The decline in the standard of test cricket?

[Pothas]

I think there may be a lack of quality of pace bowling in world cricket at the moment, although Englands is pretty damn good. I really dont think that standards on the whole are declining though and i certainly think that Test cricket is at its most entertaining at the moment.

 

[archie mac]

I think I have been watching cricket for longer than most on here, but not as long as some.

The big difference I think is the general quality of the wickets, which are nowhere near as fast as in the past, especially in Australia.

The other differences are all the rules/tech. designed to help batsman:

Limits on bouncers
Smaller grounds
Much better bats (where edges go for six)
much better protective equitment
Back to back Tests and the amount of cricket where fast bowlers have to bowl at their peak.

I have really enjoyed the last couple of Tests from Sth Afr where the bowler held the advantge (only slightly) this makes runs scored actually mean something.

To answer the question I do not think standards have dropped at all, things have just changed.

 

[luckyeddie]

Vastly improved pitches, plus everything archie mac said.

 

[Goughy]

Vastly improved pitches, plus everything archie mac said.

The removal of the rest day in tests has also given bowlers less time to recharge their batteries during the game.

I do not think the standard of test cricket has dropped at all baring the current farce that is Zim cricket and the period whilst Bang develop.

It is easily forgotten that there was also a fair bit of average cricket played in the 1990's and I truly beleive cricket now is on a par with what we have seen in the recent past.

 

[Swervy]

I pretty much agree with what Archie has said.

I think some people think test cricket in the 80's and 90's was completely devoid of bad play and bad players...which is completely not the case. Something which may shock some people: Dropped catches have occured throughout the history of the game, so have batsmen playing bad shots, and so have bowlers bowling crap balls (and getting wickets with them).

The main difference for me is attitude. Test cricketers are far more aggressive than they once were, but in general I dont see much difference in standard of play

 

[Matt79]

My alternative theory is twofold, and sits next to, rather than contradicts the very good points others have made.

I think some of it is the "nostalgia isn't as good as it used to be" argument. Many people tend to place on a pedestal the matches, players and incidents that first filled them with a passion for the game. Similarly, they tend to appreciate the quality of the players they played against more than somebody they've watched in retirement. So we have a glut of ex-players who are now media commentators who probably don't appreciate somebody like Shoaib compared to somebody like Curtley Ambrose or Jeff Thomson, for the simple reason that Shoaib has never personally made them wet themselves. As a spectator, I know that I'll never enjoy a one-day innings more than the Bevan's New Year's Eve four off the last ball knock. There have and will certainly be better innings played, probably including some others of Bevans, but as a 15 year old that was so damned cool that its on a pedestal in my own mind.

Second, there's an ever increasing proliferation of technical wizardry such as super slo-mo, hawk-eye, replays from ninety different angles, etc, as well as advents like the stats websites etc that make it much much easier to dissect the game, bury us in analysis, and can take a lot of the joy out of watching good performances. I'm not saying that I wish we didn't have these things, or that the game would be better off without them, but while they help us appreciate good performances, they also highlight and expose flaws/averageness. Those flaws/averageness have always been there, but now they are held up much more prominantly than before. I think they draw more attention to negatives/distractions than they aid in the appreciation of good play.

This bombardment of more and more involved analysis of what's going on in front of us, combined with the ever increasing amounts of cricket (when was the last time you saw a ODI, apart from a world cup, that actually meant something to all involved?) has left us all a bit jaded.

I suppose I'm just explaining why I think its important to appreciate the special in today's cricket. In twenty years time, we'll all be crapping on about how Tendaulker Jr isn't a patch on players from the turn of the century like Ian Bell and Andrew Symonds.

 

[honestbharani]

My alternative theory is twofold, and sits next to, rather than contradicts the very good points others have made.

I think some of it is the "nostalgia isn't as good as it used to be" argument. Many people tend to place on a pedestal the matches, players and incidents that first filled them with a passion for the game. Similarly, they tend to appreciate the quality of the players they played against more than somebody they've watched in retirement. So we have a glut of ex-players who are now media commentators who probably don't appreciate somebody like Shoaib compared to somebody like Curtley Ambrose or Jeff Thomson, for the simple reason that Shoaib has never personally made them wet themselves. As a spectator, I know that I'll never enjoy a one-day innings more than the Bevan's New Year's Eve four off the last ball knock. There have and will certainly be better innings played, probably including some others of Bevans, but as a 15 year old that was so damned cool that its on a pedestal in my own mind.

Second, there's an ever increasing proliferation of technical wizardry such as super slo-mo, hawk-eye, replays from ninety different angles, etc, as well as advents like the stats websites etc that make it much much easier to dissect the game, bury us in analysis, and can take a lot of the joy out of watching good performances. I'm not saying that I wish we didn't have these things, or that the game would be better off without them, but while they help us appreciate good performances, they also highlight and expose flaws/averageness. Those flaws/averageness have always been there, but now they are held up much more prominantly than before. I think they draw more attention to negatives/distractions than they aid in the appreciation of good play.

This bombardment of more and more involved analysis of what's going on in front of us, combined with the ever increasing amounts of cricket (when was the last time you saw a ODI, apart from a world cup, that actually meant something to all involved?) has left us all a bit jaded.

I suppose I'm just explaining why I think its important to appreciate the special in today's cricket. In twenty years time, we'll all be crapping on about how Tendaulker Jr isn't a patch on players from the turn of the century like Ian Bell and Andrew Symonds.

You can also say that players, esp. batsmen, get WORKED OUT a lot more than they used to in the past, and a lot quicker as well. I swear I never saw specialist field settings for EVERY batsmen before this post 2000 generation.

 

[SJS]

To answer the question I do not think standards have dropped at all, things have just changed.

That is the key !

A great sportsman in one era will be a great sportsman in another. If things change, they will change for him too and a truly great will come up trumps.

When we say Ponting isnt facing great bowling we are not finding faults with him but juststating a fact that bowling standards world over have declined.

Maybe if standards had continued to be high, the Ponting of today, much more mature and complete than he was ten years ago, would have been used to them and handled them well too.

Bowling standards determine cricketing standards in all times. These have declined , for reasons discussed before, and that is not in doubt for most people. Batting standards for two different eras cant be compared but we can say that bowling in one period was inferior.

Bowling is a primary art/action in cricket. Batting is a reaction, a response, a secondary art and hence the difference in how they have to be seen over time.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I think it's worth noting, regarding bowling standards, that they are on the rise again somewhat. England and South Africa for example have better bowling attacks than they did a couple of years ago, with the emergence of guys like Simon Jones, Andrew Flintoff, Matthew Hoggard, Andre Nel and the improvement of Makhaya Ntini. Australia have McGrath who is as good as ever, Lee's a lot better than he used to be, Shoaib is still quality, as is Vaas, and India, Australia and the West Indies have some promising pacers coming through as well.

I wouldn't say the fast bowling stocks worldwide are strong, but there is some hope and definite signs that the slump in the early part of the 2000s was just part of the ebb and flow of cricket, just like the relative lack of supreme batsmen in the late 80s.

 

[albo97056]

Surely it's all down to who is playing whom. You cant say one era was better than another because there is no point of comparison. The problem at the moment is that Australia are far too good and creating far too many one sided games, which makes it look like other countries are less good... it could be simply that australia have improved more than any other team has.
Although to counter that... Mike Atherton was asked this question during last summer and what he said made a lot of sense...this is the gist of what he said...
OVer the years in all sports players have become more professional.. new techniques devised.. lessons learnt etc...
if you look at athletics records are constantly being broken. which is probably the only sport where you can actually compare one player with another era.. because they are competing against time and distance rather than each other.
So I would say this is analagous to cricket...