marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Right, and seeing as the first ODI took place in 1971, that does kind of negate every single thing you've said about ODIs being incomparable...
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Saqlain Mushtaq, The most under-rated ODI bowler ever?
- Thread starter rodzilla1010
- Start date
nightprowler10
Global Moderator
I disagree. For me anything post 1999 (Aussie WC win) is modern era in ODIs. The '90s were quite different in terms of quality of pitches and bowlers. And no one team was completely dominant.
nightprowler10
Global Moderator
I don't think you can distinguish an era based on colored clothing but rather the way the game is played.
nightprowler10
Global Moderator
I think we may be talking about different things here. I believe you are referring to the rules of the game, whereas I am splitting up the 90's from now based on the totals being put up and chased down and the fact that since the end of the last decade its pretty much been Australian rule. I might be wrong in saying this but IMO the mentality of the average ODI cricketer has changed somewhat in the past few years as compared to the '90s partially due to the advent of Twenty20 cricket.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
The Twenty20 effect is vastly overdone, it can't possibly have had any effect on international cricket yet. Malachy Loye is the only one to play shots designed for Twenty20 in ODIs to date, and he hasn't exactly been a rip-roaring success.
As for bigger totals, that's mostly just down to the fact that there are loads of rubbish bowlers around at the moment. It happens. Same thing's happening in Tests too. Once we get some better bowlers, totals will start coming down again.
Australian rule is just because of other teams being rubbish, too.
Such things don't, to me, mean ODI cricket in 2003 was any different to 1997.
As for bigger totals, that's mostly just down to the fact that there are loads of rubbish bowlers around at the moment. It happens. Same thing's happening in Tests too. Once we get some better bowlers, totals will start coming down again.
Australian rule is just because of other teams being rubbish, too.
Such things don't, to me, mean ODI cricket in 2003 was any different to 1997.
nightprowler10
Global Moderator
How else would you define eras then? In basketball, the 90s were somewhat defined as an era in itself due to the way Chicago dominated teams. I think defining the last few years of cricket as the Australian era wouldn't be too far off the mark. After all, some of the best moments in both forms of the game have come at the expense of the unbeatable Aussies. The 90's were different due to the fact that the teams had a lot more quality spread even amongst them and things were just so much different than ODI cricket today, and a hell of a lot less predictable.
nightprowler10
Global Moderator
The predictable comment wasn't to define eras tbh. Ignored the rest?Less predictable, but I don't go eras by predictable, I go by what the game was!
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Richard...you don't have to always be right. I hope you get over this insecurity about having to be right. But trust me, it makes you look the worse for it. Get over it before you get married because in those arguments - even if you are right - you won't win.
