• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Would you want another ATG side in test cricket?

subshakerz

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
We had the WI and Aus dynasty ATG no.1 sides that were far ahead of their opposition. Would you want another one to appear or is cricket better with no one beyond the rest of the pack?
 
Coronis

Coronis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Its definitely fun to witness that sort of domination. And you get stuff like India’s BGT triumph and England’s Ashes win as wonderful moments.

Its probably better for the game overall to have closer competition tbf.

But dynasties do seem to increase the popularity of sports. At least from my recent experience.

Big 3 in tennis, Tiger Woods, Golden State Warriors, Penrith Panthers, Hamilton followed by Verstappen in F1, Bolt, Phelps.

I think you do need a dynasty every so often. It does make the game a bit “must see”. Catch these guys dominating while it lasts.

Individual dominance also does this in cricket and other team sports too but to a lesser extent.

So I’d like to see one at some point. I’d actually not mind if it was Australia, so long as it was not England or India. Having a dominant team outside of the big 3 would easily be the best thing for test cricket.
 
Sliferxxxx

Sliferxxxx

State Vice-Captain
subshakerz said:
We had the WI and Aus dynasty ATG no.1 sides that were far ahead of their opposition. Would you want another one to appear or is cricket better with no one beyond the rest of the pack?
Click to expand...
So interestingly the other day I was watching a cricket youtube broadcast and they all agreed that WI and Australia were the two best sides. Then they singled out recent South African and Indian teams that could've been up there but lost or drew crucial series.

My question is, what would either India or RSA have needed to do to be considered in the same bracket? For me, India had to at least win in 2 ANUS (lol) countries, with one of those wins being dominant. South Africa would've needed to win more at home during their period.
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Sliferxxxx said:
So interestingly the other day I was watching a cricket youtube broadcast and they all agreed that WI and Australia were the two best sides. Then they singled out recent South African and Indian teams that could've been up there but lost or drew crucial series.

My question is, what would either India or RSA have needed to do to be considered in the same bracket? For me, India had to at least win in 2 ANUS (lol) countries, with one of those wins being dominant. South Africa would've needed to win more at home during their period.
Click to expand...
Neither India nor SA were ATG grade. SA needed a quality spinner and a second quality opener. India needed a more solid middle order and opener in swinging conditions.

India were beaten handedly in Eng and SA in 2018. And in 2021 they lost and drew against despite both series being served on a platter. Also got whitewashed in NZ.

SA were ATG level away from home, having not lost from 2007 to 2015. They won in Aus and Eng twice, SL, NZ , WI and Pak.

However, in that time they lost to Aus twice at home. They should have beaten England in 2009 at home, two of the games were drawn with England one wicket left.

They should have beaten Aus at home in 2011 but somehow Aus chased over 300 on a bowling wicket to draw. They should have beaten India too in 2011 frankly but didn't push for it in the last test.

Because of their vulnerability at home they never had the ATG aura.
 
slowfinger

slowfinger

International Regular
Coronis said:
Its definitely fun to witness that sort of domination. And you get stuff like India’s BGT triumph and England’s Ashes win as wonderful moments.

Its probably better for the game overall to have closer competition tbf.

But dynasties do seem to increase the popularity of sports. At least from my recent experience.

Big 3 in tennis, Tiger Woods, Golden State Warriors, Penrith Panthers, Hamilton followed by Verstappen in F1, Bolt, Phelps.

I think you do need a dynasty every so often. It does make the game a bit “must see”. Catch these guys dominating while it lasts.

Individual dominance also does this in cricket and other team sports too but to a lesser extent.

So I’d like to see one at some point. I’d actually not mind if it was Australia, so long as it was not England or India. Having a dominant team outside of the big 3 would easily be the best thing for test cricket.
Click to expand...
come on bro what have you got against England they haven't been an ATG team in their entire history :(
 
Coronis

Coronis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
slowfinger said:
come on bro what have you got against England they haven't been an ATG team in their entire history :(
Click to expand...
England definitely had some dominant stretches back in the day.

Its nothing against England in particular, it would just be extremely healthy for the game (specifically tests) if we had a dominant team from a non-big 3 country, hopefully rejuvenating test cricket interest in other countries and encouraging more test matches for the smaller nations.
 
F

Fuller Pilch

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I don't think we can be ATG, but with our depth in seam bowling (Henry, O'Rourke, Jamieson, Sears, Duffy, Smith, Foulkes, Shipley etc. and youngsters) plus young batting and keepers coming through I'd be disappointed if we didn't get back to no 1.
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Coronis said:
Its definitely fun to witness that sort of domination. And you get stuff like India’s BGT triumph and England’s Ashes win as wonderful moments.

Its probably better for the game overall to have closer competition tbf.

But dynasties do seem to increase the popularity of sports. At least from my recent experience.

Big 3 in tennis, Tiger Woods, Golden State Warriors, Penrith Panthers, Hamilton followed by Verstappen in F1, Bolt, Phelps.

I think you do need a dynasty every so often. It does make the game a bit “must see”. Catch these guys dominating while it lasts.

Individual dominance also does this in cricket and other team sports too but to a lesser extent.

So I’d like to see one at some point. I’d actually not mind if it was Australia, so long as it was not England or India. Having a dominant team outside of the big 3 would easily be the best thing for test cricket.
Click to expand...
I would rather see an ATG dominating with the best skills being exhibited than mediocre teams battling it out in even contests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top