Was test cricket at it's best in

the mid to late 60's?

At that time we had strong SA, Aus, WI and Eng teams.

No - the cricket was as boring as batshit.

Best in the 70s and 90s and if you believe the books, in the decade before WWI.

For me, the era I would have loved to have seen was the 30s.

early 90s was fantastic.

Strong SA too

90s. some very strong teams and also very 'distinctive' teams. nowadays there is a sameness about a lot of teams. and pitches

JGK wrote:No - the cricket was as boring as batshit.

Well we had Pollock, Richards, Barlow and Lindsay. They weren't exactly boring batsmen.

WI would have had Sobers with Griffiths and Hall.

I would agree with 90's. Even domestic cricket was exciting then.

Check out the run rates for most of themid - late sixties.

Dull.

Bradman wrote:Check out the run rates for most of themid - late sixties.

Dull.

Maybe because the teams were stronger?

Don't know what it was, maybe it just was. Personally I'd go for '70s thru to mid eighties including WSC.

taipan wrote:

Bradman wrote:Check out the run rates for most of themid - late sixties.

Dull.

Maybe because the teams were stronger?

Hangover from the 60s.

For every Sobers and Polly (who didn't play many tests) there was a couple of Bill Lawrys and Geoff Boycotts.

No great spinners or many great quicks either - esp in the late 60s.

JGK wrote:

taipan wrote:

Bradman wrote:Check out the run rates for most of themid - late sixties.

Dull.

Maybe because the teams were stronger?

Hangover from the 60s.

For every Sobers and Polly (who didn't play many tests) there was a couple of Bill Lawrys and Geoff Boycotts.

No great spinners or many great quicks either - esp in the late 60s.

Trueman, Griffiths, Hall, Procter.

Gibbs, Underwood.

JGK wrote:No - the cricket was as boring as batshit.

Sage

WideWally wrote:

JGK wrote:No - the cricket was as boring as batshit.

Sage

So you didn't enjoy the tied test.

I can understand you not ejoying the 2 Aus tours to SA.

taipan wrote:

JGK wrote:

taipan wrote:

Bradman wrote:Check out the run rates for most of themid - late sixties.

Dull.

Maybe because the teams were stronger?

Hangover from the 60s.

For every Sobers and Polly (who didn't play many tests) there was a couple of Bill Lawrys and Geoff Boycotts.

No great spinners or many great quicks either - esp in the late 60s.

Trueman, Griffiths, Hall, Procter.

Gibbs, Underwood.

Can you list the S.A squad that thrashed Lawry's team after the boat trip from England. My Grandad in law says they were the greatest up with the invincibles even.

I saw tapes of Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock in the OD game that Vautin took that great catch. The one that had audio. I couldn't believe how good those two were for their age.

Para Batsman wrote:

taipan wrote:

JGK wrote:

taipan wrote:

Bradman wrote:Check out the run rates for most of themid - late sixties.

Dull.

Maybe because the teams were stronger?

Hangover from the 60s.

For every Sobers and Polly (who didn't play many tests) there was a couple of Bill Lawrys and Geoff Boycotts.

No great spinners or many great quicks either - esp in the late 60s.

Trueman, Griffiths, Hall, Procter.

Gibbs, Underwood.

Can you list the S.A squad that thrashed Lawry's team after the boat trip from England. My Grandad in law says they were the greatest up with the invincibles even.

I saw tapes of Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock in the OD game that Vautin took that great catch. The one that had audio. I couldn't believe how good those two were for their age.

The team for the last test.

BA Richards
EJ Barlow
A Bacher
RG Pollock
BL Irvine
DT Lindsay
HR Lance
MJ Procter
PM Pollock
PHJ Trimborn
AJ Traicos

taipan wrote:

WideWally wrote:

JGK wrote:No - the cricket was as boring as batshit.

Sage

So you didn't enjoy the tied test.

I can understand you not ejoying the 2 Aus tours to SA.

The tied test was in 1960/61, not the "mid to late sixties".

The tours of South Africa were not telecast & the one in 1966/67 occurred before I developed an interest in the game.

True, but the conversation was veering to a comparision of decades.

And I am pretty sure none of us saw cricket in the 30's.

The Tied test series was very much the exception. Benaud practically quit out of boredom following a dreary Ashes series a couple of years later.

There were plenty of fine to great players but that doesn't make the overall cricket good.

90s- No doubt about it.

1999 in particular was fantastic and the BEST year of cricket that i have ever seen.

PlanetPakistan wrote:90s- No doubt about it.

1999 in particular was fantastic and the BEST year of cricket that i have ever seen.

What happened in test cricket to make '99 so great?

PlanetPakistan wrote:90s- No doubt about it.

1999 in particular was fantastic and the BEST year of cricket that i have ever seen.

Probably because you know nothing about cricket pre 1990

PlanetPakistan wrote:90s- No doubt about it.

1999 in particular was fantastic and the BEST year of cricket that i have ever seen.

two of the greatest series of the last decade or two, a pretty good world cup (bar the final) and fantastic individual performances. yeah, 1999 was a gem

From the perspective of English Cricket the 60s were the last great decade. Many of the legendary names were still playing and a few new ones appeared. It wasn't obvious at the time but the production line was drying up.

It is my favourite decade of those i've watched but this is partly because it was the first, partly because England were still assumed to be near the top of the tree and partly because the West Indies tours in 63 and 66 were so entertaining.

Thinking on a global basis the 60s were still a period of development for several countries and Australia was generally a bit below its normal standard.

The 70s and 80s lacked great spin bowlers but this was compensated for by the incredible quality of the fast bowling.

The 90s had a good balance between spin/fast bowling and batting but against this, England had their worst decade ever.

The current decade has seen a steady decline of bowling. There is still one year to go by i suspect i won't look upon it with great affection in years to come.

Run rates are a minor factor IMO. The defensive skills of Boycott, Gavaskar and Lawry provided huge entertainment in thenmselves.

I think it is hard to go past the 90s. Great batsmen in Richards, Border, Javed finished their careers, for others like Waugh, SRT and Lara it was their peaks. Add in Ponting, Kallis, Dravid, Sanga, Inzi etc at the start of their careers. Also, the number of fine to great fast bowlers was spread far more widely than earlier eras with McGrath in Aust, Donald for Saf, Amby and Walsh for WI, W+W for Pak all well supported by the likes of McDermott, Fleming, REiffel, Bishop, Pollock, de Villiers, Gough, Fraser, Srinath etc.

And Warne, Murali*, Kumble, Mustaq Ahmed, Saqlain were all at their peaks as well.

JGK wrote:I think it is hard to go past the 90s. Great batsmen in Richards, Border, Javed finished their careers, for others like Waugh, SRT and Lara it was their peaks. Add in Ponting, Kallis, Dravid, Sanga, Inzi etc at the start of their careers. Also, the number of fine to great fast bowlers was spread far more widely than earlier eras with McGrath in Aust, Donald for Saf, Amby and Walsh for WI, W+W for Pak all well supported by the likes of McDermott, Fleming, REiffel, Bishop, Pollock, de Villiers, Gough, Fraser, Srinath etc.

And Warne, Murali*, Kumble, Mustaq Ahmed, Saqlain were all at their peaks as well.

Good post just 3 corrections about the S Lankans
1- Sanga started his career in 2000
2-De Silva should be there as well, he was awesome
3- Murali is not Murali*