Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 31

Thread: Is test cricket at its lowest ebb?

  1. #16
    Hall of Fame Member honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    15,695
    Quote Originally Posted by Satyanash89 View Post
    He says test cricket is at the lowest quality he's ever seen. That includes the 2000s. Surely this decade is better.
    yeah.. re-reading the original post, I understand the point. I think 90s Test Cricket > 2010s Test Cricket >> 2000s Test Cricket..
    We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.
    A cricket supporter forever

    Member of CW Red and AAAS - Appreciating only the best.


    Check out this awesome e-fed:

    PWE Efed

  2. #17
    Cricketer Of The Year Cabinet96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    9,717
    The fact that the number 8 side can dominate the number 2 side should be seen as a positive for the test game IMO. The top sides may not be the best top sides of all time, but there would't have been many eras where the number 8 side could play as well as New Zealand have over the last 4 days.

  3. #18
    International 12th Man Slifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,611
    To answer the originl question, no. Except for RSA most of the other teams could pretty much beat each other which makes for exciting cricket imo. Even RSA (IMO) would be hard done to win in India and away to Pakistan. Great time for cricket.
    Cause Slifer said so.........!!!!

  4. #19
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,637
    Quote Originally Posted by Cabinet96 View Post
    The fact that the number 8 side can dominate the number 2 side should be seen as a positive for the test game IMO. The top sides may not be the best top sides of all time, but there would't have been many eras where the number 8 side could play as well as New Zealand have over the last 4 days.
    Yeah I absolutely agree but cricket fans in general seem pretty top tier focused for some reason. Maybe it's because of the country and era I've grown up following cricket through but I've always felt that cricket fans lack an appreciation for the difference between decent and crap. If you're not world class then no-one cares about you and the standard of cricket seems to be measured in many people's eyes by the numbers of 'stars' in the game who seem a class above.

    That the standard of Test cricket at the moment seems to be put down because of the lack of truly dominant standout players confuses me somewhat; isn't the fact that fewer players or indeed are soaring ahead of the pack a good thing for the strength of the game? Sure we don't have as many Pontings or Muralis at the moment but we also don't have as many Matthew Harts or Xavier Marshalls so Test cricket is closer than ever. Closer doesn't always mean the standard is better if we've merely had a drop off in standard from the top nations/players and I get that people are saying that's what we've had here, but I don't think it's just that.
    Last edited by Prince EWS; 25-03-2013 at 10:42 AM.
    ~ Cribbertarian ~

    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since December 2009


  5. #20
    U19 Debutant
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    303
    emphatic YES, because the following former constants which made test cricket so intriguing are currently not present:

    no current flamboyant great Windies batsmen
    no great intimdating Windies fast bowler
    no magical Pakistani fast bowler
    no current Indian batting great, who is currently still great
    no strong Australian team
    All Time Test XI:

    Openers: S.Gavaskar V.Sehwag Middle Order: V.Richards S.Tendulkar B.Lara All Rounders: G.Sobers I Khan (C) WK: A.Gilchrist Bowlers: W.Akram M.Marshall M.Muralitharan

    All Time ODI XI:

    WK: A.Gilchrist S.Tendulkar V.Richards R. Ponting M. Dhoni M. Bevan Allrounder: K.Dev Bowlers: W.Akram J. Garner M.Muralitharan G. McGrath

  6. #21
    Cricketer Of The Year Cabinet96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    9,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    Yeah I absolutely agree but cricket fans in general seem pretty top tier focused for some reason. Maybe it's because of the country and era I've grown up following cricket through but I've always felt that cricket fans lack an appreciation for the difference between decent and crap. If you're not world class then no-one cares about you and the standard of cricket seems to be measured in many people's eyes by the numbers of 'stars' in the game who seem a class above.

    That the standard of Test cricket at the moment seems to be put down because of the lack of truly dominant standout players confuses me somewhat; isn't the fact that fewer players or indeed are soaring ahead of the pack a good thing for the strength of the game? Sure we don't have as many Pontings or Muralis at the moment but we also don't have as many Matthew Harts or Xavier Marshalls so Test cricket is closer than ever. Closer doesn't always mean the standard is better if we've merely had a drop off in standard from the top nations/players and I get that people are saying that's what we've had here, but I don't think it's just that.
    It's weird because theoretically, if the standard of teams ranked, say 4-10, all became much worse, then the top three would seem more dominant, and many would say they're rivalling the greatest teams of all time. I'd say test cricket is close to an all time high in terms of worldwide competitiveness. It's one of the reasons I think they'll never be a player who can get close to Bradman. They'd have to be entirely flawless because there's so many more sides for a player to struggle against and a wider variety of conditions to play in.

    It's also one of the reasons I think the whole "test cricket is dying thing" that the media like to throw at us every month or so, isn't going to come to fruition. That results are so unpredictable, and most series are pretty close, makes the game much more interesting for the majority of countries. If it were just Australia and England dominating everyone else then the interest in the game for those countries may wane.

  7. #22
    Hall of Fame Member honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    15,695
    It is hard to judge isn't it.. Standard of cricket. It is easier to judge the Standard of competition and that is definitely high at the moment.

  8. #23
    International Vice-Captain andruid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Sometimes I'm online, Sometimes I'm offline
    Posts
    4,123
    While its sad no one's really head and shoulders above the rest I reckon we are still good for some compelling close fought series if one or two teams address the gaps in their line ups
    Quote Originally Posted by fredfertang View Post
    Why don't the boxers have any head protection any more?
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby View Post
    Burgey submitted a class action suggesting they harden the **** up.

  9. #24
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    It is a far far better place ............ etc etc
    Posts
    12,087
    There definitely aren't so many outstanding players as there were, and those that there are tend to be less extravagant both in personality and the way they play the game, but that's not the same as the overall standard dropping

  10. #25
    International Debutant ganeshran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    India
    Posts
    2,473
    Tests are a lot more interesting nowadays. Except in Lanka, boring draws have almost completely been eliminated. There is no overwhelmingly dominant team like Australia or Windies. SA are getting there but still have a long way to go.

    As far as the quality of players go, I would wait for a few more years before pronouncing judgments on the quality of players in the current era. In the 90s, we knew we had damn good players, but those reputations were built over time and the same players were elevated to greats and legends based on their performances in matches also played in the late 90s and early 2000s.

    There is every possibility that players from the current crop (ABDV, Amla, Kohli, Pujara, Bravo, Kane, Junaid, Finn etc) may reach that level in the coming years.
    Get well soon Yuvi!!

  11. #26
    Cricketer Of The Year Cabinet96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    9,717
    I also think there is a tendency to only remember the great players from past eras, and less so the average players. People may look back on this era and remember the likes of Steyn, Philander, KP, Clarke, Chanderpual, Sanga, Amla, Ajmal as well as others who might go on to be great such as Southee, Boult, Roach. Greats from a wide variety of teams.

  12. #27
    International Debutant ganeshran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    India
    Posts
    2,473
    ^ +1. Nostalgia is a cognitive bias. There were so many crappy players in the 90s who fell by the wayside because of their mediocrity and the only ones who are repeatedly referenced in cricketing articles, old youtube cricketing clips are the greats.

    It is in a way very unfair to the modern day cricketer to be constantly considered inferior while being compared to the cream of the preceeding generations.

  13. #28
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Flem274*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ksfls;fsl;lsFJg/s
    Posts
    28,489
    Lol, unfashionable team gives big fancy team a scare. Test cricket is now ****.

    Crawl back in your hole and go **** to some Jeff Thomson books where he claimed he bowled 300kph you miserable sod.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Jeets doesn't really deserve to be bowling.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Well yeah Tendy is probably better than Bradman, but Bradman was 70 years ago, if he grew up in the modern era he'd still easily be the best. Though he wasn't, can understand the argument for Tendy even though I don't agree.
    Proudly supporting Central Districts
    RIP Craig Walsh

  14. #29
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Flem274*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ksfls;fsl;lsFJg/s
    Posts
    28,489
    Love test cricket atm ftr, and not just because NZ are doing okay in this series. The past few years have been so unpredictable and we've seen some great tests.

    Best innings has to be Clarke's 150 in SA where he played the much vaunted dominant innings against the best attack on a green top, something claimed to have occurred in every other innings in the 70s and 80s but didn't.

    But test cricket is at its lowest ebb so Clarke can go suck a fat one obvz.

  15. #30
    Virat Kohli (c) Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    55,070
    Flem unleashing here.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 22-11-2007, 05:51 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •