Utalk Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 There was a debate on 6-duck-6 on BBC 5Live last night on decline of bowling attacks worldwide compared 90s.It got me thinking that its not only the bowling attacks but overall quality of cricket has declined in last 10 years. Looking back 90-95 we had so many exciting cricketers coming through that made you fall in love with cricket.Lets look at it closely. Batting. We had two of all time greats in Lara and Tendulkar who were a level above then anyone making their debute in last ten years.Ponting, Sehwag and KP are the the closest we have to those two but I feel despite the stats Lara and Tendulkar were miles ahead. Then we had the 2nd tier with likes of Kallis, Inzi, Mark Waugh, Dravid, Arivinda, Salim Malik, Azhar etc who give likes of Jaya, Sanga, Chanerpaul, Hayden, Clarke, Laxman, Yousaf run for their money.But Tendulkar and Lara tilt the balance in 90s favour. Pace Bowling. This is where standards have massively declined.Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Pollock, Wasim, Waqar and MicGrath were all quality. Styen is the only guy who matches up to those guys. We have likes of MJ, Zaheer Khan, Harmison, Anderson, Ntini, Lee who were good but not as good as class of 90s. Bond and Akhtar had the talent but fitness and in case of Akhtar other issues let them down. Spin. Again I feel likes of Warne, Murali, Kumble, Saqlain and Mushi who started off and did bulk of their work in 90s on the whole were better then your Kanerias, Bhajis and Vettoris. Swann is touted as something special but has a lot to do to be considered a great. *Those guys listed in 90s who played well in 2000s were household names at the turn of the century hence put in 90s list.
zen Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 What about 30s v 90s Evolution :winky: Nah, I am not taking about Lancer Evo
Utalk Posted June 19, 2011 Author Posted June 19, 2011 I watched cricket in 80s and would say pace bowling was the same compared to 90s with Windies quartet, Imran, Botham, Kapil, Hadlee and Aussies attack.Spin was miles better in 90s. Batting was again the same as 90s with Viv providing X factor and number of high quality batsmen in Sunny,Javed,Border, Greenidge,Gower etc.
Tiger80 Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 I think one of reason of declined standard is Cricket has declined everywhere.West indies cricket almost dead ,England ,One can see empty stadiums in ENG SRI Lanka series .Bangladesh unable to improve its cricket ,Pakistan political conditions has impacted its cricket a lot. Its better if Cricket is promoted in some more countries like China ,Korea ,Japan.
Utalk Posted June 19, 2011 Author Posted June 19, 2011 IIRC MUrali has his best during the 2000s Yes but Murali was a product of 90s and by year 2000 he was the best off spinner in the game.
Cricket Tragic Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 Thanks for information about the show. Just listening to it now on the website.
Utalk Posted June 19, 2011 Author Posted June 19, 2011 Thanks for information about the show. Just listening to it now on the website. No worries mate. There are couple of things regarding DRS that will interest you.
jairamesh Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 everybody loves to be nostalgic, it makes you feel warm and fuzzy. The generation who grew up watching Sehwag, Gilchrist, Gayle, and co will consider them the most exciting batsman to watch ever. In 10 or 20 years time the same generation will say there is no one like the greats of Sehwag or Gayle to play the game. When I started watching cricket about 8 years ago, I thought Ponting was an all-time great and Lara was over-rated, because every-time I followed Lara he failed more often than not. Yet people keep banging on about the Legend of "Lara". What I have witnessed in my time, Ponting and Tendulkar are ahead of Lara. And the game evolves, especially in terms of technology where every weakness/strength is magnified. Thicker bats, influence of one day game in Tests, introduction of T20, neutral umpires, etc. And things will continue to evolve, and people's perception of greats will change. As an Indian, 2011 was the best period of cricket in terms quality, popularity, and number of cricket greats playing the game.
Cricket Tragic Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 everybody loves to be nostalgic, it makes you feel warm and fuzzy. The generation who grew up watching Sehwag, Gilchrist, Gayle, and co will consider them the most exciting batsman to watch ever. In 10 or 20 years time the same generation will say there is no one like the greats of Sehwag or Gayle to play the game. When I started watching cricket about 8 years ago, I thought Ponting was an all-time great and Lara was over-rated, because every-time I followed Lara he failed more often than not. Yet people keep banging on about the Legend of "Lara". What I have witnessed in my time, Ponting and Tendulkar are ahead of Lara. And the game evolves, especially in terms of technology where every weakness/strength is magnified. Thicker bats, influence of one day game in Tests, introduction of T20, neutral umpires, etc. And things will continue to evolve, and people's perception of greats will change. As an Indian, 2011 was the best period of cricket in terms quality, popularity, and number of cricket greats playing the game. :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
jairamesh Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 So I guess Trott is your cup of tea for "exciting" batsman.
Cricket Tragic Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 Gayle is NOT a "great" player. Not even close. What is with the ridiculous Gayle hype on this forum recently? I've started thinking that he is better than Lara and Sobers.
jairamesh Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 Gayle is NOT a "great" player. Not even close. What is with the ridiculous Gayle hype on this forum recently? I've started thinking that he is better than Lara and Sobers. To you, Lara and Sobers were great. To me I have never seen this Sobers play, and Lara was disappointing when I watched him. Another important factor is success in the shorter format (i.e. ODIs) is now days (well over the last 15 odd years) a significant barometer, as so much one day cricket is being played. Simple litmus test is observe the crowds at ODIs vs Test matches. At the end of the day cricket is game for spectators not pundits.
Cricket Tragic Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 To you, Lara and Sobers were great. To me I have never seen this Sobers play, and Lara was disappointing when I watched him. Another important factor is success in the shorter format (i.e. ODIs) is now days (well over the last 15 odd years) a significant barometer, as so much one day cricket is being played. Simple litmus test is observe the crowds at ODIs vs Test matches. At the end of the day cricket is game for spectators not pundits. You could watch old videos. Lara is not too hard to find. I'm not going to get into a debate trying to prove Lara's greatness. It's absurd. In any case, you have examples of great players from this generation. Gayle is not one of them and will never be one. Success at test cricket is what counts first and foremost. Would you rate Yuvraj as a greater player than VVS Laxman? For the bold bit--->Please look at Gayle's ODI record minus Canada, Kenya, Zimbabwe, UAE, Afghanistan and Uganda. Ultimate minnow basher.
jairamesh Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 You could watch old videos. Lara is not too hard to find. I'm not going to get into a debate trying to prove Lara's greatness. It's absurd. In any case, you have examples of great players from this generation. Gayle is not one of them and will never be one. Success at test cricket is what counts first and foremost. Would you rate Yuvraj as a greater player than VVS Laxman? For the bold bit--->Please look at Gayle's ODI record minus Canada, Kenya, Zimbabwe, UAE, Afghanistan and Uganda. Ultimate minnow basher. You will be surprised to find the answer unequivocally yes, Yuvraj is greater and better than Laxman based on how many turn out to watch ODIs and Yuvraj at the stadiums alone, excluding via TV. My mother and mama (her brother) will remember Yuvraj thru life even before 2011 WC, and yet the only Laxman they know comes from Ramayan. 99.9999% of crickets fans are not your average ICFers. I personally think, no. Laxman is greater. But I also think Gayle is great in his own right, because I don't count success at Test as the only barometer for greatness. If Test was the only barometer, then why do we obsess so much over ODI World Cup.
Cricket Tragic Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 You will be surprised to find the answer unequivocally yes' date= Yuvraj is greater and better than Laxman based on how many turn out to watch ODIs and Yuvraj at the stadiums alone, excluding via TV. My mother and mama (her brother) will remember Yuvraj thru life even before 2011 WC, and yet the only Laxman they know comes from Ramayan. 99.9999% of crickets fans are not your average ICFers. I personally think, no. Laxman is greater. But I also think Gayle is great in his own right, because I don't count success at Test as the only barometer for greatness. If Test was the only barometer, then why do we obsess so much over ODI World Cup. 1) :facepalm: 2) Gayle is a minnow basher in ODIs. I told you to check his record.
jairamesh Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 2) Gayle is a minnow basher in ODIs. I told you to check his record. 34 vs Aus, Eng, Ind, NZ, Pak, SA, SL. Which is on par with Sehwag and Gilchrist. Overall career for Sehwag is 35, Gilchrist is 35.
Cricket Tragic Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 34 vs Aus, Eng, Ind, NZ, Pak, SA, SL. Which is on par with Sehwag and Gilchrist. Overall career for Sehwag is 35, Gilchrist is 35. :fail: ODIs for them is not their best format and they're rated on tests. Sehwag has been criticised so often for not being a great ODI player and he still has better stats. Gayle has a rubbish average even though ODIs is his format according to you. Compare his stats with great ODI players or players who are awesome in tests and ODIs. A great player with an average of 34. :hysterical: I think that Pathan is greater than Dravid since more people watched him score 28 runs in the circus league match between Mumbai Mugs and Bangalore Bandits than when Dravid made 148at Headingley.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now