Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 31

Thread: Is test cricket at its lowest ebb?

  1. #1
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,216

    Is test cricket at its lowest ebb?

    I was thinking after witnessing the embarassing performance of England against New Zealand, that the standard of test cricket I'm watching around the world is probably the lowest I've ever seen. I started watching test cricket in the 90s when there were star players galore and almost every team could boast of truly great players.

    Now, runs and wickets seem to come a bit cheaper. The true match winners are either gone or on the way out. Looking at it team by team:

    England - On paper, a formidable team, but they happen to flatter and decieve. They go from whitewashing India to being whitewashed by Pakistan to be trumped at home by SA to breaking down India's fortress to now at the verge of losing to NZ. Clearly not as good as they are made out to be.

    Australia - A 4-0 loss to any team would have been unthinkable in the past. The loss of Ponting and Hussey has left a huge wide cavern in their batting. Their bowlers are inexperienced and fragile, they havent been this bad in a long time.

    India - Dont get fooled by their recent win, they are still basically the same side that got outspun on their own soil by England. Sehwag, Dravid and Laxman gone, Tendulkar soon as well, pace bowling is nothing to write about and spin needs to still show itself outside home.

    Pakistan - Still a team in transition, batting very weak, bowling is dangerous but pacers still need to prove themselves.

    Sri Lanka, NZ and WI are pretty mediocre. SA is pretty much the only side with more than 1 true world class player and that plays consistent, brilliant cricket.

    So am I wrong? Or was there another era in which cricket standard were even lower?

  2. #2
    Virat Kohli (c) Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    54,564
    Nah Sri Lanka and India were far ****ter in the 90s, and England are far better now as well.

    So yeah I think you're wrong.

  3. #3
    International Coach flibbertyjibber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Mrs Miggins pie shop
    Posts
    11,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Nah Sri Lanka and India were far ****ter in the 90s, and England are far better now as well.

    So yeah I think you're wrong.
    Agree with this 90's had one great side in Australia one very good one in SA and a good WI for a time but the rest were pretty crap apart from Pakistan who did their usual trick of fluctuating from brillance to ****ness at the drop of a bung I mean hat.

    Has to be said if Pakistan had beaten India so comprehensively then lost so comprehensively in NZ in their next series as England have done that questions would be asked. Quite sad really when you think of it like that.

  4. #4
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Nah Sri Lanka and India were far ****ter in the 90s, and England are far better now as well.

    So yeah I think you're wrong.
    SL in the mid-late 90s were a slightly better team IMO, Murali and Vaas being the difference.

    India in the 90s never lost 8 straight away tests, and were near unbeatable at home. Again, Kumble and Srinath were the difference and were better than any of their bowlers nowadays, especially at home.

    England may be a better side on paper, but still lose 4 straight tests in the subcontinent and are on the verge of losing to NZ. Not terribly more consistent than the England of the 90s, who at least consistently faced better sides than them.


  5. #5
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,216
    Quote Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber View Post
    Agree with this 90's had one great side in Australia one very good one in SA and a good WI for a time but the rest were pretty crap apart from Pakistan who did their usual trick of fluctuating from brillance to ****ness at the drop of a bung I mean hat.

    Has to be said if Pakistan had beaten India so comprehensively then lost so comprehensively in NZ in their next series as England have done that questions would be asked. Quite sad really when you think of it like that.
    I would take a great side, a very good side and 2 good but inconsistent sides compared to one very good side and the rest ranging from decent to mediocre which is what we have nowadays.

    You saying cricket in the 90s was worse than now? We shouldnt get stuck in the trap of thinking that just because the teams are more equal nowadays somehow the quality has remained level.

  6. #6
    International Coach
    Suicide Bob Champion!
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Not really needed on CW
    Posts
    12,495
    We're seeing a lot less boring draws nowadays which is gun.

  7. #7
    Cricket Spectator
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    new york
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Daemon View Post
    We're seeing a lot less boring draws nowadays which is gun.
    I agree with that. There are fewer draws, runs being scored faster, wickets falling faster. Test Cricket has generally become more fast-paced than say the late 80s, early 90s when it was (IMO) at its most boring.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Pune, India
    Posts
    807
    Last 2-3 years have produced some amazing, amazing test matches... Have honestly enjoyed watching test cricket more in the last few years than any time in the preceding decade... Maybe it's just me.

    In terms of quality, South Africa are magnificent all round.
    England are pretty damn good... Far, far better than they were in the 90s (won a test series in India FFS, that is absolutely monumental). They're inconsistent for sure, as they've shown in this series, but still very good.
    Pakistan are transitioning into a potentially top side too, shouldn't be written off just because they were destroyed by a magnificent bowling attack.
    Sri Lanka are decent with Herath finally filling that big Murali shaped hole.
    New Zealand also proving they have some potentially great players.
    Windiest are improving... Haven't been whitewashed in ages...

    Overall quality is fine... And the absolute best thing is that we've seen some very very good fast bowlers (who were virtually extinct in the previous decade) come through the ranks.

  9. #9
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,652
    Test cricket is better now than it has probably ever been.
    Quote Originally Posted by KungFu_Kallis View Post
    Peter Siddle top scores in both innings....... Matthew Wade gets out twice in one ball
    "The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
    -My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with

    How the Universe came from nothing

  10. #10
    Hall of Fame Member honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    15,685
    Quote Originally Posted by Satyanash89 View Post
    Last 2-3 years have produced some amazing, amazing test matches... Have honestly enjoyed watching test cricket more in the last few years than any time in the preceding decade... Maybe it's just me.

    In terms of quality, South Africa are magnificent all round.
    England are pretty damn good... Far, far better than they were in the 90s (won a test series in India FFS, that is absolutely monumental). They're inconsistent for sure, as they've shown in this series, but still very good.
    Pakistan are transitioning into a potentially top side too, shouldn't be written off just because they were destroyed by a magnificent bowling attack.
    Sri Lanka are decent with Herath finally filling that big Murali shaped hole.
    New Zealand also proving they have some potentially great players.
    Windiest are improving... Haven't been whitewashed in ages...

    Overall quality is fine... And the absolute best thing is that we've seen some very very good fast bowlers (who were virtually extinct in the previous decade) come through the ranks.
    yeah but I dont think subshakerz is comparing this era with the 2000 decade.. He is comparing to the 90s right and we did have more than a few qualtiy bowlers (both fast and spin) going around back then..
    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

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Pune, India
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by honestbharani View Post
    yeah but I dont think subshakerz is comparing this era with the 2000 decade.. He is comparing to the 90s right and we did have more than a few qualtiy bowlers (both fast and spin) going around back then..
    He says test cricket is at the lowest quality he's ever seen. That includes the 2000s. Surely this decade is better.

  12. #12
    U19 Debutant Senile Sentry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Circus
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    Test cricket is better now than it has probably ever been.
    This.

    Don't buy for a moment the 90s were better.

  13. #13
    International Coach grecian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Oh, God, I'm bored. Might as well be listening to Genesis
    Posts
    14,952
    So, runs and wickets come easier, I'm confuddled
    Do I contradict myself?
    Very well then I contradict myself,
    (I am large, I contain multitudes.
    Walt Whitman

  14. #14
    State Regular L Trumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    906
    Quote Originally Posted by grecian View Post
    So, runs and wickets come easier, I'm confuddled
    Well if average batsman is scoring 40 in 75 instead of 35 in 80, yes that makes both runs & wickets easier to come by. Not that any one actually said that in this thread though.

  15. #15
    Cricket Spectator
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    new york
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by complan View Post
    I agree with that. There are fewer draws, runs being scored faster, wickets falling faster. Test Cricket has generally become more fast-paced than say the late 80s, early 90s when it was (IMO) at its most boring.
    Quote Originally Posted by L Trumper View Post
    Well if average batsman is scoring 40 in 75 instead of 35 in 80, yes that makes both runs & wickets easier to come by. Not that any one actually said that in this thread though.
    He may be referring to my earlier comment (not sure). But yeah, Trumper's example is exactly what I meant. Maybe spillover effect of ODIs and T20s.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •