tooextracool said:
relative dominance is really the most inconclusive way to look at things. i find it hard to believe that anyone can suggest with a straight face that the opposition that the WI faced in the 80s was worse than the ones that the aussies faced in 00/01. i mean just looking at some of these sides- SA clearly were nowhere near as good as people made them out to be. the loss of cullinan, brian mcmillan and jonty rhodes was bad enough, but with donald being past it and pollock clearly nothing near his prime this SA team simply consisted of a bunch of overrated or useless players who never really looked like threatening SA. the english teams were bad enough as they were, but the injuries didnt help. pakistan havent exactly done anything brilliant, WI well they were rubbish, NZ consisted of a bunch of ordinary players who on their days tended to overachieve, which really only left the 2 extremely home oriented teams in india and SL both of whom succeded in defeating australia 01 and 99 respectively. yes of course since then australia have gone on to rectify that possibly because they finally realised how to play harbhajan and murali, but it doesnt change the fact that most of the teams that they have played have been desperately mediocre. which leads me to wonder whether javed miandad was right, i wont doubt that australia are a very good team, but surely the major reason why the gap between 1 and 2 is so significant is because the rest of the teams have actually gone backwards?
I understand what you are saying, but similar doubts were cast upon teams that were demolished by the WI's back in the eighties.
We can run through all the teams of the eighties bar the WI's and I can guarantee that they were not as strong as hindsight appears to be making out.
Pakistan were a strong team really only at home, and in the early eighties I would actually describe them as very average.
India were weak,although always tough at home. The bowling was even worse then than it is now, an dthe batting wasnt quite there really
NZ were pretty strong, mainly down to Hadlee and Martin Crowe, but all that great team spirit etc made them fairly tough, esp in the mid 80's
England only played well vs so so teams, not once did they win a series vs a strong team i the eighties. Yeah they had Botham,etc, but all those players peaked at different times...very inconsistant....and even India were made to look like bowling geniuses by England in 86 (Roger Binny taking 5 wickets???!!!!!).
Australia were strongish in the early 80's (although they fielded a below par team in England in 81), but by the time Lillee, marsh, and Chappell had retired, Australia were average..after they retired, they were as poor as any Aussie team in history
Sri Lanka in the 80's just arent worth talking about (and even then they utterly outplayed England in 84..a sign that the 84 vintage England team was as low as you can go)
To be honest I really dont think teams were of a lower standard in the late 90's early 00's..I think some people have a romanticised view of how it was way back when...the reality was a bit different.
But there is absolutly no way we can figure which era was stronger or whatever...my opinion is that there were some outstanding players in the 80's, but teams were also padded out by some really average players as well, pretty much like now, or 5 years ago.
But , even though this might sound a bit arrogant ( and I apologise if it does)...I do value my own opinion and judgement when it comes to cricket that has been played over the last 24 years. That doesnt mean I object to the notion that the WI's in the eighties were stronger , however I do object to the way someone like CC is belittling other peoples views if it is contrary to his
