Is the present era the worst in Test Cricket History?

There seems to be too many poor teams at the moment. The stocks of good fast bowling were always receding. The quality of WKs is also abysimal of late. Now even the amount of quality spinners is on the decline. The upcoming generation neither has quality batsmen and bowlers both spin and pace. Pitches everywhere are farked up and most appear to have lost their nature and character. There are just more and more roads being built and despite favourable tracks, batsmen are not consistant [bar a few] even against mediocre bowlers.

Sure there is more result cricket, but somehow the quality of these games doesn't seem to be good. Somehow it doesn't feel as good as the tests of yesteryears. The charm seems to have vanished.

There used to be a time when most team had quality players who were discussed passionately. Now it seems most here crib about some crap player or the other in the team.

Is test cricket going through it's worst times atm? Does it feel like the standards are falling rapidly and test cricket may take some time before quality players and cricket rises again? Does seeing some teams and players give you the feeling of a disappointing kind of a deja vu to the rest of you as well?

I'd say the late 70s and early 80s weren't too flash because of all the bannings due to Packer and unofficial tours to South Africa.

Maybe more positivity from so-called Die Hard fans would help the cricketing world.

I think we are in an era of generally carp bowling but there are still top batters about such as SRT, Ponting and KP.

No.

Every age is the worst. And best.

PeterCS wrote:No.

Every age is the worst. And best.

I agree, you can't expect greatness in every match. The reasoning behind this supposed "worst" era in test cricket could well be down to the heavy schedule players carry these days. However, from watching tests in the Past 6 months, I believe it's had everything Test Cricket has to offer and then some.


Worst can also be best as, sometimes it's interesting to debate flat pitches, if every pitch was bouncey and spinny then we would never be able to complain!

As for the lack of player Quality, we're judging young players too early. I'm sure a lot of people judged Warne and McGrath and the like before they became greats of the game. I also reckon most Indians wrote off SRT after his first test.

I hate to admit it but i've been losing interest in cricket and it has a lot to do with the quality of players and mamoth run scoring that has become a norm. Plus there aren't many players i'd go out of my way to watch as before, maybe KP and Gayle and that's all.

But if the bowling improved, wouldn't Christle and Kev struggle more?

Hmm not sure but there are bowlers out there with potential but the crap pitches don't let them prosper.

There was a time when countries didn't even play tests every year, but when they did, it was a huge event. The selection or non-selection of a player for a series could well influence his entire career. Perhaps people were more passionate about games and players then - but they also had to endure long droughts in which nothing much happened cricketwise.

What happened to the days when 350 was a good score in test cricket and 220 was a good score in ODI's?

It's a matter of perspective really

I remember the days when the prevailing view was that the West Indies sides of the 70's and 80's were destroying cricket with their slow over rates and six bouncers per over.

The generally positive batting approach most teams have favoured this decade has certainly improved entertainment value and increased the amount of results. However that's now being undermined by lifeless pitches and a poor crop of bowlers, although we've seen 6 results out of 6 in the recent Aus-SA double header I can see the draw making a big comeback in the next few years unless something is done, with more series like WI-Eng which basically featured two dramatic last day rearguard actions and one spectacular collapse but had little else to recommend it.

There's not many bowlers you would pay to watch these days, and with the rise and rise of the shorter formats it may well stay that way. I don't think it's been a bad decade for Test cricket as a spectacle, there's been plenty of classic series, but action is needed to maintain standards and keep people watching.

Maybe, its because its a fair while ago now but when I started watching test cricket in the mid 80's it seemed every run had to be earned.

Or maybe that's because I was watching England!

PeterCS wrote:But if the bowling improved, wouldn't Christle and Kev struggle more?

KP averages 50 in ten tests against sides with TGM/tgm in them.

I agree - all dem player-haters getting on the back of my KP wants them brains shooting out. He's not just the ****** man, he is MAN. There is no-one else like him, he is the energy that set off the big bang and ultimately led to all we see around us. He created the game of cricket and then came back to play it, just to see if he could. He is the ultimate grandfather complex in that he was the creator, the protagonist, and is now the main man. So yeah, my man THE KP doesn't have to listen to your shit about how he wouldn't do this or that if he was playing in other eras. You say that to his face and watch how a stony glare turns you into little bloody dollops of goo on the ground. He is that powerful. He is so powerful that he made Chuck Norris apologise.

EDIT: F*ck me, when did I get to 2000 posts? F**k me I am f**king sad like the rest of you f**ks. It was only a few months ago I brought up 1k. F**king f**k me.

Nothing worse than a man in denial...

Makaveli wrote:What happened to the days when 350 was a good score in test cricket and 220 was a good score in ODI's?

DK, Mikey, Bird, Maco, Amby, Cuddy, Paddles & Immo retired.

Rob I wrote:

Makaveli wrote:What happened to the days when 350 was a good score in test cricket and 220 was a good score in ODI's?

DK, Mikey, Bird, Maco, Amby, Cuddy, Paddles & Immo retired.

And batsmen realised after about a century that blocking out ball after ball and scoring at 2 an over wasn't the best way to win Test matches...

Either that or they suddenly found the amount of pies dished up in their direction rather to their liking...

Attacking cricket came before all the good bowlers retired, though. Steve Waugh's Australian side were largely credited with changing the way Test cricket was played.

beamer wrote:Attacking cricket came before all the good bowlers retired, though. Steve Waugh's Australian side were largely credited with changing the way Test cricket was played.

True in that it's a myth that the Aussies always play attacking cricket. When the bowling is good and the pitch challenging, our run-rate understandably can drop alarmingly.

Batsmen will never be super consistent while they go out with the sort of attacking mentality that wasn't characteristic of earlier eras, regardless of the quality of the bowling.

There are too many crap teams around but isn't it more interesting to have a variety of teams than the very early days when there were only two or three teams. And there were periods after the war when England was decimated that the standard of the teams wasn't particularly great. There was also the fifties when the scoring rate was said to be funereal and watching certain players bat could be a cure for insomnia.

thing with comparing the current with the past is that you always remember the best bits about the past decades, but are not so benevolent to the present. the 80s and 90s had some great cricket, but there were also loads of extremely boring matches and series and some very ordinary cricketers

the bowling, esp pace bowling has certainly not been as good in this decade, but the matches are a whole lot more interesting than many of the days gone by

except in banindia there seem to be more results...this despite the creation of flat tracks

horace wrote:except in banindia there seem to be more results...this despite the creation of flat tracks

Care to back it up with stats and compare it with other cricket team results? lets see since 2000 when Ganguly took over results in India [Win-Loss Conutry against Draws]:

2-1 Aus
2-0 Zim
1-0 Eng 2
1-0 Zim 1
1-1 Pak 1
0-0 NZ 2
1-2 Aus 1 [Rained Draw]
1-0 SA 1
1-1 SA 1
2-0 Aus 2 [1 to Bad light]
2-0 WI 1
1-1 Eng 1
1-0 Eng 1 [1 to bad light and rains reducing lot of playtime]
2-0 SL 1[Rained Draw]
1-0 Pak 2

There have been 25 results and 17 draws. 2 of these were rained off. 2 were where weather and light forced early finish. So 13 to count. Out of these the 3 tests against Pak were drawn due to good fightback from Pak players like YK and Misbah. Nothing to do with Pitch. Zim drew one largely to Andy Flower's marathon batting. The 1-1 result against England was fair and India drew 1-0 earlier thanks to Hussain's famous Giles strategy. Barring 2 or 3 tests played on flat tracks the rest were quality draws with the visiting team playing exceptionally well or playing negatively for draws as strategy. A lot of the draws were a result of some crap bowling on both sides where some team couldn't finish the job [eg. the last home series against Pak where we couldn't or the 2 tests against Kiwis were both sides could have won a test each but faced stiff resistance in second innings]. The draws seem a bit more only because when you compare home records of other teams like WI, NZ etc. where so many of them show no fight and fold up and hand out early results.

I see you have nothing to say to the amount of home draws Eng and Pak have been churning out. At least 6 of the last 7 tests at Lords have had no results for instance. At least 4/5 home tests against India/SL in Pak were on timeless pitches leading to massive runmaking yawns to mention a few. WI played 5 tests against England last month and 4 against India 2 years back and yet in 9 tests [barring the Antigua fiasco] there were just 2 results and 6 draws!!!. India certainly doesn't prepare such timeless test tracks. Since 2000 India has played 8 tests in Aus and 3 were draws. Aus has played 11 tests in India and yet there were 3 draws only. So should I use this lop sided stat to claim that India gets more result matches at home against Aus than Aus at home against India? You should first check the stats overall, compare them with results of other teams and then back it up here before blaming India for draws.