In tests, yes. In ODIs, no. Also, England v South Africa has been competitive at other times and now is not an exception.There was a ruthless ability to grind out results in the Australian team that put them comfortably ahead of South Africa for me.
i don't agree with the word POOR being used for Pakistan, Specially we always had better Record than teams like India, Srilanka & NewzealandI agree that poor teams like Sri Lanka, Pakistan and New Zealand can also beat you in a test series but that was taken for granted in the 90s. Any team could defeat any other team except Australia when they started winning in the subcontinent as well.
1996-99 was also very competitive. Even Zimbabwe put their hands up.
Also, in 1999, it wasn't Australia = no. 1 conclusive in ODIs. 1996-99, one can argue South Africa was the better team. I certainly would.
I am talking about current, not the past.i don't agree with the word POOR being used for Pakistan, Specially we always had better Record than teams like India, Srilanka & Newzealand
i'm also saying sameI am talking about current, not the past.
a) I am talking about tests.i'm also saying same
Pakistan aren't a poor side
we i think just played 5 tests in near two years & all against Srilanka
so Pakistan can't be judged with that
i know now they have started playing, so the ODI & Test ranking are going to be changed
The interesting thing about flat pitches is that there's actually significantly less draws this decade than there has been in any other. There's still far too many 600-plays-600 games. But I don't believe flat decks causing boring cricket are something that's suddenly appeared this decade and never existed before. It's easy to forget all the **** matches.Then there are the serious problems of flat pitches, low attendance in various parts of the world and the demise of the West Indies that stop this being a classed a great era for test cricket I strongly hope and believe that test cricket will survive and continue to propser and that new great sides will emerge and from this era so that it will be be looked on as a the article concludes as a fascinating transitional period and not one in which the game started to decline.
i'm also saying same
Pakistan aren't a poor side
we i think just played 5 tests in near two years & all against Srilanka
so Pakistan can't be judged with that
i know now they have started playing, so the ODI & Test ranking are going to be changed[/QUOTEI
Will go with Prats on this one. Pakistan has been poor in tests for past 2-3 years. Ofcourse there have been many factors.Retirement of Inzi, dissapearence of Yousuf, Asif and Shoaib then Kami and Kaneria falling off badly after a great start, true the stop-start cricket has not helped much but still we have been mediocre on the skills front. Though with the emergance of Ajmal,Aamir, Umer Akmal and return of Asif andMo Yo do give me some hope
Yeah I agree with a lot of that, I love Sri Lanka, by far and away my favourite side in international cricket if we do not include England who I would have little time for if I was a neutral. I still think that the decline in West Indies is bad for cricket though.The interesting thing about flat pitches is that there's actually significantly less draws this decade than there has been in any other. There's still far too many 600-plays-600 games. But I don't believe flat decks causing boring cricket are something that's suddenly appeared this decade and never existed before. It's easy to forget all the **** matches.
I don't think the demise of the West Indies hurts cricket, so long as there's someone to replace them. There's a unique culture to the West Indies in cricket- demonic fast bowlers trying to knock people's heads off, six-hitting, big crowds playing music and chatting about the cricket- that I'd have loved to be able to write about in the article. But in Sri Lanka we now have another unique cricketing culture- completely with a remarkably competitive team- that hasn't ever been there to the same extent before.