Would a combined India/Pakistan have dominated cricket?

[Line and Length]

Of course, but pretending you know the history of a country better than those countrymen is not a fault of the history lessons and curriculum, I presume.

True.

 

[Teja.]

The Indian history thing is inaccurate or at least a gross oversimplification.

Leaving aside the fact that most of India + Pakistan + Afghanistan were part of a greater Indian empire for hundreds of years several times in in history, even in cases there were seperate distinct kingdoms under the Indian landmass, they shared strong customary and legal relationships and saw themeselves as people and a country with the populations in the other indian kingdoms. This was recognised both by the inhabitants of India as well as other coutnries outside India which saw India as a country.

There are literally dozens of historical sources over 2000 years old both from the Indian perspective as well as from the perspective of visitors affirming this.

A nation does not have to be a nation state to exist.

"India was just a land" is an incredibly braindead take. If you want a nuanced understanding on the whole situation, there is no other way to immerse yourself for a decently amount of time into Indian history. I can recommend resources but all of them will be lengthy and am pretty sure the people giving takes like that have zero interest into delving into history before 1920 anyway.

 

[Teja.]

His points are completely accurate though. The British did unite a whole bunch of princely states under one umbrella and formed a United India.

Just because the land was there for thousands of years doesn't mean much.

JFC.

 

[ankitj]

Check out existence of Hindu chaar dhaam (4 holy pilgrims) spread across all 4 corners of India. Check out Shakti Peeths spread across the subcontinent including present day India, Bangladesh, Nepal and even Sri Lanka. A concept of renouncing travel to foreign lands existed in Indian religions for millennia and foreign lands were defined as roughly those outside of Indian subcontinent (someone can help me with reference for this or counter it).

So all those elements of a shared civilization existed for thousands of years. The "state" part of nation state didn't exist but then that didn't exist almost anywhere in the world just a few centuries ago and is also irrelevant because consciousness of a shared civilization has existed for long though.

 

[Daemon]

So erm, for overseas tests would you pick Jadeja or Ashwin? I'd normally lean Jadeja but you already have Shakib in the side.

 

[ankitj]

So erm, for overseas tests would you pick Jadeja or Ashwin? I'd normally lean Jadeja but you already have Shakib in the side.

Wrong thread

 

[_00_deathscar]

So erm, for overseas tests would you pick Jadeja or Ashwin? I'd normally lean Jadeja but you already have Shakib in the side.

If you asked 3-4 years ago it was Ashwin. Since then, and not just on form, Jadeja. They're both not great outside the subcontinent and both just as good at home (albeit Ashwin's 'peak' is maybe greater) so it comes down to who is the better all-rounder, and that's Jadeja by a distance.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Maybe this is the right thread for it - and we know Siddhu was a bit of a downhill skier (and an irritating commentator) and that Azhar maybe was a cheat (TBD?), but I'm surprised their averages for the 90s are so close (Siddhu is ahead).

Always used to see Azhar as maybe not elite/ATG/world class level batsmen (certainly potentially/talent wise) but definitely a bloody good player and far better than Siddhu.

 

[TheJediBrah]

If the brits never invaded all these places then no one esle would really play cricket, if I have my history correct? County cricket would be the peak of the game, like the NBA is for basketball, but probably much less popular.

Thank goodness for colonialism amirite?

 

[stephen]

Just because some of the results turn out beneficial doesn't mean the entire process is positive. It's like getting a wicket off a tank full toss - it's a wicket but it doesn't mean you bowled well.

 

[smash84]

It's as if Ashoka doesn't exist and the land hasn't been referred to as one since the pre-historic times.



Smali - If the britishers united it? Why exactly was there a need for checking with the princely states whether they wanted to join India , Pakistan or remain independent once they left? And why exactly was there a need for that permission to be taken from about 500 of such states? Weren't they like united already? I am not saying the land was there for thousands of years, of course it has been there like practically all other land, I am saying culturally there has always been a binding thread in the country. At least till before the Religious divisions happened. The only thing Britishers did was *divide* India, not break it,

My point is that the British united it for political administration. If they hadn't come along there would be no combined India Pakistan cricketing 11. I wasn't talking about cultural dimensions of the country at all.

 

[cricketsavant]

Ok, back to the cricket. This question really depends on the time period we're looking at but if we go with the 80s and 90s then yes, I can see it as a side challenging the Windies closest, better than even Khan's Pakistan and probably better than the Aussies of the late 90s/early 00s.

Imagine a side with Khan, Wasim, Waqar, Tendulkar, Kumble and co. Imagine an ODI side fielded in the 1999 WC...that would be something. Or a test side fielded in the 80s with two top 10 all rounded, several world class batsmen, outstanding pace men and a great spinner or two.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Just because some of the results turn out beneficial doesn't mean the entire process is positive. It's like getting a wicket off a tank full toss - it's a wicket but it doesn't mean you bowled well.

it was a joke