Rises and falls of cricket teams.

[Migara]

Gilchrist however, just made that team unfair as someone once put it.

That was because Pakistanis were idiots. They had two top class seam bowling all rounders in Razzaq and Mahmood, and should have played them in every test match. that would have given them tremendous depth in batting and bowling, that would have made Autralia's depth not extra ordinary. Actually Pakistan kept producing players that could have easily propelled them to #2 behind Australia, but they hashed it.

 

[subshakerz]

Well yeah. I have made this very point few times before. In my mind 1999 world cup was the switchover point. Before that, as a fan I remember always thinking that Australia were beatable in both formats, while SA felt invincible.

However, there is just something historically symbolic about the 1995 series when Australia defeated the reigning giants in their home and set on a path to become giants themselves.

Nah, once Australia beat WI and McGrath emerged it was clear they were the best test team in the world. They shortly beat their other competition in SA and Pakistan away too in the late nineties and were unbeaten at home.

However, in ODIs, SA were possibly considered a better team than Australia from 96 to until they lost in 99. They did seem unbeatable at times.

 

[ankitj]

Well agree with that too. Australia became extremely good in tests before they did in ODIs. SA did lose to Australia both home and away in the period.

 

[subshakerz]

That was because Pakistanis were idiots. They had two top class seam bowling all rounders in Razzaq and Mahmood, and should have played them in every test match. that would have given them tremendous depth in batting and bowling, that would have made Autralia's depth not extra ordinary. Actually Pakistan kept producing players that could have easily propelled them to #2 behind Australia, but they hashed it.

Neither were particularly good test bowlers.

 

[Sunil1z]

Nah, once Australia beat WI and McGrath emerged it was clear they were the best test team in the world. They shortly beat their other competition in SA and Pakistan away too in the late nineties and were unbeaten at home.

However, in ODIs, SA were possibly considered a better team than Australia from 96 to until they lost in 99. They did seem unbeatable at times.

Being best side in the world and being great side is different thing .
AFAIC if we consider 4 years cycle ( both home + away tour occurs in 4 years ) , there is no difference between achievement of IND 2017-21( till England tour ) and Aus 1995-99 ( till SL tour in July 1999) .

Aus became great only from Pakistan tour onwards ( 1999 Nov)

 

[subshakerz]

Being best side in the world and being great side is different thing .
AFAIC if we consider 4 years cycle ( both home + away tour occurs in 4 years ) , there is no difference between achievement of IND 2017-21( till England tour ) and Aus 1995-99 ( till SL tour in July 1999) .

Aus became great only from Pakistan tour onwards ( 1999 Nov)

The mid 90s WI, Pak and SA teams were very strong tho. Beating all those teams home and away in a short period was a more significant achievement. They also only lost to India away or SL too if you count 99.

India in the meantime have lost four series away, including a NZ whitewash. Yes they beat strong Australia in 21 but overall Australia 95 to 99 in that time are more impressive.

 

[Sunil1z]

The mid 90s WI, Pak and SA teams were very strong tho. Beating all those teams home and away in a short period was a more significant achievement. They also only lost to India away or SL too if you count 99.

India in the meantime have lost four series away, including a NZ whitewash. Yes they beat strong Australia in 21 but overall Australia 95 to 99 in that time are more impressive.

Why I wouldn’t count SL when I have mentioned time till Nov 99 ?

Pak in 95-99 lost at home to SA, AUS, ZIM and SL .
WI in 95-99 were whitewashed in PAK and SA . None of these sides look very good to me .
Both WI and Pak were on decline between 95-99 . So the only very good side that AUS beat away was SA and WI in 95
Ind lost 3 series between 17 to 21 ( ENG, SA, NZ ) and won every other series .

Aus lost 2 Test series between 95 to 99 ( IND, SL ) and also lost a 1 off Test in 96 . They also couldn’t beat WI away in 99

 

[Migara]

Neither were particularly good test bowlers.

Doesn't matter. They had bowlers who were very good, and broken down due over bowling. These two would have been perfect foil to tak off a large number of overs. Issue was they never were strike bowlers. They were very good support bowlers. Both did swing the new ball as well as old ball. Extremely orthodox as well. PCB wanted them to bowl like Wasim and Waqar, instead of a Dominik Cork or a Ryan Sidebottom.

 

[subshakerz]

Doesn't matter. They had bowlers who were very good, and broken down due over bowling. These two would have been perfect foil to tak off a large number of overs. Issue was they never were strike bowlers. They were very good support bowlers. Both did swing the new ball as well as old ball. Extremely orthodox as well. PCB wanted them to bowl like Wasim and Waqar, instead of a Dominik Cork or a Ryan Sidebottom.

Yes true. Pakistan never nurtured non strike bowlers.

 

[subshakerz]

Why I wouldn’t count SL when I have mentioned time till Nov 99 ?

Pak in 95-99 lost at home to SA, AUS, ZIM and SL .
WI in 95-99 were whitewashed in PAK and SA . None of these sides look very good to me .
Both WI and Pak were on decline between 95-99 . So the only very good side that AUS beat away was SA and WI in 95
Ind lost 3 series between 17 to 21 ( ENG, SA, NZ ) and won every other series .

Aus lost 2 Test series between 95 to 99 ( IND, SL ) and also lost a 1 off Test in 96 . They also couldn’t beat WI away in 99

WI until Australia beat them were still a strong team tho. They were favorites heading into that series.

Yeah Pakistan lost quite a bit at home but that wasn't totally because they were a weak team. They lost to SL because Wasim and Waqar opted out of that series. They lost to Zimbabwe because two tests of the series was smogged out. SA was just an awesome effort by Pollock to steal a victory that was Pakistan's, the SA side beat India too, while Australia just outright beat them. It wasn't an easy victory though in that series and Australia earned it.

 

[Sunil1z]

WI until Australia beat them were still a strong team tho. They were favorites heading into that series.

Yeah Pakistan lost quite a bit at home but that wasn't totally because they were a weak team. They lost to SL because Wasim and Waqar opted out of that series. They lost to Zimbabwe because two tests of the series was smogged out. SA was just an awesome effort by Pollock to steal a victory that was Pakistan's, the SA side beat India too, while Australia just outright beat them. It wasn't an easy victory though in that series and Australia earned it.

SL also beat PAK in early 2000 . Pak side were extremely good on paper but were massively under performing after 1995 imo atleast at home.

Similarly WI side in 1995 were extremely strong but by 1999 they had massively declined and it was Lara’s genius which made them draw series against AUS imo considering they had lost 5-0 to SA few months ago .

And yes SA were extremely good in 1995-2000 period which was my original point . So although AUS beat SA home and away , SA were never that far behind AUS till Oct 1999. However once AUS got Gilchrist , they became unstoppable and there was huge gap between no.1 and no.2

 

[subshakerz]

SL also beat PAK in early 2000 . Pak side were extremely good on paper but were massively under performing after 1995 imo atleast at home.

Similarly WI side in 1995 were extremely strong but by 1999 they had massively declined and it was Lara’s genius which made them draw series against AUS imo considering they had lost 5-0 to SA few months ago .

And yes SA were extremely good in 1995-2000 period which was my original point . So although AUS beat SA home and away , SA were never that far behind AUS till Oct 1999. However once AUS got Gilchrist , they became unstoppable and there was huge gap between no.1 and no.2

Point is when Australia beat Pakistan in 98 and WI in 95 away they were still strong teams just before both nosedived. Hence their achievements in that period are quite more impressive to me.

SA lost in England in 98 and lost in India in 96 too which was another reason they were not as highly rated in that period. They were clear no.2 in the world only in the late 90s when Pakistan fell off a cliff and they won in India.

 

[honestbharani]

I think the recent discussion in the other thread has me fearing a certain poster may have now kicked off the decline of another team that looked like championship potential, with Bazball boys, after doing the same with Virat's India.


PS - This was the post that was stuck on my Quick Reply.