Why have most cricket teams regressed?

[someone21]

Every team bar perhaps England or Aghan has regressed. There are middle order issues for India, Pakistan, Aus. Whereas SL, WI, SA dont have much new upcoming talents not been able to replace their legends. While Bangla, New Zealand are their typical inconsistency and randomness in game...

So teams have regressed greatly from 2015 and am worried about the quality in 2019 WC. Lack of new talents, and recycling the same group of old players. What are some reasons why cricket has fallen so much in last 4 years?

 

[giri26]

Because of different reasons but mostly due to interest in other sports, lack of a strong cricketing body etc. I feel though that SA will come through, they have a good system and the talent will eventually surface. WI though have struggled for a long time, don't see them getting to where they were anytime soon. SL is a different scenario, they do seem to have some talent, not that good though. They are a small island and they have achieved more than expected.

 

[MMHS]

I think, BD & IND has improved lot - which indicates the lack of interest for the game in other major cricket playing nations.

This game is learned, developed based on First Class cricket - uncapped 4 innings game, which needs 350-400 overs at least to develop, or minimum 4 days. Sadly, we can't expect people following Dhaka Metro playing Chittagong Region for a game of 4 days these days, when they can enjoy Dhaka Dynamites playing Chittagong Vikings in 4 hours.

It's a sad but reality for cricket - slow, painful death. We might still see a game using Cricket bat and hard leather balls, but the fundamental skills of the game is diminishing fast, which is resulting into more one sided games, too many clean sweeps and venue dependent dominance by every team. This happens, when the fundamental skills of the game can't counter the natural hazards of the game.

Something brilliantly explained by Nick Faldo (Or Collin Monty??) in recent Ryder Cup. USA came with 12 Golfers, 8 of them in Top 12 of World Ranking, while Europe had just 3 in top 12, and half of their 12 players were outside top 50 in PGA ranking. Yet, on that very special Paris Course, USA was comprehensively beaten in every contest, apart from 1st Days' 1st doubles games. That National Golf Course is just ~6,500 metres designed for per 72- very narrow curvy fairways, deep/stiff bunkers, extremely risky water hazards and pin positioned at the edge of green, surrounded by bunkers and water hazards. This is a very traditional European course which needs extreme precision, skillful chips and well measured putting, even for a per 4 of 300 metres.

US Courses are changing into totally different directions - average length is close to 7500 metres, often spread out & flat, where power driving US golfers can score far better on per 4 & per 5 holes. An average tee shot in US PGA is around 350 metres these days, which means most US golfers could have reached green on per 4 holes at Paris from their tee shot - they tried, and ended in sands or water. Patrick Reed one day shot like 85 (or 86), very next day 66 - he didn't change his game and kept hitting hard - on Day 3 most of his hard hits landed where he wanted and he had like 8 birdies, first 2 days he needed one boggy for almost every per 4 holes. Jordan Speith had totally opposite - hit 69 on Day 1, 81 in singles later.

Cricket is becoming something like this - players playing on same tempo without bothering to adjust their game for the condition or diversity - the day it clicks, it's 383, next day bowlers might click and it's 151.....

 

[AMSS]

These kind of conclusions are best drawn on the basis of 5 year data, and even then it'd barely be definitive.

 

[Sidilicious]

I think, BD & IND has improved lot - which indicates the lack of interest for the game in other major cricket playing nations.

This game is learned, developed based on First Class cricket - uncapped 4 innings game, which needs 350-400 overs at least to develop, or minimum 4 days. Sadly, we can't expect people following Dhaka Metro playing Chittagong Region for a game of 4 days these days, when they can enjoy Dhaka Dynamites playing Chittagong Vikings in 4 hours.

It's a sad but reality for cricket - slow, painful death. We might still see a game using Cricket bat and hard leather balls, but the fundamental skills of the game is diminishing fast, which is resulting into more one sided games, too many clean sweeps and venue dependent dominance by every team. This happens, when the fundamental skills of the game can't counter the natural hazards of the game.

Something brilliantly explained by Nick Faldo (Or Collin Monty??) in recent Ryder Cup. USA came with 12 Golfers, 8 of them in Top 12 of World Ranking, while Europe had just 3 in top 12, and half of their 12 players were outside top 50 in PGA ranking. Yet, on that very special Paris Course, USA was comprehensively beaten in every contest, apart from 1st Days' 1st doubles games. That National Golf Course is just ~6,500 metres designed for per 72- very narrow curvy fairways, deep/stiff bunkers, extremely risky water hazards and pin positioned at the edge of green, surrounded by bunkers and water hazards. This is a very traditional European course which needs extreme precision, skillful chips and well measured putting, even for a per 4 of 300 metres.

US Courses are changing into totally different directions - average length is close to 7500 metres, often spread out & flat, where power driving US golfers can score far better on per 4 & per 5 holes. An average tee shot in US PGA is around 350 metres these days, which means most US golfers could have reached green on per 4 holes at Paris from their tee shot - they tried, and ended in sands or water. Patrick Reed one day shot like 85 (or 86), very next day 66 - he didn't change his game and kept hitting hard - on Day 3 most of his hard hits landed where he wanted and he had like 8 birdies, first 2 days he needed one boggy for almost every per 4 holes. Jordan Speith had totally opposite - hit 69 on Day 1, 81 in singles later.

Cricket is becoming something like this - players playing on same tempo without bothering to adjust their game for the condition or diversity - the day it clicks, it's 383, next day bowlers might click and it's 151.....

I played at that course a few years back. Without a shadow of doubt, the most difficult course I ever played at. The last 4 holes were a nightmare.

On topic, I dont think thats the issue. The game evolves and so does the training.

Places like SA, England and Aus still have a significant interest in First class system. The Indian First class system is better than ever and so is BD.

There are always peaks and troughs. India and BD have never been stronger. For the first time Eng is giving importance to shorter format, but its Test Team is also decent. Aus has come out from one of its strongest eras, and is slowly finding greats again. SA seems to be creating massive talents despite the race based selection measures. The teams that are clearly struggling are NZ, Pak, Zim, SL.

SL and NZ are similar given then they are small populations with not many resources and the established players are deviating to T20. Outside of T20 these 2 countries might never be a force again. Zim is pure internal politics which has destroyed their cricket. And Pakistan - well, Pakistan is Pakistan. Despite not playing at home and a messed up first class system, they have done alright. I see them getting better in the coming years.

As for the OP, no need to be so down. In the 3rd world countries like India, Pakistan, SL and Bang the importance of cricket will decline as other sports creep in. But as these countries get richer, their systems will get better ensuring a decent stream of players. The established countries like Aus and Eng will always have a cricketing background because its part of their culture. As long as there will cricket in the village greens of England, there will another Alistair Cook waiting to come out.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Windies have improved in the last 3 years in tests. SA have declined. Australia have a couple of players banned and a couple injured etc. They are a good team at full strength. NZ in the last 5 years have played some of their best cricket since the days of hadlee. England are decent currently. They have found guys like Curran and are likely to improve. Lanka and Pakistan have declined. BD and India are improving and especially India have some very good talents coming through. The only real decline has been of SA and SL. Lanka have struggled to replace Sanga, Jaya and SA still haven't replaced kallis and now will struggle to find someone in place of AB, Amla etc.

 

[Pak force]

Due to batsmen's techniques now a days. It isn't of the same quality anymore. T20 cricket ruined batsmen's techniques.

Current batsmen aren't good enough apart from 2 or 3. They have flaws in their techniques. So youngsters too arent of the same quality coming through anymore, because they dont understand the basics of batting and no one to learn from also.

Coaches can only teach you to one extent, but if you want to play at the highest level. You should understand the basics of batting. A batsmen must be a teacher of his own game and know what he is doing.

The difference of now and the 90's cricket is just that the youngsters now dont posess the knowledge required. Yes there ll be exceptions, but I am talking about the larger picture.

 

[Ab Fan]

Lack of interest towards cricket is one major reason as far as teams like England, South Africa and Australia are concerned.

Soccer has completely taken over cricket in England for many years now.

Pakistan in last 15 years have gone through several political and financial issues which have led to their downfall in cricket.

The way I see it, this is India's time to rule the cricket world for next many years now. They have got a great setup, great infrastructure and lots of young talent coming in. The taste of limited overs have made it even stronger for India.

The only way I see India declining in next 15-20 years is when some other sport takes over cricket as a centre of interest among Indian fans. I believe in next 20 years time when India will start becoming a strong soccer nation, that interest of fans will move from cricket to soccer. There is still a certain section who loves football much more than cricket but as long as India becomes a good enough team to qualify for tournaments like FIFA, cricket will remain the point of interest for fans all over the country.

 

[the_outsider]

England, India, Bangladesh, Afghanistan have all improved.

Australia, SL and SA were always going to see a dip after their long-time seniors retire. Australia, especially is even more handicapped with the absence of Smith and Warner.

NZ has been doing fine. They have won almost 60% of matches since the last WC so they are definitely not in any trouble.

WI has been declining for 2 decades now. So it's nothing new. We'll just have to accept that they are a T20 nation now and they are damn good at it - current World champions, in fact.

Barring WI & SL the quality of cricket has improved, in my opinion.

 

[todfod 11]

More and more teams will regressed because of weak ICC... Cricket has become monotonous... like test cricket is dull and boring and T20 is all boom or bust

 

[Robert]

England have regressed - the batting is the worst I can remember- perhaps all time bad.

It’s due to the lack of variety in the pitches these days. They don’t know how to play spin or pace.

English spin is similarly at an all time low.

Spinners don’t get a look-in except late in the season. Their main purpose is to bowl a few tight overs and then clout a few blows late in the innings.

England are heavily reliant on two aging seamers. When they retire England will become minnows like WI did.

 

[the_outsider]

England have regressed - the batting is the worst I can remember- perhaps all time bad.

It’s due to the lack of variety in the pitches these days. They don’t know how to play spin or pace.

English spin is similarly at an all time low.

Spinners don’t get a look-in except late in the season. Their main purpose is to bowl a few tight overs and then clout a few blows late in the innings.

England are heavily reliant on two aging seamers. When they retire England will become minnows like WI did.

What about their LOI teams, though? Who would have thought that one day England would be the benchmark for ODI batsmanship. English cricket is better today than it was in the early 2000s, in my opinion.

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

I don't know about others but this is my take on the Pakistan international cricket team (men only)


1. Spineless captains. Absolutely no vision of any sort displayed by any recent or past captain.

2. Media & politics. The past was also full of politics but at least then we had players who were quality. Now we have below average players lobbying and creating media rapport and trying to create instability and living like parasites.

3. No innovation. We have been static for so long it's beyond belief now. We play cricket in one of the hottest climates in the world yet we haven't come up with gear that's suitable to playing here. Case in point - the Australians of 2003 immediately came up with ice collars and our team looked as if it was being cooked in the sun. Even now, we haven't thought of lighter smaller pads for playing spinners, better gloves etc. This is just one side of it, I am not even discussing the cricket tactics here.

4. Quality fast bowlers. The supply line has run completely dry. We are now looking at bowlers who bowl at 148 kph and hoping that they get fast tracked. Even Umar Gul was able to reach those speeds and he was never even considered a fast bowler in Pakistani ranks. Cricket has become a batsmen dominated game, and the one weapon that we had, extreme pace has totally disappeared from our cricketing scene.

5. Infrastructure and interest in the youth. Since it's very generic I won't go in the detail. But it seems that fewer and fewer youngsters are taking up the sport.

6. Others. Incompetence, dinosaurs not letting go, corruption, petty benefits, a generic superiority complex, and other factors contribute as well. Our ex-players and public lives in another dimension - we aren't a good team but in our heads we still are world beaters. Heck even when Indian posters in this forum say that they don't feel anything playing Pakistan instead of understanding their point-of-view, we question their sanity. We were good once, but we aren't anymore and understanding that is the first step towards improvement.

7. The fans basically us. A lot of us are just armchair experts. Other than criticizing I've literally never done anything for PCT. Didn't even buy the subscription for the PSL on gateway or whatever it was called despite it being only 3 - 4 dollars. We want a product, we want a team that competes and beats Australia in Australia but we aren't willing to do anything about it.

 

[Robert]

What about their LOI teams, though? Who would have thought that one day England would be the benchmark for ODI batsmanship. English cricket is better today than it was in the early 2000s, in my opinion.

I don’t much care.

Well I care a bit. Seeing England bundled out of World Cups early was a bit jarring given that they were usually finalists or semi finalists back in the day. Let’s see if this alleged benchmark batting wins the final next summer.

Strauss’s reforms have advanced the ODI side, but arguably reduced the test side.

 

[DeadBall]

Quite a broad generalization. Some teams are good in one format and not so good in another, some are good in all three, almost are good at home but some are good away too, there are so many various factors to take into account here instead of just saying "most cricket teams have regressed".