you are probably getting influenced by his tons coming more in wins in 00s than in 90s, but that's due to India having a better team.

Sidhu point has a flaw because any batsman can score big in one match or even in one series due to getting a flat pitch or just playing a blinder. But if you do it with a large sample size having all kinds of venues against all kinds of oppositions then things even out and your stats are close to your actual skills/output. That's why Sidhu did not average high in 90s.

We just have to agree to disagree on this point.

Valid points. Btw, never denied his greatness.

 

[MP2011]

In fact Sachin really peaked after 00's when most of the great bowlers had retired.

Not true. Tendulkar was at his best in '90s, not in '00s and stats confirm that.

 

[uppercut]

Bro, I have already seen a lot of footages from the golden era. I'm sure you know that cricket was very different in those times compared to now. You know that in those days they used to play on uncovered pitches, right? The ball used to have a more pronounced seam and being an expert of cricket bowling I think you know that in that time bowlers still used to bowl more round-arm, which is basically a type of slingy action. Fast bowling actions have evolved from underarm to roundarm to overarm to straight arm etc

Can you tell me what the ages of the cricketers are as seen in that video at that time( according to you without googling)?

And as far as footage is concerned, in those days the cameras were not HD or 50 fps, they very very jerky and a bowler used to look like a robot. In the 50s when Fred Trueman saw his footage he said he looked like he was bowling half the pace.

the minimum frame rate of video cameras needed to capture natural movements and reproduce them on a screen is just 24 fps which was the standard even BEFORE Fred Trueman played.

So The only way that Freds bowling footage could be construed as being half the original speed is if someone intentionally manipulated it or that he bowled at twice the speed than what the footage is portraying( that is if we are to believe in what Fred is saying lol )

This is just pure science than anything else

 

[MP2011]

1998 just 5 tests.

1998 was arguably Tendulkar's best ever year in cricket and he played just 5 tests during that year! What a pity!

 

[jnaveen1980]

COming back to the topic this era is no different from any other era. Sure workload is a lot more due to different formats, leagues. But in terms of quality no worse than any other era. Some teams are in transition stage just like many teams were in transition in different era. Australia/England/India with NZ/ full strength SA is only slightly behind test cricket quality is good enough. SA has tremendous talent at their disposal. Remaining teams have definitely regressed.

 

[jnaveen1980]

1998 was arguably Tendulkar's best ever year in cricket and he played just 5 tests during that year! What a pity!

You could say that was his peak year. He was dominating bowlers in world cup, dominating bowlers in Tests. You need a bit of luck to play a lot of matches when you are at peak. Kohli had that opportunity. He grabbed with both hands.

 

[MP2011]

This is the first I'm hearing from someone that Tendukar's best decade wasn't '90s. In '00s, he was plagued by so many career threatening injuries and hence wasn't at his best even though bowling standards world over weren't as great as they were in '90s.