Slow death of international cricket

[Crazy Sam]

the problem I have with England and everyone saying how they'll beat the aussies next year is that I just simply cannot see England beating Australia in 3 tests out of 5. For England to win the series they must hope that several tests get rained out and drawn I feel. Australia put a huge amount of preparation into the Indian series and got the results they wanted, and I get the feeling it will be the same in England.

 

[Langeveldt]

the problem I have with England and everyone saying how they'll beat the aussies next year is that I just simply cannot see England beating Australia in 3 tests out of 5. For England to win the series they must hope that several tests get rained out and drawn I feel. Australia put a huge amount of preparation into the Indian series and got the results they wanted, and I get the feeling it will be the same in England.

I would be absolutely astonished if they won.. True, they have more of a chance than in the last decade.. But that is like "no chance plus a little bit".. Its not going to happen to be honest.

 

[Dizzy #4]

England did beat Australia in the Champions Trophy, and are on hot form on tests, we can see something here, wonder how struss will go,

 

[Anil]

if england continues its current form, the next ashes series will be the most hotly contested one in recent years....but i still don't see england beating the aussies in a five test series....unless it's a combination of a couple of matches being rained out, the australian team becoming severely depleted due to injuries, most fit players suffering a lack of form and the english squad playing the series of their lives....

 

[GotSpin]

if england continues its current form, the next ashes series will be the most hotly contested one in recent years....but i still don't see england beating the aussies in a five test series....unless it's a combination of a couple of matches being rained out, the australian team becoming severely depleted due to injuries, most fit players suffering a lack of form and the english squad playing the series of their lives....

And to boot quite a few england players our out of form

 

[J.Coney]

i would hate to bring the squid to the dinner table. but aussie has a 6 - 1 ratio of a bad umpire judgement go in their favour and against thier oppostion therefore any team that faces them they will recieve up to 6 decessions thta will ever go against their batsmen and bowlers to 1 decession for the aussies. Until the icc implement the use of technology the umpires will continue this 6 - 1 ratio because the statistic plainly say australia are the best side, and surely langer or hayden cant get a plumb lbw on the first over. the greatest team doesnt lose a batsmen that early like it or not umpires are subconsciously thinking that way. The great thing about technology is it has know conscience.

 

[dinu23]

International Cricket is dying:

Here is what I mean by death of International Cricket:


1st Test: Australia v Any team on the planet

Result: Australia Win

2nd Test: Australia v Any team on the planet

Result: Australia Win

3rd Test: Australia v Any team on the planet

Result: Australia Win

4th Test: Australia v Any team on the planet

Result: Australia Win

5th Test: Australia v Any team on the planet

Result: Australia Win

6th Test: Australia v Any team on the planet

Result: Australia Win


ODI Series (Tri Series)

Team Played Won Lost

Australia 6 6 0
Other Team 6 3 3
Other Team 6 1 5


Or ODI Series between two nations:

Australia 3-0 victory against Other Team




Its always been like this for the past 6-7 years. This is crickets least competitive period ever. No other team holds a candle to Australia, and im getting a little tired of seeing one sided garbage on display on the television.

Hell I rather watch Snooker on TV. For once I would like to see Australia be beaten, or be close to beaten.

After VVS Laxman's 281, or Mark Butchers 173 I have not seen this happen often enough!!!!

I appreciate what Australia have done for cricket, but its getting too predictably one sided now.

my thoughts exactly, mate.

 

[Richard]

looking back at aus last year their dominance has been... awesome.
1) sri lanka beaten
2) india at home beaten
3) pak beaten
4) NZ beaten

but at the same time they havent played the team i believe will dethrone them - england!

Beating Pakistan and New Zealand isn't exactly a huge achievement ATM.
Winning in Sri Lanka and India is a totally different matter - hardly anyone has ever done it in recent times.
It was interesting that people, writing at the time of Aus-Ind in 2003\04, with Stephen Waugh going into retirement and Glenn McGrath in the "corridor of uncertainty" with his ankle and Shane Warne yet to return from suspension, were thinking genuinely of the possibility of Australia going downhill - and fast.
People actually seemed to believe that England winning at The SCG in 2002\03 had begun the slippery slope.
I see no evidence of that myself and this year they have conquered probably cricket's two biggest challenges.

 

[Richard]

i agree..I think England are the better team,and that should shine through in the next couple of tests

If anything shines through the clouds of the Highvelt in the next 2 weeks...

 

[Richard]

You could also say that England haven't played Aus yet and thus are yet to have a real test.

Depends what you call a "real test" - if playing the best is the only real test, then all cricket not involving Australia is pointless.
In 2004 England won 3-0 in The Caribbean, something that apparently no-one has ever done before (yes - not even Australia could manage it!). They then went through the summer with a 100% record, something I don't think means much more than winning 3 and drawing 3 would have done 8 years ago - results are the way the game is going ATM. Yet England played well enough to show that they were convincingly better than two other mid-table teams, which in itself is a relief after drawing at home to Pakistan, in New Zealand and at home to India in the 3 previous years, all series which should have been won.
England's true test IMO is in the current series - I don't think they have a real chance of beating Australia and nor do many people other than the "bring on the Aussies!" brigade.
If they win in South Africa, though, they will have achieved something quite special.
But as I've come to realise recently (thanks in no small part to wpdavid) - "it's a very long time since England have endured a successful run against top-of-the-tree quality opposition". It is nice, really, to simply be beating convincingly the other sides in mid-table, and as I say, that is the real test at present.
Seriously, when was the last time England were the best side in The World? Briefly in the 1950s, yes, but otherwise before WW1 was the only time.

 

[Richard]

I would be absolutely astonished if they won.. True, they have more of a chance than in the last decade.. But that is like "no chance plus a little bit".. Its not going to happen to be honest.

We've "had a better chance than in the last decade" in at least the last 4, and I don't remember any before that so it's quite possible that we apparently did then, too.
The most ridiculous one was 2002\03, but in 2001 I genuinely believed it... didn't take long for injuries, dropped catches and batting collapses to return in-full-measure... and it's always just before The Ashes starts (I see a similar pattern taking shape - we wait to see whether it'll be reversed).

 

[Langeveldt]

International Cricket is dying:

Here is what I mean by death of International Cricket:


1st Test: Australia v Any team on the planet

Result: Australia Win

2nd Test: Australia v Any team on the planet

Result: Australia Win

3rd Test: Australia v Any team on the planet

Result: Australia Win

4th Test: Australia v Any team on the planet

Result: Australia Win

5th Test: Australia v Any team on the planet

Result: Australia Win

6th Test: Australia v Any team on the planet

Result: Australia Win


ODI Series (Tri Series)

Team Played Won Lost

Australia 6 6 0
Other Team 6 3 3
Other Team 6 1 5


Or ODI Series between two nations:

Australia 3-0 victory against Other Team




Its always been like this for the past 6-7 years. This is crickets least competitive period ever. No other team holds a candle to Australia, and im getting a little tired of seeing one sided garbage on display on the television.

Hell I rather watch Snooker on TV. For once I would like to see Australia be beaten, or be close to beaten.

After VVS Laxman's 281, or Mark Butchers 173 I have not seen this happen often enough!!!!

I appreciate what Australia have done for cricket, but its getting too predictably one sided now.

Here is an ODI for the future

Australia 616/5 dec. (Symonds 489, Mani 2/116, Bvute 1/26)
Third world "Minister of Corruption XI" 219 (Taibu 217*)

Several spectators were wounded when local police opened fire on a young kid carrying a bottle of Coca Cola..

 

[Richard]

Because Pepsi had agreed to sponsor the muder\torture-empowered Govornment...

 

[Son Of Coco]

i would hate to bring the squid to the dinner table. but aussie has a 6 - 1 ratio of a bad umpire judgement go in their favour and against thier oppostion therefore any team that faces them they will recieve up to 6 decessions thta will ever go against their batsmen and bowlers to 1 decession for the aussies. Until the icc implement the use of technology the umpires will continue this 6 - 1 ratio because the statistic plainly say australia are the best side, and surely langer or hayden cant get a plumb lbw on the first over. the greatest team doesnt lose a batsmen that early like it or not umpires are subconsciously thinking that way. The great thing about technology is it has know conscience.

Where did the 6-1 stat come from just out of interest?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Depends what you call a "real test" - if playing the best is the only real test, then all cricket not involving Australia is pointless.
In 2004 England won 3-0 in The Caribbean, something that apparently no-one has ever done before (yes - not even Australia could manage it!). They then went through the summer with a 100% record, something I don't think means much more than winning 3 and drawing 3 would have done 8 years ago - results are the way the game is going ATM. Yet England played well enough to show that they were convincingly better than two other mid-table teams, which in itself is a relief after drawing at home to Pakistan, in New Zealand and at home to India in the 3 previous years, all series which should have been won.
England's true test IMO is in the current series - I don't think they have a real chance of beating Australia and nor do many people other than the "bring on the Aussies!" brigade.
If they win in South Africa, though, they will have achieved something quite special.
But as I've come to realise recently (thanks in no small part to wpdavid) - "it's a very long time since England have endured a successful run against top-of-the-tree quality opposition". It is nice, really, to simply be beating convincingly the other sides in mid-table, and as I say, that is the real test at present.
Seriously, when was the last time England were the best side in The World? Briefly in the 1950s, yes, but otherwise before WW1 was the only time.

That was posted in response to a comment that Australia have been dominant, but haven't played England yet.........the same also works in reverse.

I think this is the best English team for a long, long time and they certainly have a chance if things go their way. If you're going to settle for beating mid-table teams though you probably aren't up to the challenge as there seems to be a large gap between them and Oz. Somehow I've got my doubts though that the English team will be in that frame of mind currently.

 

[Pratters]

Its not more international cricket which is killing it. It is lack of competitive and more meaningless games played than ever before.

A 5 test series between England and South Africa is memorable. What is so delighting about every second one day series which crops up?

If cricket was more systemised into having longer test series it would be fa more pleasurable to watch. One day cricket brings in money in the short run but uncompetitive one day games are a bad advertisement for the game and one day cricket in general and thus harmful in the long run.

Australia vs Pakistan is not the same as Pakistan vs Zimbabwe as Pakistan does

 

[Richard]

That was posted in response to a comment that Australia have been dominant, but haven't played England yet.........the same also works in reverse.

I think this is the best English team for a long, long time and they certainly have a chance if things go their way. If you're going to settle for beating mid-table teams though you probably aren't up to the challenge as there seems to be a large gap between them and Oz. Somehow I've got my doubts though that the English team will be in that frame of mind currently.

No, of course we shouldn't "settle" for beating mid-table teams - but nonetheless after drawing at home to India and Pakistan and in New Zealand (all series in which we were one-up) it's simply a relief to be doing so.
We can only do our best to beat Australia - but at present I don't think that we're good enough - anywhere near, for that matter.
I don't, incidentally, think that this is the best England team for a long while - I think the combination of 2000-2000\01 was better. I think they achieved more than the current lot have achieved - the emphatic nature of the mere 3 series wins seems to have convinced most people that this is a better side - as I say, IMO that's just the way the game is at present - lots of results, less draws.
But I think the Zimbabwe, West Indies, Pakistan and Sri Lanka sides that England beat in 2000-2000\01 presented more of a challenge than the West Indies and New Zealand sides of 2004.

 

[Richard]

Its not more international cricket which is killing it. It is lack of competitive and more meaningless games played than ever before.

A 5 test series between England and South Africa is memorable. What is so delighting about every second one day series which crops up?

If cricket was more systemised into having longer test series it would be fa more pleasurable to watch. One day cricket brings in money in the short run but uncompetitive one day games are a bad advertisement for the game and one day cricket in general and thus harmful in the long run.

Australia vs Pakistan is not the same as Pakistan vs Zimbabwe as Pakistan does

IMO the best thing would be for a 4-year schedule including all the current sides minus Zimbabawe and Bangladesh.
Too much time is taken-up with poor cricket - there is not enough time for the really good stuff, you are right there.
There are too many ODIs, yes - but not that much too many IMO. I'd prefer a few more triangulars and less bilateral series myself, but obviously that's an option only a small amount of the time.
I certainly would like to see more three- and four-Test series, instead of wasting time playing Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Five-Test series are something I'd prefer were confined to England-Australia and England-South Africa. Australia-South Africa, obviously, has always been a two-way six-Test series and that's the best bet IMO. But outside England, there really isn't much appetite for five-Test-series - how many five-Testers have New Zealand ever played, for instance? Or Pakistan? Or Sri Lanka? Only in England is there really any appetite for the five-Test-series - and even then, as I say, for most of the sides I'd prefer a combination of three- and four-. Likewise away.
But the two-Test-series is something I've never been a great fan of.

 

[Pratters]

But outside England, there really isn't much appetite for five-Test-series - how many five-Testers have New Zealand ever played, for instance? Or Pakistan? Or Sri Lanka? Only in England is there really any appetite for the five-Test-series - and even then, as I say, for most of the sides I'd prefer a combination of three- and four-. Likewise away.
But the two-Test-series is something I've never been a great fan of.

India v Pakistan 5 tests would be cool

India v Australia no one would have complained a 5th test. Okay the Aussies would consider they won at the end of 4

Mot other nations test nations in the top 8, there is a realistic chance of the 4 test series being far more interesting than a 3 test series.

 

[marc71178]

I don't, incidentally, think that this is the best England team for a long while - I think the combination of 2000-2000\01 was better. I think they achieved more than the current lot have achieved - the emphatic nature of the mere 3 series wins seems to have convinced most people that this is a better side - as I say, IMO that's just the way the game is at present - lots of results, less draws.

The current side has far better bowling and at least the equal batting.

But I think the Zimbabwe, West Indies, Pakistan and Sri Lanka sides that England beat in 2000-2000\01 presented more of a challenge than the West Indies and New Zealand sides of 2004.

Well, the present WI side is better than that that toured the previous time.