Cricket descending into mediocrity?

[Occasional Fan]

Mark Nicholas, clearly with a bit of time on his hands, spreads a bit of Christmas cheer in this morning's Daily Telegraph here. No time to discuss it, I'm afraid. He raises one or two interesting points, but, blimey, I wouldn't want to be at his Christmas party. Have a good one, folks!

[Zainub]

Yawn! Yawn! Yawn! Seems to me that every time top flight cricket journalists run out of ideas to write columns about the bring up the same old "there isn't enough competetion in test cricket" debate.

I don't think cricket has lost as much credibility as Mark "unbearable" Nicholas gloats about. True Australia are very good and Bangladesh lose by big margins, but I'm compelled to beleive his concers that cricket is being allowed to "free fall in mediocricity" are greatly exagerrated. What ever is he trying to imply by saying "Of the major nations, only in India does cricket continue to convince"...what the hell does he mean by that word only...whatever happened to England winning 8 test matches in a row. This whole thing seems to me like a campaign for the exclusion of Bangladesh from test cricket and his anger over the ECB's handling of the whole Zimbabwe thing....

Bangladesh are improving, and sooner or later we'll see them competeting better. They only we they can get better is by playing. We really must be patient. I don't know why there is so much fuss about them. I mean, in the past, most test cricket nations in their early days were beaten comprehensively like this, I doubt journalist in those days gloated on it every other fortnight. And, by the way, is it really Banladesh's fault that they were fast tracked in to playing test cricket ? No. Now that they have been already, we must take a chil pill, and live with the fact there will be some not-so-exiciting test matches involving them.

Pakistan's performance in Perth too to some people (NOT ME!) semed say was a one-off thing. Every one knows we aren't that bad a side as those results suggested. SA? May be they are struggling a bit right now, but that too can't stay the same forever because their younger brigade they have introduced now seem imensly talented, and I'll back them to put SA back on track very soon. Sri Lanka are anything but mediocre right now, they've looked a better collective team now then they have in ages, they've started to win tests away (in Pakistan for instance this year) and win them without Murali. New Zealand, well, they're a bit shot on good seamers, but over all not a bad side, can never be under rated. West Indies are for my money they only team I'd be really concerned about, because not only are they not producing the desired results, but the talent coming through all so to me does not seem like having the goods. Hopefully I'm wrong in that respect too. Collectively, there is too much talent out there in the cricketing world to suggest we're free falling into mediocricity. We'll see how Australia fares against the World XI in the Super Series. That should prove for me how good Australia really are. Because for once they will be facing a team that would be well and truely and indisputedly an even match for them, perhaps may be even stronger than them.

Right now, its a reality that we have to confront with, that Australia are in a very, very good side, may be the best the game has ever seen, I doubt they'd be having nail bitting test matches to cope with every second day even had they playing in another generation. May be only if they'd be playing in the 70s/80s would be they encountered with serious competetions from the great West Indian sides of that era...but in that era to West Indies would have been alone sole contendors to them. You can only have 1 or 2 very, very good sides in each competeion, the rest will always be there or there abouts. Its like that in every sport.

I don't think the gap in b/w Aus and the rest is as big as it is often made out to be. Erne will tell us one hundred million times that Australia are just a team of humans, not Gods. And its not as if they are not beatable, they're just very hard to beat. And despite the fact that in terms of quality there is some gap b/w No. 1 and the rest , there is not a lot of gap b/w those below Aus - if you make a statistical annalysis of the rankings OF, you'll see that apart from Aus, other teams have constantly moved up and down the rankings, with very little to chose b/w them in terms of points - that hardly reflects a lack of competetion. It only reflects that Mark Nicholas is God d*** party pooper who thinks he knows everything there is to know about cricket...Oh, how I dislike him so, very, very much.

And I'm also very fed up of the impression that Australian fans are losing interest in the sport because Aus are so good and the others are so bad. I'm sure they'd not mind a little bit more competetion than winning by 481 runs as they did at Perth last week but quite a lot of those sentiments are too hyped up by the media...and its a big heap of rubbish, that's what it is....tell me, which fan doesn't like to see their side win? Non what so ever. If Pakistan were playing like this I'd be on cloud nice. I'd have no problems with the current situation. And I'm sure that is what is also the case with most Australian cricket followers.

[R W S]

A most excellent post Zainub, the thought you put into it shines through.

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

Bangladesh are improving, and sooner or later we'll see them competeting better. They only we they can get better is by playing. We really must be patient. I don't know why there is so much fuss about them. I mean, in the past, most test cricket nations in their early days were beaten comprehensively like this, I doubt journalist in those days gloated on it every other fortnight.

Originally Posted by Stump Bearders-BBC

Subhash, England

A lot of criticism has been levelled at Bangladesh being given Test status as they have lost 33 and drawn three of their first 36 matches. In relation to each of the Test-playing countries, what was their record before they won a Test match? For example, I understand that West Indies played 46 Tests before winning one. Australia won the inaugural Test, against England at Melbourne in March 1877. Excluding Bangladesh (played 36, lost 33, drawn 3), the results of the other eight teams, in order of appearance and immediately before their first victory, were:
England P 1, L 1;
South Africa P 11, L 10, D1;
West Indies P 5, L 4, D 1 - they won 13 of their first 46 matches, Subhash;
New Zealand P 44, L 22, D 22;
India P 24, L 12, D 12;
Pakistan P 1, L 1;
Sri Lanka P 13, L 8, D 5:
Zimbabwe P 10, L 4, D 6.

[Nikhil]

As usual, I disagree with Mr Nicholas on most of the points. But the following opinion of his has a certain weight and I actually think he has a point. I have echoed similar sentiments on another thread on the India board.

Sachin Tendulkar made his highest score against Bangladesh the other day. Stephen Fleming did so a couple of 
months back but, be assured, both these fine cricketers would rather have their marker elsewhere. Lesser players than 
Tendulkar and Fleming can hide behind performances against these poor teams and begin to believe in them. Their records 
stand up even when they fail against Australia, so they are not motivated to take on the world champions and instead 
collapse, waiting for the horror of it to go away until the next easy ride when they fill their boots again. This is cheating the 
game they play, never mind the rich history they are inheriting.

[R W S]

Nikhil, How about looking at it in another way?? If you swapped Sachin for John Arne Riise and Bangladesh for WBA would you see it the same way?? So Liverpool beating WBA 0-5 away means the black country boys dont deserve to be playing in the same league?? NO, surely not??

There is a wide difference in competence between the best and worst of the ICC Full members - but Full members we all are so the approach should be to improve the overall standard - not cut the weakest - imagine how you would feel if Liverpool were at the bottom of the pile!! They were once.

Originally Posted by Liverpoolfc.tv

When the Football League was founded in 1888, Anfield was one of League's original grounds. On September 8th 1888 the very first Saturday of League football, Anfield welcomed as visitors Accrington to play not against the 'Reds', but the 'Blues' of Everton Football Club.
The blue and white quartered shirts of Everton FC made quite a name for themselves at Anfield winning the League Championship in 1891.

[Zainub]

Originally Posted by Nikhil

As usual, I disagree with Mr Nicholas on most of the points. But the following opinion of his has a certain weight and I actually think he has a point. I have echoed similar sentiments on another thread on the India board.

"Sachin Tendulkar made his highest score against Bangladesh the other day. Stephen Fleming did so a couple of months back but, be assured, both these fine cricketers would rather have their marker elsewhere. Lesser players than Tendulkar and Fleming can hide behind performances against these poor teams and begin to believe in them. Their records stand up even when they fail against Australia, so they are not motivated to take on the world champions and instead collapse, waiting for the horror of it to go away until the next easy ride when they fill their boots again. This is cheating the game they play, never mind the rich history they are inheriting."

Mark Nicholas as I said before too Nikhil was not in his mind when he wrote this article. You don't need any motivation to play test cricket, Steve Waugh use to say that playing for and representing your country was good enough an incentive already. Those players who have good records against B'desh and not so good records against Australia don't usually survive in their own teams for too long. And they perform poorly against the best not because their is a lack of motivation to do so or neither b'cause there is leviage in form of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe to fall back on, but simply because they are either not good enough or are not not delivering to their potential despite having the ability and talent to do well. You can't possibly blame B'desh for that as well. Nicholas is just plain and simple wrong. And he's adamant too on that which makes it all the more annoying.

[Nikhil]

Originally Posted by R W S

Nikhil, How about looking at it in another way?? If you swapped Sachin for John Arne Riise and Bangladesh for WBA would you see it the same way?? So Liverpool beating WBA 0-5 away means the black country boys dont deserve to be playing in the same league?? NO, surely not??

RWS, this is why I like the relegation policy. The teams that do not perform over the course of an entire season make way to others. As for Riise's goal y'day against the Brummies, I have no doubt he will trade those two goals for one strike against Chelski or ManUre. Eventually the quality of opponents matters a lot.

As you would have seen y'day, the Brummies surrendered after the first half. It was a matter of how many we could get and thankfully the lads tucked in. I'm not saying WBA do not deserve to be in the premiership, but they will not be here for the next season. There has to be a level at which one has to compete otherwise the matches become just too dull.

[R W S]

Originally Posted by Nikhil

There has to be a level at which one has to compete otherwise the matches become just too dull.

Fair point - that's why a cup is the place for minnows and giants to compete, and I would support promotion/relegation in the test arena.

PS I hope the reds beat the blues on new years day!

[Nikhil]

Originally Posted by R W S

Fair point - that's why a cup is the place for minnows and giants to compete, and I would support promotion/relegation in the test arena.

PS I hope the reds beat the blues on new years day!

Entirely agree with you on this point. The Carling and FA cup are superb tournaments IMO.

I'm not so sure about the match against the Russians. I better remain pessimist. It helps that way .