The Unpopular Cricket Opinions Thread

[maniac]

1 hour ago, ExtremeBrainfade said:

Is the doosra officially dead and buried in high-level cricket?  

Not with Ashwin one of his million variations that go straight can hit an uneven pitch and go in the opposite direction

[maniac]

Just now, Gollum said:

That's a popular opinion. Unpopular would read "Sachin has always been a midget choker". 

We call that blasphemy punishable by the most extreme shariah type punishment. Online equivalent of course

Edited May 17, 2019 by maniac

[Gollum]

Quality of test cricket has stayed roughly the same the last 3 decades, not going further back to 70s/80s since most of us didn't follow cricket live back then. Recent test sides get a lot of flak from experts here for being weak compared to historical standards. Load of BS and fear-mongering I say.

 

Won't be fair to take a year in isolation, otherwise all teams have had 1-2 bad years, I will pick the last 5 years...2015-19. 

 

India: One of its greatest sides, possibly its greatest ever side in home conditions, overall better than all other Indian sides of the past except perhaps the 2007-10 one.

 

NZ: Its greatest ever side, no question.

 

Eng: Stronger than the 90s and early 2000s Eng sides, around at par with late 2000s Eng, this one has enjoyed better bowling unit while late 2000s had stronger batting unit. 2010-14 under Strauss/Cook was its best ever side, undisputed. 

 

Aus: Weaker than the 1995-2007 side but stronger than the Aussie sides before and after that...this team should overcome the early 90s and also 2008-14 Aussie side in most conditions IMO. Still a very good team, GOAT batsman Smith, Cummins with higher peak rating than McGrath and Lyon will be in the squad of AT Aus squad. Fast bowling unit of this side is damn good, one may argue at a higher level with better bench strength than the ATG Aus side. 

 

RSA: Definitely weaker than earlier sides but still formidable at home. Till AB's retirement they were competitive everywhere and right now have a pretty strong fast bowling unit. Lanka won on the back of an ATG knock, otherwise beating RSA in their backyard will always be a challenge. Only time will tell how they improve, esp on batting front. 

 

Pak: Weaker than 90s, at par with 2000s, weaker than early 2010s. Moreover this team has desisted from chucking and ball tampering, we can argue that Pak was always at this level but unfair means helped the earlier teams gain massive advantage over other sides. Abbas and Yasir have been creating a few records, Babar might turn out to be something special , few other blokes with potential. 

 

SL: Weaker than earlier sides but Herath didn't chuck like Murali. A few world class players like Herath, Angelo, Karunaratne, Chandimal and a surprisingly talented pace bowling unit which can punch above its weight. Don't write them off, their triumph in RSA was their greatest achievement in test cricket, before that they fought hard in India.

 

WI: Stronger than late 2000s and early 2010s WI...those teams always faced internal revolts and nasty fights with WICB...late 90s WI team had the same discipline problem. Current WI has been well led, they do seem to give a damn about test cricket which wasn't the case earlier. In terms of results they have been better than many WI sides of the last 30 years. Potent pace bowling unit and good to see the nature of their pitches change, that alone will give their current side an edge. Playing on flat, low, sluggish, spinning pitches was never in their blood. 

 

BD: Strongest in their history, won a test each against Eng/Aus at home and in SL away. At full strength they will give all teams a fight at home except India. We happen to be too good in SC conditions...many great teams of the past would get slaughtered by King V's men on SC pitches. 

 

2 teams (RSA, SL) are at their historical weakest, Ind/NZ/BD are at their historical strongest or close enough, others (Aus, Eng, Pak, WI) vary...... no GOAT side like Aus right now but let's be honest only 2 sides can lay claim to that status since the end of WW-II. Test cricket is at a healthy place, enough of whining. Stop underrating the present to glorify the past. 

Edited November 28, 2019 by Gollum

[Vijy]

On 11/28/2019 at 1:26 PM, Gollum said:

Quality of test cricket has stayed roughly the same the last 3 decades, not going further back to 70s/80s since most of us didn't follow cricket live back then. Recent test sides get a lot of flak from experts here for being weak compared to historical standards. Load of BS and fear-mongering I say.

 

Won't be fair to take a year in isolation, otherwise all teams have had 1-2 bad years, I will pick the last 5 years...2015-19. 

 

India: One of its greatest sides, possibly its greatest ever side in home conditions, overall better than all other Indian sides of the past except perhaps the 2007-10 one.

 

NZ: Its greatest ever side, no question.

 

Eng: Stronger than the 90s and early 2000s Eng sides, around at par with late 2000s Eng, this one has enjoyed better bowling unit while late 2000s had stronger batting unit. 2010-14 under Strauss/Cook was its best ever side, undisputed. 

 

Aus: Weaker than the 1995-2007 side but stronger than the Aussie sides before and after that...this team should overcome the early 90s and also 2008-14 Aussie side in most conditions IMO. Still a very good team, GOAT batsman Smith, Cummins with higher peak rating than McGrath and Lyon will be in the squad of AT Aus squad. Fast bowling unit of this side is damn good, one may argue at a higher level with better bench strength than the ATG Aus side. 

 

RSA: Definitely weaker than earlier sides but still formidable at home. Till AB's retirement they were competitive everywhere and right now have a pretty strong fast bowling unit. Lanka won on the back of an ATG knock, otherwise beating RSA in their backyard will always be a challenge. Only time will tell how they improve, esp on batting front. 

 

Pak: Weaker than 90s, at par with 2000s, weaker than early 2010s. Moreover this team has desisted from chucking and ball tampering, we can argue that Pak was always at this level but unfair means helped the earlier teams gain massive advantage over other sides. Abbas and Yasir have been creating a few records, Babar might turn out to be something special , few other blokes with potential. 

 

SL: Weaker than earlier sides but Herath didn't chuck like Murali. A few world class players like Herath, Angelo, Karunaratne, Chandimal and a surprisingly talented pace bowling unit which can punch above its weight. Don't write them off, their triumph in RSA was their greatest achievement in test cricket, before that they fought hard in India.

 

WI: Stronger than late 2000s and early 2010s WI...those teams always faced internal revolts and nasty fights with WICB...late 90s WI team had the same discipline problem. Current WI has been well led, they do seem to give a damn about test cricket which wasn't the case earlier. In terms of results they have been better than many WI sides of the last 30 years. Potent pace bowling unit and good to see the nature of their pitches change, that alone will give their current side an edge. Playing on flat, low, sluggish, spinning pitches was never in their blood. 

 

BD: Strongest in their history, won a test each against Eng/Aus at home and in SL away. At full strength they will give all teams a fight at home except India. We happen to be too good in SC conditions...many great teams of the past would get slaughtered by King V's men on SC pitches. 

 

2 teams (RSA, SL) are at their historical weakest, Ind/NZ/BD are at their historical strongest or close enough, others (Aus, Eng, Pak, WI) vary...... no GOAT side like Aus right now but let's be honest only 2 sides can lay claim to that status since the end of WW-II. Test cricket is at a healthy place, enough of whining. Stop underrating the present to glorify the past. 

Compared to 1990s, which is the decade that I enjoyed the most, here is my own take: Aus (90s post-Gilly) > Aus (current); SA (90s) > SA (current), Pak (90s) > Pak (current), WI (90s) > WI (current), Eng (90s) < Eng (current), SL (90s) > SL (current), Ind (90s) << Ind (current), NZ (90s) << NZ (current)

as per my reckoning, 6 teams were better in the past whereas 3 are better now.

 

I've ignored Zim and Bang. Bang was woeful in the 90s, Zim is the same now. And Zim was decent in the 1990s, whereas Bang is okay now.