Thank God for Australia !

[Richard]

The problem isn't that batsmen play more strokes, the problem is the bowlers aren't as accurate as they used to be.

 

[kendall]

It is?
No, it's just becoming of a lower and lower standard.
The faster the typical scoring-rate, the lower the overall standard of Test-cricket will get.

I do not think that test matches are now of a lower standard we have some of the best players ever to play the game at the moment. The increased rate of scoring means more results and this can only be a good thing

 

[sledger]

I do not think that test matches are now of a lower standard we have some of the best players ever to play the game at the moment. The increased rate of scoring means more results and this can only be a good thing

agreed, i find it hard to believe that test matches that contain the likes of the indian, australian and all; the other world class players in the world can can possibly be of a low quality.

 

[Richard]

I do not think that test matches are now of a lower standard we have some of the best players ever to play the game at the moment.

No, not at all - we have some of the most overrated ones.

The increased rate of scoring means more results and this can only be a good thing

Results aren't everything - you need good bowling for a higher standard.

 

[Richard]

agreed, i find it hard to believe that test matches that contain the likes of the indian, australian and all; the other world class players in the world can can possibly be of a low quality.

Notice how many batsmen and how few bowlers...

 

[sledger]

Notice how many batsmen and how few bowlers...

granted that, its the first bloody valid point you have raised all evening, most of the test teams have at least one world class bowler, not including the west indies, zimbabwe or bangladesh

 

[Richard]

So... New Zealand have a World-class bowler? Best they can do is Vettori.
England... closest we've got is Hoggard.
South Africa... Pollock; Nel's got potential but he's not there yet.
West Indies... closest is Collins.
Sri Lanka... obviously.
Pakistan... ha ha, in the likely event Shoaib and Shabbir are injured? Not a chance in hell.
India... closest is Kumble and Harbhajan, the rest are a joke.
Australia... obviously have 3, nearly 4.

 

[sledger]

So... New Zealand have a World-class bowler? Best they can do is Vettori.
England... closest we've got is Hoggard.
South Africa... Pollock; Nel's got potential but he's not there yet.
West Indies... closest is Collins.
Sri Lanka... obviously.
Pakistan... ha ha, in the likely event Shoaib and Shabbir are injured? Not a chance in hell.
India... closest is Kumble and Harbhajan, the rest are a joke.
Australia... obviously have 3, nearly 4.

new zealand - my bad i forgot them
england - harmison and hoggard on their day ( at least potentially)
sri lanka - yes nuff said
pakistan - shoaib
india - kumble and harbs
australia - warne, mcgrath, gillespie

it seems to me that you are trying to determine what is world class by information and standards set by a past generation and not what is happening in the present, in the present day all those bowlers can be world class on their day

 

[Richard]

Harmison, World-class!
Kumble and Harbhajan World-class! You can't be World-class if you're only effective on turners, they're too rare.

 

[Richard]

I might add that if there's less than 1 World-class bowler per team that's a sorry situation to be in.

 

[Son Of Coco]

It is?
No, it's just becoming of a lower and lower standard.
The faster the typical scoring-rate, the lower the overall standard of Test-cricket will get.

Why would you say that? If the rest of the test cricketing nations are forced to lift their game to compete with the Aussies surely that's better than the Australian team coming back to the field?

Actually, now that I've typed these questions I realise it was probably foolish to ask.

 

[Son Of Coco]

No, not at all - we have some of the most overrated ones.

Results aren't everything - you need good bowling for a higher standard.

Given some of the techniques and shots on show from the batsmen in the 70's and 80's I'm surprised you rate the bowlers so highly. I'll agree there were probably better bowlers around at certain stages, whether it would make a large difference is debatable though when you compare them to the very best on offer today.

 

[Slats4ever]

i was watching a highlight DVD last night called "Benaud to Border" and to be perfectly honest the standard (especially of bowlers) back then was absolute tripe... So Richard the bowlers these days exceed and are way better than the one's back then. what i suggest u do is get some footage out and look at how poor their actions were and then u'll see how good and tough cricket is today and how amazing australia are.

 

[The Argonaut]

I think it is fair to say that the quality of bowling has slipped in the last 20 years. The Windies don't have that rich vein of fast bowlers coming off the assembly line anymore and the age where there were so many great allrounders is definitely over.

One thing that has impacted on scoring rates and increased batting averages is the bats themselves. More sixes are hit these days and you only have to touch the ball and it races to the fence. Even mis-hits can make ot to the boundary. Fielders have less time to react as the ball comes off the bat better. The fact that batsmen know that they can clear the boundary means they will go for the shot more often. I'd love to see Viv Richards with one of the modern bats. He certainly would have scored even faster.

You still need technique but I think you can get away with more and get runs for mis-hit shots. Bowlers have less margin for error now than in the past because of this also.

I obviously love watching the Aussies play and am looking forward to the upcoming Ashes tour because England is at its strongest level for many years. The potential is there for this to be a very close and enjoyable series. Richard is correct when he says that most of the current players will have retired in the next few years but the replacements should be able to cover. Whether they will be as good is debatable. What world cricket really needs is the other sides to improve to make it more of a contest. Is the Aussies do slide and the others catch up and overtake then that's life and the quality of cricket will be the better for it.

 

[Slow Love™]

The tragedy of the game is not because Australia are too good for the rest of them but because there is only one Australian team !!

Yes, I agree - it does occasionally get a little dull to see teams beaten so badly, but it's up to other teams to raise their game. I don't see what the Australians can be expected to do but play their best. If Australia were to rest players for important fixtures and the games got a little closer, that would not really be "better" for the game.

As an additional comment though, I think there is too much hysteria at times over the state of the game, given Australia's dominance. NZ pushed Australia very hard in some local ODI's a very short time ago - since then, they were beaten badly at home, but the panic related to this was overstated, considering the players NZ were doing without (and given how recently they provided good contests). Same applies to the test series in India. Australia got rid of a monkey on it's back, and played a fine, disciplined series to win, but India weren't decimated, and weather permitting, we could at this point easily be reminiscing about another drawn series between the sides.

Australia is very powerful, and has a great lineup, but they're ageing, and we should probably enjoy it while it lasts, because it can all change very quickly.

 

[C_C]

You can't be World-class if you're only effective on turners, they're too rare.

Kumble/Harbhajan has done pretty well on turners AND balanced pitches...they've struggled on pitches that are completely pace-pitches........similarly i dont think you can be worldclass then if you can only be effective on pace pitches/balanced pitches..........

i think anyone who thinks Kumble isnt a great, let alone worldclass...needs to re-examin his head about cricket.

Oh and dont forget NTINI........Ntini is one of the best pacers in the world today.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Oh and dont forget NTINI........Ntini is one of the best pacers in the world today.

I don't know about Ntini. He would probably make most sides at most points in time, but only as a third seamer or so. He's not particularly brilliant. I rate all of McGrath, Gillespie, Kasprowicz, Shoaib, Hoggard, Flintoff, Harmison, Vaas and Pollock as better.

 

[C_C]

wouldnt rate Kaspa or Harmison ahead of Ntini...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

wouldnt rate Kaspa or Harmison ahead of Ntini...

Kasprowicz is MILES better than Ntini. The only seamers in the world who are better than Kasprowicz outside of Australia are Shoaib and Pollock. Harmison is unproven against good opposition, so it might be a bit unfair on Ntini to rate Harmison higher, but I'd certainly be more concerned as a fan of any particular side about facing Harmison than Ntini right now.

 

[C_C]

I dont think so.
I rate Hoggard ahead of Kaspa too....
and definately Ntini...

And no, i would rather face the Harmlessone than ntini

(4 in the morning catching up with me..gnite!)