Were cricketing standards at their best in the 2019 world cup or declined?

[Harsh Thakor]

The 2019 version was probably the best of all world cups in terms of intensity of competition,as well as ebb and flow or twists and turns.No world cup ever has had such flux or changes in fortune at every stage.Perhaps 1987 version had closer finishes but nowhere as spectacular drama.

However was the cricketing standard at its best with bat ,ball and fielding?It must be stated that only once was a 300+ score chased that to by Bangladesh and not more than 4-5 chases of 260+.250+ was a wining score to defend in the semi-final and final similar to 1987 and 1979.In the 1975 and 1979 finals West Indies defeated target of run rate at around 5 per over,similar to this world cup as well as the 1979 semi-final v Pakistan.In 1992 250+ was a winning score to defend in the final.Thus after around 30 years there has virtually been no rise in the run rate in a chase in a world cup .In today's era when 300+ is hardly a defendable score in an ODI,this world cup has totally written a different story with 280+ almost looking an impossibilty.Even the best teams buckled when chasing 280+ or even 250+ giving no indication of mustering the required adrelanin or knitting the threads.Perhaps this world cup lacked the yesteryear stalwarts like Tendulkar,Lara,Kallis.Deviliers,Pieterson.Viv Richards,Ponting,Miandad.Inzamam ,Waugh brothers etc.Arguably inspite of batsmen like Virat Kohli,Rohit Sharma,Kane Williamson etc this tournament did not have the class of bating of past eras.The fielding standards surpassed those of any world cup taking athleticism at it's ultimate zenith with some unbelievable catches resembling circus acrobats on the field.Some of the finest bowlers participated like Michel Starc,Trent Boult,Jasprit Bhumrah and al-rounders like Ben Stokes and Shakib.Still lacked a Glen Mcgrath,Wasim Akram,Alan Donald ,Dale Steyn or Shane Warne.Not as many all-rounders as in past world cups .

In my view overall the best teams of the 2019 edition were below the class of the champion Australian,West Indies teams as well as best South African and Pakistani teams.I think the best 3 teams of 1999 were better than the best of this edition but still the standard was marginally higher this time than in 2015 or 2011.Arguably since 2007 we have not had an outstanding ODI champion .The decline and crisis in Australian cricket perhaps created this trend.Argubaly too much T-20 cricket is ailing the game .

Where this world cup won was the standard of sportsmanship.I have never seen such a sporting loser as New Zealand who accepted the result with grace bestowed from the divine.I dont have words to describe how sportingly skipper Kane Williamson accepted the defeat when his side did not morally deserve defeat.Hard to visualize any team accepting loss so graciously as the Kiwis considering the unfortunate circumstances of defeat.

Cricketing temperament was at it's helm with New Zealand winning the honours in this respect and England a close second.In this light India hardly exuberated the same determination.

Edited July 20, 2019 by Harsh Thakor

[chewy]

Definetly, best standards were in 1992

Until the cornered tigers win a WC then standards of the winners will always be poor 

[Khota]

I did not like the outcome but this was the best ever. So much parity.

 

On second thought 1992 was the best. (sarcasm)

[cricketfan28]

cricket has improved and this world cup was fun. 

a

[Suhaan]

Till the time pakistan were in the tournament it was at its peak

Sad they bowed out before SFs

[Vilander]

1992 was bhest. And Maajid Khan.

[Pollack]

Cricket is not at its best as compared to olden days. Like we saw in the World Cup when the pitches got competitive, the team which played the least worst cricket  on the day was the winner. 

[JourneyMan]

No way. Today there are very few genuine fast bowlers in cricket compared to 15-20 years ago. Batting lineups also tend to collapse a lot faster. 

 

South Africa are a shadow of their previous teams. Windies looked like making a comeback but disappointed in the end. Pakistan is much weaker than it used to be. Australia is also far behind their golden generation standard.

 

The only improved teams are India, England, NZ and Bangladesh and the only improved area of the game is fielding. 

 

[I6MTW]

6 minutes ago, JourneyMan said:

No way. Today there are very few genuine fast bowlers in cricket compared to 15-20 years ago. Batting lineups also tend to collapse a lot faster. 

 

South Africa are a shadow of their previous teams. Windies looked like making a comeback but disappointed in the end. Pakistan is much weaker than it used to be. Australia is also far behind their golden generation standard.

 

The only improved teams are India, England, NZ and Bangladesh and the only improved area of the game is fielding. 

 

NZ I think were weaker than compared with the NZ teams of the past.  I think bowling wise, this NZ team was the best. 

[JourneyMan]

47 minutes ago, I6MTW said:

NZ I think were weaker than compared with the NZ teams of the past.  I think bowling wise, this NZ team was the best. 

True, they did have better batting in the past.