• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The thread of international goodwill and fellowship

Fiery

Banned
I meant in terms of cricket, AND in the time of my watching which was after 1992. You've got to admit that in terms of individual talent, apart from Crowe and Cairns and Bond, you have had nothing stand out and yet, as a team, you guys have always been around the top 4. That is what I meant. No offence intended. :)
Oh no offence taken honestbahrani. Your comments are pretty spot there. We're a country that only produces a great cricketer once every 10 years or so...30's Stewie Dempster, 40/50s Bert Sutcliffe, 50/60s John Reid, 70's Glenn Turner, 80's Hadlee (and boy what a player he was), 80/90s Crowe, 90s/2000s Cairns.
 
Last edited:

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Oh no offence taken honestbahrani. Your comments are pretty spot there. We're a country that only produces a great cricketer once every 10 years or so...30's Stewie Dempster, 40/50s Bert Sutcliffe, 50/60s John Reid, 70's Glenn Turner, 80's Hadlee (and boy what a player he was), 80/90s Crowe, 90s/2000s Cairns.
Well, I am not sure about the word "great cricketer". But I dont think NZ produce as many stars as India or Pak do, but still they are always a match (and at times, more than a match) for these sides inspite of them not having that many stars. Greatest example of what determination and team work can do in cricket, for me.
 

Craig

World Traveller
Well, I am not sure about the word "great cricketer". But I dont think NZ produce as many stars as India or Pak do, but still they are always a match (and at times, more than a match) for these sides inspite of them not having that many stars. Greatest example of what determination and team work can do in cricket, for me.
Yeah it makes you wonder if other teams took that method that nothing is impossible. Really for the size of India should be doing a lot better. I know it is not as simple as that though.
 

Fiery

Banned
Yeah it makes you wonder if other teams took that method that nothing is impossible. Really for the size of India should be doing a lot better. I know it is not as simple as that though.
No, it's not as simple as that...you have to take into account the huge disparity of wealth there. Only a small percentage of the population ever get the chance to play cricket at a level that will get them anywhere near being noticed by anyone, anywhere, near the international selectors.
 
Last edited:

Craig

World Traveller
No, it's not as simple as that...you have to take into account the huge disparity of wealth there. Only a small percentage of the population ever get the chance to play cricket at a level that will get them anywhere near being noticed by anyone, anywhere, near the international selectors.
I don't mean to be a pedent, but isn't that what I said at the end of my last sentence of the post you quoted?
 

Evermind

International Debutant
No, it's not as simple as that...you have to take into account the huge disparity of wealth there. Only a small percentage of the population ever get the chance to play cricket at a level that will get them anywhere near being noticed by anyone, anywhere, near the international selectors.
On the surface level, this may be true, but then when you look at SL...

SL has a population of 20mil, just about on par with Aus. Much, much lower than that of England, even - and their facilities are arguably much worse. They have no first class system to boast of. Ethnically, they're not too different from Indians. Yet, they produce equally good cricketers - why is that?

I think it's a certain national spirit that comes through in sports, maybe not unlike the sort one sees in military campaigns/defences. Perhaps India is too diverse a land for it to congeal in any expedient way. The lack of homogeneity is comparable to that of the whole of Europe: different languages from different language-families, different customs, massive differences in the way people of a certain province look, etc etc. That may also be a reason why territorialism and local politics affect selection policies in cricket and political administration so much.

And I think a certain amount of mental weakness also afflicts its cricketers like it has afflicted its national policies. An unsureness, a lack of confidence and assertiveness - something very important in sports - but also a certain lack of worldliness that comes from the philosophical/cultural history of the land.
 

Fiery

Banned
On the surface level, this may be true, but then when you look at SL...

SL has a population of 20mil, just about on par with Aus. Much, much lower than that of England, even - and their facilities are arguably much worse. They have no first class system to boast of. Ethnically, they're not too different from Indians. Yet, they produce equally good cricketers - why is that?

I think it's a certain national spirit that comes through in sports, maybe not unlike the sort one sees in military campaigns/defences. Perhaps India is too diverse a land for it to congeal in any expedient way. The lack of homogeneity is comparable to that of the whole of Europe: different languages from different language-families, different customs, massive differences in the way people of a certain province look, etc etc. That may also be a reason why territorialism and local politics affect selection policies in cricket and political administration so much.

And I think a certain amount of mental weakness also afflicts its cricketers like it has afflicted its national policies. An unsureness, a lack of confidence and assertiveness - something very important in sports - but also a certain lack of worldliness that comes from the philosophical/cultural history of the land.
Holy crap Evermind...that's a highly philosophical and intelligent post buddy :thumbs_up
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
South Africa: wow, you guys are a pack of tough hombres (and I mean that as a compliment!). Matches with South Africa are always worth watching IMO because you know the South Africans will bring their considerable talent, discipline and competitiveness to bear in whatever they do. The pride they feel for their reborn country is manifest in the way they carry themselves. As an Aussie fan, I always look forward to the Saffies coming over because you know that they'll test the Australians in a way that's different to any other teams. Shaun Pollock is an all-time player IMO, as is Kallis, and as was Donald - in some ways they were unlucky to have coincided with the Australian team of the past 10-15 years, because otherwise the history books might have reflected this as a decade dominated by an extremely tough, disciplined, and talented South African outfit.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
TBH, even though the SAfricans have never beaten the Aussies since their return (which, coincidentally, was near enough the exact same time the Aussies became the best Test side in The World - 1992), there have undoubtedly been times when the SAfricans were the better side.
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
TBH, even though the SAfricans have never beaten the Aussies since their return (which, coincidentally, was near enough the exact same time the Aussies became the best Test side in The World - 1992), there have undoubtedly been times when the SAfricans were the better side.
Might be true, but unfortunately for them they were never able to prove it on a big stage. (and this is as close to a put-down as I want to get on this thread). Hence my point about them being unfortunate in the timing of their peak...
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Unfortunate in the timing of their series against Aus, and no more IMO.

Nothing to do with being unable to crack it on the big-stage.
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
1999 and 2003 WCs, specifically.

ENOUGH, to summarise, I reckon South Africa are great - maybe this is the WC where they can put past disappointments behind them (though if they do, I have to have Graeme Smith as my av for two months!)
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
The 99 WC was just one moment of stupidity, the 2003 WC was after that time and they performed very poorly, and in any case THESE GAMES ARE ODIs!!!!!!!!! I was meaning Test-matches.
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
I suspected you did, but WCs are the one time when ODIs are treated as a serious issue. 99 was a moment of stupidity, that's WHY its unfortunate
 

Johnners

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
India: - At times during the Australian Dominance, i would've rated India's batting lineup as 2nd to none. Sachin, Dravid, Ganguly, Sehwag & Laxman were a lethal combo. I've always admired their abilitly to withstand the pressure placed upon them by millions of fans, and that whilst the may not live up to expectations at times, they give it their all, and generally come out smiling no matter the outcome.

New Zealand: - The perannial underdog, and i find great delight in seeing our Trans Tasman rivals suceed against other nations, especially when they've been written off. Dan Vettori & Stephen Fleming are consumate professionals, and both are 2 players i'd love to have seen play for Australia instead.
 

Top