Which great cricketers of the 1990s would have been classed as mediocre by today's standards?

[Gullycricket]

Ok we know cricket has become more professional with rigid fitness standards and requires absolute mastery over skills.Some people may argue that 1990's had more competition and many great cricketers as compared to today.This may true to some extent like Jonty Rhoades would have been amazing today also if he played.However there were also some cricketers who achieved greateness in the 90's period but today may have not survived due to emphasis on fitness,professionalism,competition.So this thread is about them...

I would say Inzi..

 

[Mamoon]

Rhodes and Bevan would not be considered special today.

 

[murakh1]

Ramiz Raja May be

 

[Robert]

None. A great cricketer in one era would be a great in any.

 

[JattMaula]

None. A great cricketer in one era would be a great in any.

Not true. Today's cricketers can't match mythical legends of past. Past bowlers bowled 170kph+ on landmine infested pitches and batters faced them without helmets.

 

[Cric1234]

Malik he was great in the 90s mediocre today he’s unable to live up to the greatness created in his heyday.

 

[Amjid Javed]

Malik he was great in the 90s mediocre today he’s unable to live up to the greatness created in his heyday.

You talking about Saleem Malik?

 

[Cric1234]

You talking about Saleem Malik?

Shoaib Malik

 

[Robert]

Not true. Today's cricketers can't match mythical legends of past. Past bowlers bowled 170kph+ on landmine infested pitches and batters faced them without helmets.

Certainly the skill sets were different. Nineties batters had tighter defences and didn’t hit for power so much. But someone with the ability and drive of Lara or Tendulkar would learn the modern skills, just as a Kohli or Smith would learn the nineties skills.

 

[Varun]

Michael Atherton.

Only in England would someone like that be considered a legend.

 

[Angrez Pakistani]

The question should be the other way around. 1990s was a very competitive decade for cricket. We had declining, yet competitive WI. We had a good ZIM side. Pakistan, Australia and Sri Lanka won World Cup. India, South Africa and New Zealand weren’t too bad either. So the question is which modern day great would be able to survive the competitive 90s and still be able to maintain their status.

 

[Hitman]

Inzamam and Ranatunga would have found it hard to make it to their respective teams with their fitness. Skill wise they would have been fine.

 

[Robert]

Michael Atherton.

Only in England would someone like that be considered a legend.

He was a guy whose stats don’t reflect his true value. When he got a century, England usually won. He was a big factor in Nasser’s series win in Pakistan, for example.

His legend is due to the 185* which echoes our national myth - the classic plucky Briton holding the bridge against huge odds. See also Agincourt, Charge of the Light Brigade, Battle of Britain and Rorke’s Drift.

 

[Hyperion66]

Michael Atherton.

Only in England would someone like that be considered a legend.

I don't think anyone considered Atherton a great even back then except for some delusional poms.

 

[Hyperion66]

Inzamam and Ranatunga would have found it hard to make it to their respective teams with their fitness. Skill wise they would have been fine.

Ranatunga sure, Inzi would walk right into this Pakistani team lol.

 

[Gullycricket]

The question should be the other way around. 1990s was a very competitive decade for cricket. We had declining, yet competitive WI. We had a good ZIM side. Pakistan, Australia and Sri Lanka won World Cup. India, South Africa and New Zealand weren’t too bad either. So the question is which modern day great would be able to survive the competitive 90s and still be able to maintain their status.

Absolutely another thread can be made for this

 

[Junaids]

I don't think anyone considered Atherton a great even back then except for some delusional poms.

I went to school with him.

He was part of an astonishing school team with Mark Crawley and Gary Yates - we all knew that we had the best school team in the world.

And even at school we called him FEC - Future England Captain.

The whole premise is faulty - standards have fallen since the 90’s, not risen.

 

[Majid Khan]

The question is implying that cricket today is of a higher standard compared to cricket in the 90s, with the difference so much that there’s a possibility some of the greats of the 90s could be ‘mediocre’ today ?

Not sure I agree with that if it’s about overall standard of the game having improved because if anything it has certainly declined in several areas - but, if you mean fitness and fielding standards have improved significantly then yes that’s true.

Otherwise the other way around, I can think of at least one modern day batsman playing in post 2000 era for Pakistan who averages in the mid 30s — if he had played in the 90s against McGrath/Gillespie/Lee/Donald/Pollock/Ambrose/Walsh/Bishop/Caddick/Gough/Heath Streak/Srinath/Vaas and not to even mention legendary spinners like Warne/Murali et al. I reckon his batting average would have been near 20 and that’s being generous.

And take that same batsman back to the 80s, facing Marshall/Holding/Garner/Roberts — just the psychological damage they would do to this so-called ‘batsman’ his overall batting average would be about 10.

Thankfully for Hafeez he started playing international cricket when all these famous names had hanged their boots.

 

[Hitman]

Ranatunga sure, Inzi would walk right into this Pakistani team lol.

With his fitness during his playing days? I very much doubt. Once again, I'm not speaking about skills, just fitness.

 

[Hitman]

I went to school with him.

He was part of an astonishing school team with Mark Crawley and Gary Yates - we all knew that we had the best school team in the world.

And even at school we called him FEC - Future England Captain.

The whole premise is faulty - standards have fallen since the 90’s, not risen.

You never fail to come up with gems.

 

[topspin]

Standard of cricket overall has fallen since the 90s, so a thread titled "Which cricketers of today would have been classed as mediocre by 90s standards" surely would have been more appropriate?

 

[jnaveen1980]

NOBODY. Rhodes was a great fielder in the 90s. He would still be a great fielder. I don't know how fielding ability will change in another era. It is still going to be the same.

 

[JattMaula]

Just compare teams of the 90's to 10's per country to find out if standards have fallen or not.

Health warning --

Rose tinted glasses impair your vision.

 

[Titan24]

There is a significant difference in number of bowlers averaging less than 25 and batsman averaging plus 50 in tests in today's era vs the 90s which definitely raises a question other way round.

Yes in ODIs we see much better batting averages partly due to field restrictions, two new balls and flatter wickets for the format. At the same time much poorer bowling averages in ODIs when we talk about individual bowlers.

 

[silentkiller187]

AtHerton was more a cult hero than a legend. DRS and neutral umpires would definitely made differences to a lot of stats.. Tendulkar would also be average in this era ;p

 

[anoop]

Rahul Dravid the ODI player would face difficulty in this era. He wasn't a natural stroke player.

 

[CanadianG00se]

NOBODY. Rhodes was a great fielder in the 90s. He would still be a great fielder. I don't know how fielding ability will change in another era. It is still going to be the same.

His ability wouldn’t change, but his impact wouldn’t be same as it was in 90s. Most players in his era weren’t as agile as he was.

 

[Mamoon]

The question is implying that cricket today is of a higher standard compared to cricket in the 90s, with the difference so much that there’s a possibility some of the greats of the 90s could be ‘mediocre’ today ?

Not sure I agree with that if it’s about overall standard of the game having improved because if anything it has certainly declined in several areas - but, if you mean fitness and fielding standards have improved significantly then yes that’s true.

Otherwise the other way around, I can think of at least one modern day batsman playing in post 2000 era for Pakistan who averages in the mid 30s — if he had played in the 90s against McGrath/Gillespie/Lee/Donald/Pollock/Ambrose/Walsh/Bishop/Caddick/Gough/Heath Streak/Srinath/Vaas and not to even mention legendary spinners like Warne/Murali et al. I reckon his batting average would have been near 20 and that’s being generous.

And take that same batsman back to the 80s, facing Marshall/Holding/Garner/Roberts — just the psychological damage they would do to this so-called ‘batsman’ his overall batting average would be about 10.

Thankfully for Hafeez he started playing international cricket when all these famous names had hanged their boots.

In the 60s, Hafeez would have given Sobers a run for his money.

In the 20s, he would have bettered Hobbs and today, people would have considered him as one of the greatest batsmen of all time and better than Tendulkar.

 

[jnaveen1980]

His ability wouldn’t change, but his impact wouldn’t be same as it was in 90s. Most players in his era weren’t as agile as he was.

How? Fielders who are half as good as him still effective. Jadeja, Manish Pandey for example.

 

[Hitman]

In the 60s, Hafeez would have given Sobers a run for his money.

In the 20s, he would have bettered Hobbs and today, people would have considered him as one of the greatest batsmen of all time and better than Tendulkar.

Bhai Ji, no offence, was that sarcasm? He would have given the great Garfield Sobers a run for his money?

 

[Pak Crescent]

No bigger waste of time than comparing athletes from different eras.

 

[Mamoon]

How? Fielders who are half as good as him still effective. Jadeja, Manish Pandey for example.

Rhodes was a poor batsman until the last 2-3 years of his career. He basically kept his place in the team throughout the 90’s because of his fielding.

In today’s era, with the overall improvement in fielding standards, no player can survive in the team, that too for 6-7 years, purely because of his fielding.

 

[Mamoon]

Bhai Ji, no offence, was that sarcasm? He would have given the great Garfield Sobers a run for his money?

If he played in the 60s? Sure. The standard of cricket saw a massive jump in quality from the 1950s to 1970s, when cricket finally became a true professional sport. The 60s were the transition from amateur to professional cricket.

 

[Birdman]

There is a thing called "Making Adjustment" in sports. Any successful player in the 90's or successful player now would make the necessary adjustment to be successful. I

 

[jnaveen1980]

Rhodes was a poor batsman until the last 2-3 years of his career. He basically kept his place in the team throughout the 90’s because of his fielding.

In today’s era, with the overall improvement in fielding standards, no player can survive in the team, that too for 6-7 years, purely because of his fielding.

I am sure Rhodes would definitely make today's SA side lol SA has hit their nadir.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Tendulkar is one guy who played through and 1990s and 2000s. He has played Hadlee, Donald, Ambrose, Akram, Akhtar, Brett Lee, Mcgrath, Steyn etc. He made adjustments across the era. It comes down who you consider as great.

 

[Mamoon]

I am sure Rhodes would definitely make today's SA side lol SA has hit their nadir.

Maybe today, but not in the 2010s and they will surely find better players in the near future. There is still considerable talent in South Africa.

 

[Majid Khan]

If he played in the 60s? Sure. The standard of cricket saw a massive jump in quality from the 1950s to 1970s, when cricket finally became a true professional sport. The 60s were the transition from amateur to professional cricket.

I would say if you had to graph the standard of cricket over 60 years from 1960 to 2020 , although quality is clearly subjective and not easily measurable , my own view is you would get a bell curve that started rising in mid to late 70s, peaked over 80s/90s and started its downward curve almost as soon as Hafeez made his debut in about 2003 and continued to decline over the next decade or so.

 

[barah_admi]

Some names have been mentioned here and many of them are not great cricketers. The truly great cricketers of the 90s (Lara, Sachin, Inzy, Wasim, Waqar, Warne, Murali) they would all have been great today. In fact, looking at how poorly some batsmen play spin today, especially Asian batsmen, the two great spinners probably would have taken more wickets and at an even better average.

 

[Hyperion66]

I went to school with him.

He was part of an astonishing school team with Mark Crawley and Gary Yates - we all knew that we had the best school team in the world.

And even at school we called him FEC - Future England Captain.

The whole premise is faulty - standards have fallen since the 90’s, not risen.

I am a bit too old to care about who you went to school with and their kindergarten exploits.

Thanks

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

AtHerton was more a cult hero than a legend. DRS and neutral umpires would definitely made differences to a lot of stats.. Tendulkar would also be average in this era ;p

His competition would be Kohli - Sehwag - Sharma - Rahul - and the younger ones like Pant - Gill - Shaw etc.

India have some batting talent to be honest, that line-up is stacked. There's a realistic chance that in the all-time India test eleven, Tendulkar won't get to bat at his natural and normal batting number that is 4. Damn.

 

[Hasan123]

Most keepers. Because you cannot survive in this era as a specialist keeper alone.

 

[silentkiller187]

His competition would be Kohli - Sehwag - Sharma - Rahul - and the younger ones like Pant - Gill - Shaw etc.

India have some batting talent to be honest, that line-up is stacked. There's a realistic chance that in the all-time India test eleven, Tendulkar won't get to bat at his natural and normal batting number that is 4. Damn.

The Tendulkar comment was more tongue in cheek. He played with Sehwag and a young Kohli. Also in those days I actually think India had better batsmen, sehwag laxman ganguly, Dravid, yuvi

 

[topspin]

Most keepers. Because you cannot survive in this era as a specialist keeper alone.

Bang on the money here. The evolution of the WK is certainly the most impressive progression we've seen in the game since the 90s. Back then if you averaged in the high 20s (batting at seven) and were good with the gloves, you were considered to be a world-class WK batsman.

But now, you certainly can't make the cut at the highest level merely as a specialist WK. For e.g. There's no way a WK like Jack Russell would have been able to play 54 tests in the current era (even if England were a minnow at present).

 

[Kaka4pope]

Afridi Malik Hafeez Razzaq - if they been ten years younger would have had careers more suited to the times, assuming they met the fitness standards of today which I am sure these 4 could.

canny LOI bowlers for the most part and in today’s batting conditions they’d be a top LOI 6-9, to be fair they were good for their time as well but more so now.

 

[Eye_Done]

Tendulkar and Dravid.

 

[azimiqbal]

This thread is complete misunderstanding of cricket!

The thread you should be making is what players of today would be mediocre back in the 90’s

In the 90s we did not have small boundary’s were mis hits are going for 6.

If you just compare the bowlers from 90s to today it’s embrassing!

I would also say the quality of batting was much higher in the 90s, barring smith and kohli none of the batsman of today even compare to the batsman of the 90s.

 

[tyron_woodley]

This thread is complete misunderstanding of cricket!

The thread you should be making is what players of today would be mediocre back in the 90’s

In the 90s we did not have small boundary’s were mis hits are going for 6.

If you just compare the bowlers from 90s to today it’s embrassing!

I would also say the quality of batting was much higher in the 90s, barring smith and kohli none of the batsman of today even compare to the batsman of the 90s.

not true at all. A great player from any era would adapt to the new conditions and still be great in any era.

bowlers now are actually the best in the world. In a batting friendly environment they still ar3 able to keep their averages below 25. Simply GOAT level bowling.

 

[Gullycricket]

This thread is complete misunderstanding of cricket!

The thread you should be making is what players of today would be mediocre back in the 90’s

In the 90s we did not have small boundary’s were mis hits are going for 6.

If you just compare the bowlers from 90s to today it’s embrassing!

I would also say the quality of batting was much higher in the 90s, barring smith and kohli none of the batsman of today even compare to the batsman of the 90s.

I understand your point but the things you pointed out like mishits going for six or small boundaries is just an evolution of the game.The rules are same for each team.As an example Sunil Gavaskar was considered great in his era but no way he would survive say 10 years after his retirement by batting all 50 overs at snails pace.Like wise even great bowlers like Wasim have said they are lucky not be bowling in this era.
Coming to the thread another players name who would most probably not make it today is Ganguly.He was phased out of Indian team and IPL due to poor SR and fielding and obviously age.Kumble would also have been taken to cleaners today.

 

[kingusama92]

The 90s PAK team would walk all over the current one.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Difficult to say. The pitches certainly started getting flatter around 2002. Better bats, more cameras to check for tampering leads me to think that some bowlers' records would certainly have taken a beating has they played today.

 

[therealAB]

Great cricketers adapt, but mid tier bowlers from then would struggle these days

 

[Junaids]

Let me get this right.

Modern Pakistani cricketers are better than Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Mushtaq Ahmed, Saeed Anwar and Inzamam?

Modern Aussies are better than Warne, McGrath, the Waughs, Ponting and Gilchrist?

Modern South Africans are better than Kallis, Pollock, Kirsten, Donald and Boucher?

Modern West Indians are better than Haynes, Lara, Hooper, Richardson, Ambrose, Bishop and Walsh?

Modern Indians are better than Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly, Azharuddin, Kumble and Srinath?

Modern England players are better than Gooch, Lamb, Robin Smith, Atherton, Stewart, Fraser, Malcolm, Gough and Caddick?

Wow. Just wow.

 

[FreePalestine]

I think Rohit Sharma would have been very average in the 90’s! As would Jason Roy and Jonny Bairstow.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Let me get this right.

Modern Pakistani cricketers are better than Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Mushtaq Ahmed, Saeed Anwar and Inzamam?

Modern Aussies are better than Warne, McGrath, the Waughs, Ponting and Gilchrist?

Modern South Africans are better than Kallis, Pollock, Kirsten, Donald and Boucher?

Modern West Indians are better than Haynes, Lara, Hooper, Richardson, Ambrose, Bishop and Walsh?

Modern Indians are better than Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly, Azharuddin, Kumble and Srinath?

Modern England players are better than Gooch, Lamb, Robin Smith, Atherton, Stewart, Fraser, Malcolm, Gough and Caddick?

Wow. Just wow.

yes and no to all. modern bowlers >> past bowlers who are all mostly mediocre since they won't be effective in modern batting friendly era.

modern batsmen are inferior to past greats however the best from both eras will be the best in any era and this applies only to batsmen. Bowlers of past will be rendered ineffective in modern era where all rules favour batsmen.

 

[Robert]

yes and no to all. modern bowlers >> past bowlers who are all mostly mediocre since they won't be effective in modern batting friendly era.

modern batsmen are inferior to past greats however the best from both eras will be the best in any era and this applies only to batsmen. Bowlers of past will be rendered ineffective in modern era where all rules favour batsmen.

I dunno, Lillee ruled on those awful dead Aussie wickets of the seventies. No bounce, no swing, no seam, nothing.

 

[big_gamer007]

People are mixing LOI's and Test.

LOI's has changed a lot, Test matches are still somewhat similar.

In LOI's, probably Anwar and Ganguly would not be as good as they were in 90's. Can't think of any other great names who won't do well today. Not considering mediocre players from that era.

 

[Manunited18]

Michael Atherton.

Only in England would someone like that be considered a legend.

Take this in to consideration, as a opener he faced gun opening bowlers like Ambrose Walsh, wasim waqar, Donald pollock, McGrath Gillespie, srikanth zaheer, vaas, every country had outstanding bowlers who are backed p by brilliant stats, and yes I for one was in admiration for Atherton who would quite easily average 40+ with multiple hundreds in this era

 

[Manunited18]

Let me get this right.

Modern Pakistani cricketers are better than Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Mushtaq Ahmed, Saeed Anwar and Inzamam?

Modern Aussies are better than Warne, McGrath, the Waughs, Ponting and Gilchrist?

Modern South Africans are better than Kallis, Pollock, Kirsten, Donald and Boucher?

Modern West Indians are better than Haynes, Lara, Hooper, Richardson, Ambrose, Bishop and Walsh?

Modern Indians are better than Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly, Azharuddin, Kumble and Srinath?

Modern England players are better than Gooch, Lamb, Robin Smith, Atherton, Stewart, Fraser, Malcolm, Gough and Caddick?

Wow. Just wow.

Completely agree with you 100%

 

[sindhiboy]

kohli is better than azharuddin and ganguly

bumrah may end up india's greatest bowler of all time.

also think current nz team is better than 90s nz team


but for the rest of the teams, 90s batsman atleast, were much better. u can argue that batter friendly conditions make todays bowlers more skillful.

but some like atehrton, gary kirsten, may have averaged 50 above in this era

 

[Mamoon]

kohli is better than azharuddin and ganguly

bumrah may end up india's greatest bowler of all time.

also think current nz team is better than 90s nz team


but for the rest of the teams, 90s batsman atleast, were much better. u can argue that batter friendly conditions make todays bowlers more skillful.

but some like atehrton, gary kirsten, may have averaged 50 above in this era

England is also better than the 90s England.

Early 2010s South Africa was also better than the 90s South Africa.

This notion that the standard of cricket dropped after the 90s is a baseless myth.

Pakistan and West Indies are the only teams that have been in consistent decline since the 90s.

Sri Lanka peaked in the mid 90s, but their late 2000s and early 2010s side was better than their late 90s and early 2000s team.

Zimbabwe’s case is different though. They declined once they stopped selecting white players.

 

[Mamoon]

I think Rohit Sharma would have been very average in the 90’s! As would Jason Roy and Jonny Bairstow.

Kaluwitharana formed a successful opening partnership with Jayasuriya playing the same brand of cricket that Roy and Bairstow play, but the latter are far better than Kaluwitharana.

Rohit is a better ODI opener than Ganguly and Sidhu.

 

[anoop]

Tendulkar and Dravid.

Tendulkar would be a success even in this era in both formats.
Dravid would be successful in tests but will not be able to make in Odis

 

[tyron_woodley]

England is also better than the 90s England.

Early 2010s South Africa was also better than the 90s South Africa.

This notion that the standard of cricket dropped after the 90s is a baseless myth.

Pakistan and West Indies are the only teams that have been in consistent decline since the 90s.

Sri Lanka peaked in the mid 90s, but their late 2000s and early 2010s side was better than their late 90s and early 2000s team.

Zimbabwe’s case is different though. They declined once they stopped selecting white players.

yep. correct post. it is a myth. drs, technology, no ball umpires. lot has changed in test too. video tapes to watch and analyze footage, improvement win nutrition, diet, time frames, packed schedule, strength and conditioning programs, players have to play multiple formats, not enough test practice games like past.

test has changed alot. many teams are super strong at home. toss seems to make a huge difference.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Tendulkar would be a success even in this era in both formats.
Dravid would be successful in tests but will not be able to make in Odis

if he took fitness seriously yes absolutely.
Imagine if tendulkar had bumrah, shami, ishant for tests. would be a massacre.

2006-2011 India batting with current bowling would be insane.

 

[jnaveen1980]

We are talking about great players right? Back then India used to have these spin friendly tracks , pick Kumble and two other bowlers. That two other bowlers used to be random. Chuahan, Sangvi, Raju, Bahutule, Nikhil Chopra, Kapoor. Look at now. India is blessed with Ashwin and Jadeja now.

 

[tyron_woodley]

People are way too nostalgic. A great player will be great in any era.

2000 - now is the best and toughest era of all time. 90s was trash.

80s was good but only 2 or 3 good teams.
anything before 70s is irrelevant. Yea there may be great players back then too but you can't compare them to current era players. totally different rules post 90.

So great players from 70s and earlier played under different rules and should be treated as such. They are pre rule changes greats.

post 90s we saw some massive rule changes. So we can only talk about post 92 greats. post rule restriciton/changes greats.

 

[Mamoon]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION]

Pakistan and West Indies are the only two teams that have been in perpetual decline since since the 90s. However, the 2010 era have had plenty of cricketers who are superior to their 90’s counterparts.

Smith is a better Test batsman than Ponting and Waugh. If we specifically limit this to the 90s, then Smith is about three levels above Ponting.

Rest of the Australians are better than their modern counterparts, but then again, the likes of McGrath and Gilchrist are arguably among the top 5 cricketers in history.

Not sure about Mark Waugh, because he was surpassed by Hayden even before the likes of Warner emerged.

G. Smith was better than Kirsten and Dean Elgar is actually quite comparable to Kirsten in multiple ways. Kirsten was better, but it is not ridiculous to compare them.

De Kock’s batting is miles ahead of Boucher’s. The gap between his and Boucher’s keeping is actually lower than the gap between their batting.

Kohli is better than Dravid, Ganguly and Azharuddin. Ashwin/Jadeja are very much comparable to Kumble, and Bumrah and Shami are as good if not better than Srinath.

Cook was better than Atherton and Anderson and Broad are better than Gough, Caddick and Fraser. Swann was also miles ahead of Giles and no English all-rounder of the 90’s is anywhere near Stokes.

Pietersen and Root are better than Lamb and Robin Smith.

Archer is better than Devon Malcolm.

India today would beat the India of 90’s. England today would beat the England of 90’s, but the England of early 2010’s would demolish the 90’s England side.

South Africa from 2008 to 2014 would comfortably beat their 90’s counterparts.

New Zealand would also beat their 90’s counterparts. Bangladesh would massacre their 90’s team.

Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe would clearly lose. Australia can beat their 90’s team but the post 1998 side would obviously be too strong for them, and for most teams in history.

 

[FreePalestine]

Kaluwitharana formed a successful opening partnership with Jayasuriya playing the same brand of cricket that Roy and Bairstow play, but the latter are far better than Kaluwitharana.

Rohit is a better ODI opener than Ganguly and Sidhu.

Well, Kalu was a wicket keeper bat as you know, and averaged in the mid twenties. Had an exception 96 world cup. I think Sharma would have don ebetter than Kalu as a batsman but he would have been inconsistent, and got out cheaply a lot (same with Roy and Bairstow).

Ganguly was just a better batsman than Rohit on those kind of pitches. He was a gun ODI batsman in the 90’s. Sharma wouldn’t have been his level on 90’s pitches. Can you imagine how often Bairstow and Joy would get castled in that era? However, on modern day pitches, Sharma is clearly a more valuable batsman than Ganguly would be - he has unbelievable six hitting power

 

[FreePalestine]

Also sometimes class just shines. Anwar, for example, Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting would be great in any era. Same for Kohli, Williamson, Hayden and many others. Sharma though, probably would not have been anywhere near as successful in the 90’s. I wager Roy or Bairstow too wouldn’t have fared well. It is also not just about aggressive/defensive. Because even a player like Dravid would probably still play modern ODI cricket and have probably averaged over 50 at four with an 80-85 s/r. Those aren’t far off Joe Root’s figures, who is a great modern ODI batsman as well.

They should bring back 90’s wickets and get rid of this two new balls stuff!

 

[Titan24]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION]

Pakistan and West Indies are the only two teams that have been in perpetual decline since since the 90s. However, the 2010 era have had plenty of cricketers who are superior to their 90’s counterparts.

Smith is a better Test batsman than Ponting and Waugh. If we specifically limit this to the 90s, then Smith is about three levels above Ponting.

Rest of the Australians are better than their modern counterparts, but then again, the likes of McGrath and Gilchrist are arguably among the top 5 cricketers in history.

Not sure about Mark Waugh, because he was surpassed by Hayden even before the likes of Warner emerged.

G. Smith was better than Kirsten and Dean Elgar is actually quite comparable to Kirsten in multiple ways. Kirsten was better, but it is not ridiculous to compare them.

De Kock’s batting is miles ahead of Boucher’s. The gap between his and Boucher’s keeping is actually lower than the gap between their batting.

Kohli is better than Dravid, Ganguly and Azharuddin. Ashwin/Jadeja are very much comparable to Kumble, and Bumrah and Shami are as good if not better than Srinath.

Cook was better than Atherton and Anderson and Broad are better than Gough, Caddick and Fraser. Swann was also miles ahead of Giles and no English all-rounder of the 90’s is anywhere near Stokes.

Pietersen and Root are better than Lamb and Robin Smith.

Archer is better than Devon Malcolm.

India today would beat the India of 90’s. England today would beat the England of 90’s, but the England of early 2010’s would demolish the 90’s England side.

South Africa from 2008 to 2014 would comfortably beat their 90’s counterparts.

New Zealand would also beat their 90’s counterparts. Bangladesh would massacre their 90’s team.

Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe would clearly lose. Australia can beat their 90’s team but the post 1998 side would obviously be too strong for them, and for most teams in history.

Some individuals are better but overall the number of 50+ avg batsmen and 25 or less averaging bowlers in tests have gone down hugely for most teams which definitely raises few questions.

 

[Hawkeye]

People are mixing LOI's and Test.

LOI's has changed a lot, Test matches are still somewhat similar.

In LOI's, probably Anwar and Ganguly would not be as good as they were in 90's. Can't think of any other great names who won't do well today. Not considering mediocre players from that era.

Saeed Anwar was doing even better than SRT in the 90s. Was as good as SRT if not better.

It's David who would have been useless today.

 

[Hawkeye]

There are only a few examples, where today's top cricketers are better than top cricketers of the 90s.

All the top bowlers that decade were much better, both in skills and pace. No, not just reverse swing but also conventional swing both ways, at pace.

Spinners - Saqi, Murali, Warne. There's no match.

Batsmen - Pointing is better than Smith. SRT, Saeed, Inzi, Moyo, Lara. Better than their current counterparts with the only exception being Kohli.

In batting, only Kohli is ahead from the current times.

 

[Hawkeye]

Some of the very good cricketers from the 90s would definitely be considered mediocre today, and vice versa too.

Dravid
Ranatunga
Miandad in 92
Other accumulators

 

[topspin]

I dunno, Lillee ruled on those awful dead Aussie wickets of the seventies. No bounce, no swing, no seam, nothing.

Can you explain what happened to Lillee on dead Pakistani wickets?

 

[topspin]

Some of the very good cricketers from the 90s would definitely be considered mediocre today, and vice versa too.

Dravid
Ranatunga
Miandad in 92
Other accumulators

In ODIs:

Miandad 92 or Misbah in the 2010s?

 

[tyron_woodley]

There are only a few examples, where today's top cricketers are better than top cricketers of the 90s.

All the top bowlers that decade were much better, both in skills and pace. No, not just reverse swing but also conventional swing both ways, at pace.

Spinners - Saqi, Murali, Warne. There's no match.

Batsmen - Pointing is better than Smith. SRT, Saeed, Inzi, Moyo, Lara. Better than their current counterparts with the only exception being Kohli.

In batting, only Kohli is ahead from the current times.

current is the best. better than 90s. lots of rubbish decisions and cheating were involved in 90s till 2010.

 

[ElRaja]

main difference is t20, has given people a license to be more aggressive and focussed on explosive athleticism, but you cannot discount two new balls, shorter boundaries, more flat tracks globally and absolutely extinction of red ball odis.

players adjust to whatever era they are in, but anyone who watched odis in the 90s, with reverse swing, skinny bats and more classical spinners saw that was a far less batting friendly game.

test cricket on the other hand other than greater prevalence of flatter wickets and more aggressive batting remains largely the same as test cricket in the 90s, and i believe the top players in either era would be interchangeable, although quality of spin bowling and the ability to play it has dropped significantly.

 

[tyron_woodley]

main difference is t20, has given people a license to be more aggressive and focussed on explosive athleticism, but you cannot discount two new balls, shorter boundaries, more flat tracks globally and absolutely extinction of red ball odis.

players adjust to whatever era they are in, but anyone who watched odis in the 90s, with reverse swing, skinny bats and more classical spinners saw that was a far less batting friendly game.

test cricket on the other hand other than greater prevalence of flatter wickets and more aggressive batting remains largely the same as test cricket in the 90s, and i believe the top players in either era would be interchangeable, although quality of spin bowling and the ability to play it has dropped significantly.

conversely the quality of facing pace has I improved.

 

[big_gamer007]

Saeed Anwar was doing even better than SRT in the 90s. Was as good as SRT if not better.

It's David who would have been useless today.

I am talking about ODI's. Anwar is hyped on PP way too much but the truth is he was bullying mediocre Indian bowlers, he was tailender level against Aussies, South Africans and against WI he had one good series at home on flat pitches but was overall mediocre. Your post shows how nostalgia can create an alternative reality.

David was mediocre in ODI's anyways.