The Most Competitive Era in Cricket History

[Uppercut]

Sometimes, yes. Sometimes not. South Africa in Australia was fantastically high-quality cricket.

 

[subshakerz]

I would say 96-99 was about as competitive but with a higher standard of cricket particularly when it comes to bowling. Now you sometimes get the feeling that you are watching tough contests between basically average teams.

I would say the first half of the 90s was even more competitive. Major teams except for England rarely lost at home and the WI were only nominally number one. There were a whole bunch of extremely tight series between top teams, such as Pakistan-WI in 90, Australia-WI in 92/93, Australia-Pakistan in 94, and SA-Australia in 93 and 94. All the bowlers were at their peaks except for Murali and McGrath.

In the second half Australiaclearly were the number one team in the world after having beaten West Indies in their home turf in 95. They then beat the other challengers in SA in 97 and in Pakistan in 98. But they didnt dominate the way they did when Waugh took over and the other sides started to wane.

What a time for cricket the 90s were!

 

[Richard]

I would say the first half of the 90s was even more competitive. Major teams except for England rarely lost at home

England only lost 2 home series' in 9 between 1990 and 1996, 1 of which was decided by one of the most unlikely partnerships in history (that being the Pakistan 1992 one).

 

[subshakerz]

England only lost 2 home series' in 9 between 1990 and 1996, 1 of which was decided by one of the most unlikely partnerships in history (that being the Pakistan 1992 one).

No, they lost 4 home series, to Pakistan in 92 and 96, Australia in 93, and the West Indies in 95. India and South Africa lost none in this period, while Australia, Pakistan and the WI lost only one each. Sri Lanka and New Zealand werent really major teams for the first half of the 90s.

 

[Richard]

No, they lost 4 home series, to Pakistan in 92 and 96, Australia in 93, and the West Indies in 95.

In the period I named they lost only to Pakistan in 1992 (which was very fortunate for the Pakistanis in several ways - England could easily and should have won 2-1) and Australia in 1993. The loss to Pakistan in 1996 was the 10th series and I specifically said they lost 2 in 9, up to the India series earlier in 1996. They did not lose to West Indies in 1995, it was a 2-2 draw and England did very well to twice fight back from one-down. Though yes, one dropped catch did potentially cost West Indies a 3-2 win.

India and South Africa lost none in this period, while Australia, Pakistan and the WI lost only one each. Sri Lanka and New Zealand werent really major teams for the first half of the 90s.

New Zealand were certainly still a major team at home up to 1992/93, for about 3-4 years afterwards they were very weak indeed. Sri Lanka increasingly came into their own as a home team; away they, like India, have almost never done anything of great note. South Africa at home lost only to Australia between 1992/93 (readmission) and 2004/05.

 

[Naumaan]

a) I am talking about tests.
b) They are yet to prove they can play well outside the subcontinent.

as far as i remember, we lost only 1 test series in england in last 25 years & india won only 1 in i think 15 years
i don't remember pakistan loosing in newzealand in a test series, & india i think won test series
india didn't win south africa nor did pakistan
in Australia i think this time we will also be getting flat pitches, so lets see

 

[Xuhaib]

In the period I named they lost only to Pakistan in 1992 (which was very fortunate for the Pakistanis in several ways - England could easily and should have won 2-1) and Australia in 1993. The loss to Pakistan in 1996 was the 10th series and I specifically said they lost 2 in 9, up to the India series earlier in 1996. They did not lose to West Indies in 1995, it was a 2-2 draw and England did very well to twice fight back from one-down. Though yes, one dropped catch did potentially cost West Indies a 3-2 win.
QUOTE]


What ******. Pakistan dominated the Lords test and only a 4th innings collapse got England back in the game the end result was a fair result, the two draws were very even while the tests at Headingley and Oval were won comprehensive by both sides. In the end 2-1 was quite a just result scoreline.

 

[GIMH]

Any need to call him a ******? Way to ruin a post.

 

[Richard]

In the period I named they lost only to Pakistan in 1992 (which was very fortunate for the Pakistanis in several ways - England could easily and should have won 2-1) and Australia in 1993. The loss to Pakistan in 1996 was the 10th series and I specifically said they lost 2 in 9, up to the India series earlier in 1996. They did not lose to West Indies in 1995, it was a 2-2 draw and England did very well to twice fight back from one-down. Though yes, one dropped catch did potentially cost West Indies a 3-2 win.

What ******. Pakistan dominated the Lords test and only a 4th innings collapse got England back in the game the end result was a fair result, the two draws were very even while the tests at Headingley and Oval were won comprehensive by both sides. In the end 2-1 was quite a just result scoreline.

Not really. The two victories and two draws were both comprehensive; much as Pakistan's fourth-innings collapse in the Second Test may have been unexpected, Wasim and Waqar's rescue act was even more so. England almost had the game in the bag when Pakistan needed 20-odd to win with no batsmen of note left.

BTW "******" is not only grammatically incorrect but also rather needlessly abusive.

 

[Xuhaib]

Any need to call him a ******? Way to ruin a post.

I meant to say ****** post, apologies to Richard did not mean to call him a ******.

 

[Xuhaib]

Not really. The two victories and two draws were both comprehensive; much as Pakistan's fourth-innings collapse in the Second Test may have been unexpected, Wasim and Waqar's rescue act was even more so. England almost had the game in the bag when Pakistan needed 20-odd to win with no batsmen of note left.

BTW "******" is not only grammatically incorrect but also rather needlessly abusive.

Wasim was decent enough bat to get 20 odd uns.

 

[Richard]

Yes but you'd not expect him, and certainly not Waqar, to get as many as they did after the top-order had been demolished so effectively. From what I remember it's not like it was an Australia-style implosion, it was genuinely good bowling from England to knock most of the wickets over. Haven't seen it for years though so might recall wrong.

 

[Richard]

I meant to say ****** post, apologies to Richard did not mean to call him a ******.

Okeydoke, nay bother.