• 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.

Best and worse depth?

Craig

World Traveller
Outside from the Australian cricket team that is.

I was thinking of New Zealand given how much they have to be without Shane Bond and many of their key players who have suffered serious and near career threating injuries (we were robbed of Chris Cairns true best years, Nathan Astle's dodgy knee and Daniel Vettori's past back injuries), and in some cases, definate career ending (Geoff Allott, Shayne O'Connor, Dion Nash had their careers cut short due to injuries) and what they have achieved (beating Pakistan and South Africa at home in ODI series).

I suppose you could say England could have some depth in the batting lineup, but given some AWOL efforts, I'm not sure.

Sri Lanka would have to be the worse especially when you take out Murali and Vaas and Malinga has bowled quite well so I would say he is a key member as well, then you have rubbish like Dilhara Fernando in the 'attack'.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Well, it's hard to judge, really. Test sides typically have their depth drawn from their domestic competitions, and given there is no way to judge the strength of the respective competitions against each other at any point in time, it's hard to judge the levels of depth. For example, you could make a case for Bangladesh having strong depth if a handful of players started really dominating FC cricket in the country, however if the same players played in Australian domestic cricket, they'd most likely be very average at best.

In terms of experienced, somewhat proven depth, you'd have to go for Australia and South Africa with the likes of Hodge, Gillespie, McKenzie, Tebrugger (sp?), van Wyk, Steyn et al sitting in reserve.
 

simmy

International Regular
England have good depth in the test arena. Things are less optimistic in the OD game however.
 

TT Boy

Hall of Fame Member
Well, it's hard to judge, really. Test sides typically have their depth drawn from their domestic competitions, and given there is no way to judge the strength of the respective competitions against each other at any point in time, it's hard to judge the levels of depth. For example, you could make a case for Bangladesh having strong depth if a handful of players started really dominating FC cricket in the country, however if the same players played in Australian domestic cricket, they'd most likely be very average at best.

In terms of experienced, somewhat proven depth, you'd have to go for Australia and South Africa with the likes of Hodge, Gillespie, McKenzie, Tebrugger (sp?), van Wyk, Steyn et al sitting in reserve.
David Terbrugge sadly was forced to retire last year through a back injury and his inability to combine off the field commitments with rehabilitation. Although, I’m sure if he was still in the mind of the South African selectors he may have striving to comeback but anyone who saw David bowl post 2000 would know he was nothing like the cricketer he once was or promised to be.
 

TT Boy

Hall of Fame Member
England have good depth in the test arena. Things are less optimistic in the OD game however.

Not to sure about the bowling depth for some of the cricketers in the current eleven are not that particularly good.

Not to fussed concerning the batting for contemplating on the standard of wickets available globally at the moment (discounting the wickets apparent in South Africa and New Zealand) almost anyone of some standard would make hay in the test arena. Highly evident in a couple of are current batsman who have ridiculously inflated averages considering their distinct lack of ability.
 

DCC_legend

International Regular
Worst - England. In ODIs, on paper, they have a good batting depth. But very rarely have we seen all of the Batsmen performing consistantly at this level.

Best - Pretty much Australia.
 

gettingbetter

State Vice-Captain
I like SA's depth - both ODI and Tests.

Bowlers: Steyn, Nel, Langeveldt, Telemachus, Harris

Batsman: Dippenaar - seem a bit thin on batsmen, but their starting 5/6 do a good enough job to not worry about back ups. I doubt we'll see the likes of Rudolph or Mackenzie again

Allrounders: Hall, Kemp, van der Wath

Please note: these are the players outside of the regular XI, although some might be more regular than others. Also, its interesting to note Australia's depth - there has been all this talk about Australia not being as good as they wer epreviously without McGrath and Warne - we can only wait and see.
 

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I think Australia and South Africa are right up there in terms of depth, they have quite a few former international players still going in the domestic cricket and fighting for places in the national side. Some of the players that aren't in the starting XI's would make other nation's test teams and that to me is a good sign of depth.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
David Terbrugge's case was such a terrible shame.

As to the question, I think it's a bit too speculative, TBH. The SAfricans have always seemed to have plenty of depth - we've often seemed to have plenty in the batting department (Cook, Key, Shah, Joyce, to name but a few) but the fact that Harmison, Plunkett and Mahmood are near the front line in the bowling stakes tells you all you need to know, TBH.
 

Craig

World Traveller
Actually I think Plunkett has some potential if you can cut down his econmy rate out and sort his line and length out he could be a good bowler, I've seen some of the balls he bowled to dismiss the Australian batsmen in the CB Series were top draw IMO.

I wouldn't give him the new ball but is a better at 1st or second change. He actually bowled quite at times with the older ball, especially in the England and New Zealand game in Brisbane and in the rain soaked CB 2nd Final in Sydney.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
I have been wondering about India's depth?! Can anyone enlighten me?
Its nothing to write home about. IT is ok, in the sense that I don't think we will ever really struggle at the international level but I dont really see us dominating or even becoming #1 either with the sort of depth we have. I guess we will be good enough to hold on to where we are, at the middle of the table, but that's about it.


Obviously, I am saying the above taking the other teams' CURRENT strength into account. I am not sure of how good/bad their future looks....
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Rate NZ's ODI depth tbh with a number of handy all rounders, but don't know if it translates to tests where the need for accomplished specialists rather than useful all rounders are needed more.
 

JaiMurugan

Cricket Spectator
Its nothing to write home about. IT is ok, in the sense that I don't think we will ever really struggle at the international level but I dont really see us dominating or even becoming #1 either with the sort of depth we have. I guess we will be good enough to hold on to where we are, at the middle of the table, but that's about it.


Obviously, I am saying the above taking the other teams' CURRENT strength into account. I am not sure of how good/bad their future looks....

I don't think the depth in Indian cricket is as bad as people make it out to be...

There are some pretty decent cricketers waiting in the wings like Badrinath, Manoj Tiwary, Rohit Sharma, PIyush Chawla, Ishant Sharma and Vijay Yomahesh.
MY bigger concern is whether India will actually take the bold step of picking some of these youngsters rather than cling on to senior/non-performingg players in the hope they will come good again/rediscover their form.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Actually I think Plunkett has some potential if you can cut down his econmy rate out and sort his line and length out he could be a good bowler, I've seen some of the balls he bowled to dismiss the Australian batsmen in the CB Series were top draw IMO.

I wouldn't give him the new ball but is a better at 1st or second change. He actually bowled quite at times with the older ball, especially in the England and New Zealand game in Brisbane and in the rain soaked CB 2nd Final in Sydney.
I have some potential, too, if I could speed my arm up and bowl at 80mph instead of 65 (at best). And if I could shrug off the laziness that comes to me so easily and do more bowling.
 

Hoppy1987

U19 Debutant
Actually I think Plunkett has some potential if you can cut down his econmy rate out and sort his line and length out he could be a good bowler, I've seen some of the balls he bowled to dismiss the Australian batsmen in the CB Series were top draw IMO.

I wouldn't give him the new ball but is a better at 1st or second change. He actually bowled quite at times with the older ball, especially in the England and New Zealand game in Brisbane and in the rain soaked CB 2nd Final in Sydney.
im sure if he sorted his line and length the economy would fall comparatively, if you look at england, and say that leading up2 the ashes harmison, flintoff, plunkett, mahmood, panesar, hoggard etc are the best we have????? tbh i think we may as well blood some young talent (broad/onions/tremlett etc) and stop wasting time with players who don't perform that well in tests and then do not even want to play in odis, im sure the young cricketers coming through would relish the chance to play in all forms of the game for their country???? perhaps a lack of desire there???
 

Pup Clarke

Cricketer Of The Year
When England picked Graham Onions and Amjad Khan in their 30 man WC squad you knew they had lost the plot...8-).I mean Onions and Khan?..Awful bowlers at domestic OD level so why should they be there.That really shows England's lack of depth.
 

Top