Is test cricket at its lowest ebb?

[subshakerz]

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?

 

[Jono]

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.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

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.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

 

[Daemon]

We're seeing a lot less boring draws nowadays which is gun.

 

[complan]

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.

 

[Satyanash89]

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.

 

[silentstriker]

Test cricket is better now than it has probably ever been.

 

[honestbharani]

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..

 

[Satyanash89]

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.

 

[Senile Sentry]

Test cricket is better now than it has probably ever been.

This.

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

 

[grecian]

So, runs and wickets come easier, I'm confuddled

 

[L Trumper]

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.

 

[complan]

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.

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.

 

[honestbharani]

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..

 

[Cabinet96]

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.

 

[Slifer]

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.

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

 

[dhillon28]

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