Now we are starting to include the entertaining comments.

The windies v Australia, with lillee, Marsh, Sobers, Courtney Walsh didn't do anything for Test Cricket before the 90's.



One Hit Wonders, well it was a tongue and cheek comment, but thats because the Ashes victory lifted my expectations of England and how they are seeking to become the best nation in the world...

I now have severe doubts on the mental toughness away from England...

One test series can change a huge perception of a test cricketing nation.

i don't know if test cricket was ever in 50 year slump - maybe a 10 year slump around and after World Series Cricket - and only a maybe... but true, if Australia of the 90s hadn't come along a slump may have prolonged...
And there is nothing wrong with subcontinent pitches... they are just different. What was wrong with the standard of cricket just seen between Pak and Eng?. And what about Ind vs Aus in 2001 and 2004? - or SL vs WI (BC Lara more like it that series) in 2001- that 2001 Ind vs Aus series remains the best, most exciting cricket i have ever seen - slightly ahead of the 2005 Ashes. And if it wasn't for a washed out 5th day in Chennai for the 3rd test in 2004 Ind vs Aus series, Australia still probably wouldn't have won a series in India for 30+ years!

Tonic we have probably mis-interpreted Swede...if previous experience is anything to go by, he couldn't have possibly said that Australia v Windies of the 70's early 80's was not a good era for Test Cricket...

Poor Kiwis. So close yet so far. They revived the series though. I think the Chappell Hadlee Trophy has legs. I think it will be a successful initiative.

Test cricket certainly was in a slump befotre the 1990s. But it wasn't 50 years old. Cricket was going gangbusters before WSC started - this expanding pie and lack of renumeration caused a lot of that unrest.

The one day phenomenon did put Tests on te backburner for a long time. Look at Test match attendances during the 1980s and early 1990s. The Australians took chances in Test cricket. They were not content with draws. Other sides have followed into line.

The reasons for the poor attendances on the subcontinent are varied. My best mate is Indian and he just got back from there. He offered me his two cents.

SQ x TP + SMC = SC.

Stadium Quality and Ticket Prices plus Sensational Media Coverage = Shithouse crowds.

1) Stadium Quality is terrible. Considering how much revenue the BCCI hasm the least it could do would be upgrade their facilities. Peter Roebuck said that you wouldn't take women and children to some venues.

2) Ticket prices are about the same for a Test match in Sydney. In other words, you would pay upwards of $30AUD. Convert that into rupees and it is a significant chunk of the average weekly wage, even for India's expanding middle class. So when you do go to games you have to be choosy. One dayers are more attractive because you see the whole game.

3) Media coverage is amazing. If you have pay TV, cricket could be on up to 3 channels. My mate saw the Aussies v Windies Tests, the England v Pakistan Tests and India's one dayers. Women's cricket is even televised there.

I will correct myself, not a 50-year slump but a 70-year slump.

There are, of course, highlights inside a long term slump and yes the windies in the 80´s were no doubt such a highlight as they went non-stop for the batsmens´ heads with their 4 pace men and no spinner. But to me that just proves how low cricket had sunk that you had to play like that to unsettle the batsmen. Their tactics are actually illegal today so it was hardly all that great, but they unsettled the batsmen and that it was cricket has needed for so long.

You need wickets and a bat-ball balance that forces batters to go for runs because if they just block all the time they will eventually get out, better make some runs first. when you have that then both ball and bat have to attack when overs arent limited. That balance disappeared a long time ago but has come back.
For almost 70 years batters have basically set out trying to bat for some 200 overs to get a big total as slowly as possible in order to secure a draw with a shot at winning. had tests been expanded to 6-7-8 days it would probably had become even slower, because batsmen were in control.


After England had scored more than 900 runs in their first innings at the oval in 1938 (and actually declared in a timeless match, presumably in order not to bore themselves to death) Bradman wrote as an opinion to the question of lengthening matches that its about pitches not days. Matches should essentially be played in timeless sense but would with the right conditions always finish inside 3-4 days.

He wrote that in 1938 but I would say it never really came about until the 1990´s as a result of batters improving their capabilities to score run ( through ODI-cricket) meaning the run rate increased considerably while they were still likely to get out on proper pitches. this changed the logic. better score some runs before you get out.
The last ashes were fought with that timeless approach. the entire ashes run rate was above 4, double that from the 60´s while the duration of matches fell considerably. there were no wars of attrition with 200+ over declared innings. day 5 was essentially a reserve day for bad weather. Both teams attacked because they thought it was the best way to get the most runs. Thats how cricket should be played and was originally always played.

100 years ago all cricket was timeless, even english school games were timeless. It was as natural as not having a time limit on tennis matches.
(county cricket did have a 3-day limit for practical reasons but really only the weather would cause draws)
Limitting the overs would have been considered insanity then as it would appear obvious that this would make the game defensive. That logic will come back if the ashes were a sign of cricket in the future. ODIs cannot live alongside that kind of game.

As for (non)attendances in Pakistan, it has little to do with prices. Apparently prices were severly cut for last years tests with India and crowds of less than 2,000 followed.
The England-series were far better attended with the same stadium now getting 8,000 but that was still only 25% of capacity and no doubt only because pakistan now give most tickets away for free.

The same venue hosted the pakistani 2020 final and sold out with 5-10,000 locked outside.

As for whats wrong with pitches in pakistan.
they favour the bat too much, while to some degree also stifling run-scoring with the ball not coming on to the bat. what they really favour is a batsman who just wants to stay there for a long time scoring slowly.

England bowled very well in the series especially in the beginning getting pakistan out for very low scores in the first game on a dead pitch. In a way England set up the pakistan win in that game because the impressive bowling meant there was time for England to collapse in the fourth innings chasing a low target with what was ridiculous batting on this surface.

England dont have the ability to patiently build long slow innings were the comment from some former england boring batters-turned coloumnists. Thats true but for the sake of cricket I just hope that skill does not become too important again. I never understood this idea that some have about test cricket that it has to be about batting "properly" building long innings etc.

These pitches are not a problem for England but for Pakistan. they are the ones who have to play on these pitches all the time and its damaging test cricket.

You’re dead right Swede, cricket had been on its knees well before and up to the commencement World Series Cricket in the 70’s. Captains like Bill Lawry and co didn’t seem to help the game’s case either! Constant stories of him refusing to declare when his side had a 700 run lead in the final innings make you realise how painfully poor the viewing of cricket could be in those days.

As for England in Pakistan, after watching it I realised they were probably always going to struggle to dominate the Paki’s mainly due to their bowling attack, the pitches over there make their bowling much much easier to face while they do not have a decent spinner that can be damaging on those pitches. Therefore they needed to make a lot of runs cos they were always going to be chasing big totals which they also weren’t able to do.

I don’t think the pitches are that bad on the sub-continent, sure it can be horrendous for fast bowlers and have average viewing, bit I think it is good to have different pitches around the world, plus it could be impossible to change because of the soil over there (their technology that is used in pitch preparation could do with a major upgrade though which could bring more life to the pitches).

Your basis for 50 years or 70 year slump can not be verified because your comment is totally controversial and most would not agree...to say that the Indies were hardly great because they used tactics that are now illegal...well i have heard it all.

Not saying there wasn't a slump, but saying 50-70 years is a little steep.

I did not say the windies in the 80´s werent great. They were one of the all-time top sides. I said the game wasnt great then and its sad that the west indies did not have to show their full potential in a more positive way. I doubt many would disagree.

of course the slump is just my opinion, though its pretty much shared with the general opinion throughout all these years. There is probably a reason why the pre 1914 era is reffered to as the golden age of cricket.

I just like batters to attack in games without limited overs. simple. And I would claim that hasnt generally happened for a very long time, though its hard to verify by referring to specific figures rather a combination of different facts.

What is more relevant is that if I am right there has been a mega slump, now left behind, then cricket should enter a great era now and I think it is.
sadly the current era has been affected by a lot of forced cricket between unevenly matched sides but as soon as Australia are in a real battle what happens? fantastic cricket is what happens.
If virtually every competitive test match is referred to as an epic, that shows the huge potential of this game.

Yes England`s attack is easier to face in pakistan which is why its not really good when pakistan score slower against it than Australia did in more difficult conditions. But its probably the way to play there.

Of course pitches shouldnt be the same, but the worst should go and I think they have done a lot about this in India.
Most people follow their home series far closer than their away series and it cant be fun to always see cricket on that kind of pitches even if doesnt always end in a draw as it once did.

Yes there seems to have been a lot of amazing cricket back then. I particularly admired an ashes scorecard from the 60´s where first Australia batted some 250 overs slowly and then England bat 300 overs even slower until the end of the last day where it ends in the obvious draw.
With modern 90 over days that would have meant they would have finished the first innings on a 7th day and all those thousands of balls bowled in the knowledge that anything but a draw would be a miracle.

Body Line, 1945 Invinceables, Bradman?

In our country this is celebrated as the most glorious era for cricket with battles between Australia and England fierce tight and controversial...I see you haven't mentioned the illegal tactics of the Poms during this period...

Also what about the hype and the passion that enveloped between Australia and New Zealand when Chappel ordered an underarm ball to be thrown in a one dayer...

Sorry your whole argument has been totally lost on me by some of the comments you have made...but thats not unusual with debates between you and me.

I don't befuckinglieve it!

Barring the first game, what a great series. Does it have to end?

Game 3 was amazing NZ never looked like winning even with 3 overs left

And now we have another 300+ run chase that looks well and truly on in the Pakistan - England ODI.

What the hell are you doing watching the cricket? Walker is on fox8 and he's about to cane the sh*t out of 10 guys!