I think your analysis and opinion is erred and you explained why by saying that you started watchin in mid-90's when Australia were easily the best. For Australia to be easily the best, you had to have started watching late 1995. Thus, you would have missed out on half the decade! You missed Pakistan being a strong team with Imran,Javed, Waqar and Wasim all firing; You missed the last strong West Indies team who were still arguably the best team in the world until 95; you missed Martin Crowe and New Zealand finally getting self-respect; you missed the steady ascendancy of Sri Lanka and you missed the return of South Africa. Just because India was a one man band up to that point until Dravid started pulling his weight, does not mean that test cricket was boring. It was far from during the 90's. Only when Oz took over, did it seem to decline because of their dominance.

Ashok your primary argument is based on the fact that there are more results now. But there is no doubt that the scoring rate has been the single biggest difference between the two eras, aided no doubt by the quality of bowlers and pitches.
The 90's are still glorious when it comes to outstanding individual performances resulting in unforgettable wins, losses and even draws. There is more to the 90's than just plain nostalgia.

Some very valid points, Ashok. The 90s' decade is unnecessarily romanticised these days. So much so even our much loved editor Sambit questioned recently how Sehwag would have fared back then. Admittedly, the 90s saw some great attacks -- Akram-Younis, Ambrose-Walsh, Donald-Pollock, McGrath-Warne (they continued for the best part of this decade as well). But hasn't this decade seen the great India-Australia series of 2002 and the Ashes of 2005? The Waugh-led Aussie juggernaut too was witnessed in this decade and so were the Aussies' two back-to-back World Cup triumphs (Their 99 win was hard-earned while these were utterly one-sided). If back then, Indian batting was defined by the above average heroics of Tendulkar alone, this decade saw India establish one of the best batting line-ups seen in a long time. Ishant Sharma's spell to Ponting at Perth was right out of the early 80s. Middle orders as weak as Azhar, Jadeja, Robin, Mongia aren't seen now, nor are attacks like Prasad and Raju.

Is your opinion based on India's comparing fortunes from then to now?

The gap may be 6 points, but the gap now fluctuates depending on insipid pitches that inspire boredom than excitement.

Bowling standards was much better a decade ago, and that's what made cricket exciting. Bowlers make test cricket exciting, because they are the ones that ultimately decide results. If you bowl better than your counterparts, more often than not, you'll win.

In the mid 90s, there was Australia, South Africa, a declining (but still strong) West Indies and Pakistan fighting it out.

Today, we have a declining Australia, legitimate number 1 contenders India and South Africa, and minnow-bashing Sri Lanka fighting out for the top prize. Now how exactly is Test cricket better now?

No doubt, cricket is lot more exciting now than it ever was (atleast since I started following in 70s). However, I keep hearing that the quality of cricket is lower and the batsman dominates the bowlers. With all the money pouring in the game now, there simply are better cricketers these days. Also as was pointed out in another article on cricinfo, this is a slight increase (from 36 to 38 runs/wicket) in batting average in 2000s over the 90s. I wouldn't exagerate and term it as 'ludicrously lop-sided'. The kind of shots batsman play these days to score runs (thanks to ODI and twenty20) is simply way superior to what batsmen did in earlier days and at the same time their ability to spend time in the middle isn't compromised - just look at the long innings played by Haydens, Dravids, Sangakaras and even Sehwags in this decades.

The quality of play is not good but the competition is better. I believe the same is true of a cricket match between Bermuda and USA or Timbuktoo and Jhumri Talaiya.

Just to further the point I tried to make in my earlier post, I must add that despite slightly less illustrious attacks in operation these days, teams' overall strength is greater, Test matches are harder fought, batsmen are far more aggressive stroke-makers and the game is more result oriented. If the great Barbados Test singlehandedly won by Brian Lara's majestic 153* was the showpiece match of the 90s, the epic Kolkata Test won by Laxman, Harbhajan and Dravid epitomised the best of this decade. As far as Ashes cricket goes, the 90s only saw one-sided contests with an uninspiring England mostly capitulating without putting up a challenge. This decade saw them take the game to the Aussies, much to the delight of cricket fans worldwide. And the England attack in 2005 was arguably better than any other these two decades saw, with Flintoff, Harmison, Jones & Hoggard all bowling well out of their skins. For the record, Ponting & Pietersen still have scars from that battle on their faces.

I differ. Australia started dominating the way they dominated after 1999 world cup. Mark Taylor's men lost not only in India but in Australia as well. They still didn't develop that killing instinct.
At that time every team had a good batsman and good bowler(s) who could change the match in a session. Australia: Slater, Waughs, Warne, McGrath; England: Trescothic first, Thorpe, Gough, Atherton (yes); India: Sachin, Azhar, Kumble; New Zealand: Richardson, fleming, Cairns, Dion Nash (shortwhile); Pakistan: Saeed Anwar, Inzamam, Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib (most exciting bunch); Sri Lanka: Sanath, Arvinda, Rantunga, Vaas, Murali;South Africa: Cullinan, Pollock, Donald, Kallis; West Indies: Walsh, Ambrose, Dillon, Lara, Chanderpaul, Hooper;Zimbabwe: Andy flower, Heath Streak.
See my friend, you cannot count bowlers in Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, and even New Zealand who can seriously trouble good batsmen any day any place. Each team had tearaway or pair of good bowlers.

As a result, when a good batsmen for brief period is in good form he looks great, because you need great bowling to unsettle him. Apart from Steyn and Lee, no test bowler today would come into that category. Maybe Zaheer or Malinga or Anderson in later years but nowhere near McGrath, Walsh, Wasim, Waqar, Donald. Because of injuries to the likes of Lee, you don't see the top notch bowling when bowler is in good form. Even spinners at that time: Murali, Warne, Kumble, Saqlain, Mushtaq Ahmed had more sting than Monty, Swann, Mendis, Kaneria. Vettori stands with some respect but still not in the same league as the greats of 90s.
Bowlers were never so evenly distributed except maybe in 70s, but again likes of India had only spin. The contests didn't yield results but were gripping nonetheless and etched to memory. No Atherton combating Donald or Waugh against Ambrose or Lara charging Aussies and Sachin innovating for Warne and McGrath plays in last few years.

Sri Lanka have emerged since 2000, India have emerged and consolidated, and WI, Pakistan and NZ have fallen away to a greater or lesser extent. I agree that the difference between the top teams is much smaller than it was in the 90s, which in theory is a good thing. I'd still prefer a strong WI and Pak though instead.

As a Kiwi, the 90s with Fleming at the helm saw a halcyon period where we held Australia 0-0 over 3 tests in their own country, and were a genuine force - at one time ranked 3rd in the World in Tests, I believe.

The 2000s have seen the decimation of the NZ player base, and from what I've seen WI and Bangladesh too, thanks in part to the ICL. NZ is at least now looking like it might be recovering with the return of Bond and Tuffey.

What a ridiculous article. Test cricket was far better in the 90s. Think of all the great bowlers we had then compared to now. Back then a 50+ batting average was something a batsman earned through hard work. Today, any old Samaraweera has one.

ICC rankings in Test are sometimes ridiculus.India and Gambhir are among the top without playing enough Test matches and on the basis of just one series.The rankings of Indians on Tests are overrated.

Cricket now is quickly becoming a farce, it is becoming like American sport, quick cheap and meaningless. You need quality to define a Sport and the 80s and 90s had that there were quality players then, they might not have had huge scores but they had awesome game. ts all about attrition in sport and right now the Tests are becoming too one sided with the dead tracks, either its a blow out or the game is drawn. When you have a blowout in Tests the result is obvious from about day 2 and the rest of days become worthless to watch. T20 is not helping at all, just more meaningless games for quick money. You have to put worth on tournaments and value on games not a circus procession which people forget a day later. I remember the days when a hundred had value it was an achievement that had to be earned in hard yards. Those days are gone, more money more crap.

"critic" some of the closest, seesaw, needle matches have been in the last 18 months, let alone the decade. south africa in australia anyone? this years ashes series anyone? the India v England series anyone? i believe the difference between the 90's and this decade is that batsmen are more confident of playing their shots (probably due to t20's). there are still some very, very good bowlers around, with proven records, yet batsmen (good ones) still find ways to play their shots and score runs. admittedly there is a rather alarming frequency of dead pitches, but every now and then you get a minefield, which should and usually does help the bowlers a hell of a lot. (sydney aus v sa, cardiff etc.) now, i'm no expert, but i'm pretty sure that if all the bowlers were crap you wouldn't have teams capitulating for 50 odd (england v WI), or less than 200 (a few innings in the ashes). there is an old saying that you should never compare apples and oranges. perhaps you should remember that.

This is like saying the recent WI vs Ban series was exciting and had close finishes, but the cricket played wasnt high standard at all. If thats what the game has to give I'd say the game is losing it's midas touch. The 2005 ashes was of high standard as well as extremely exciting. But the 2009 ashes also was excitng and it was played between two mediocre teams. Exciting doesnt always have to be the best the game has to give. There are loads more reasons you come to watch a test match.

What makes a cricketer 'great'?Is it some statistics,an innings that can be remembered through ages,or some perfectly timed magic that brings exuberant joy of 'winning' to the team?Personaly,I prefer the last.Steve waugh did score only 3 tons in ODIs,but second of it was his against SA at a stage where it mattered most.Lara's 153 against Aussie was out of the world.Gilchrist came up with an innings of 149 at his second match,suddenly from nowhere martin crow's NZ became the conqueror for 7 match in a world cup stage.Apart from laxman's 281,that match of Johanesberg between SA and AUS and of course 2005 ashes I don't see much of the magic in this decade.May be we do have lot of results but does these numbers are as good as that of 90's.At least I don't see a lot of "Mark Waugh" in this decade,the solo reason of my being a fan of the game.

It was a pain watching Indian cricket in those days. We regularly used to get walloped by teams like South Africa and Pakistan, besides West Indies and Australia. Our performance on tours was horrible. Strangely, it was after Australia started their world dominance after the 1999 world cup that India's ascent began. We could hold our own against Australia more often than not, and our performance against other teams started getting better, especially after the aging of Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose and Walsh. The '90s for me was a decade of despondence for Indian cricket fans, what with match-fixing and those regular losses to Pakistan at Sharjah.

Increased competition does not necessarily mean better quality. It can also point to collective mediocrity. How many bowlers today can bowl as well as ambrose,akram and donald?. That is what quality is.

There is a saying that you can be only as good as your opponent. But for example take the physical condition of a present day cricketer to those back in the 90's. The fellows these days are far more stronger than they ever were in the 90's. also present day batsmen have far rigorous training schedules than batsmen of the 90's. by no means can one say cricket today is worse off than cricket in the 90's. You can never compare two decades of cricket so easily. There are both quantitative and qualitative reasons for this difference. So better enjoy the game and ponder less on such unproductive matters.

Interesting argument.

In support of your theory:

1. India becoming a truly great Test side who, for the first half of the 2000s, were the only ones to challenge Australia ona consistent basis.

2. The 2005 Ashes (though you may need to wade through acres of hype to get to the truth).

3. Benaud said that Test cricket between about 2001 and 2005 reached the highest standard he'd ever seen.

Against:

1. Bowling attacks. The 90s were so much better it's ridiculous. A batsman as sound and classy as Mike Atherton ended up averaging less than 38, because of McGrath/Gilelspie, Wasim/Waqar, Donald/Pollock, Ambrose/Walsh. Now someone as flimsy as Ian Bell averages over 40.

2. Flat pitches and useless Test sides. You should adjust current batting averages downward by about 10% to allow for the combined effect of pitches, weaker bowlers and Bangladesh.

3. (dare I say) the increasing tendency of the media to over-rate the NOW. See Flintoff, for example.

its about the number of class star players in a team and the great 90 has that... where all of the teams were well balanced. the fastest man of the earth usain bold of jamica says that he loves cricket and big fan of pak team. and wanted to be a bowler as fast as WAQAR YOUNIS.... we need such committed cricketers...

I am not agree with this topic. The quality of cricket is today lower. The bowlers of todays absolutly ridiculas. Just look at indian bowling lineup. They didn't have any class bowler to challenge great batsman and they are claiming they are best team of the world!!!

I'm sick of hearing how bowlers from a diff. generation are better than current bowlers. They weren't great bowlers when they started , only when they finished. The great Tendulkar said it best. *goes off to find quote*

S.Tendulkar - "I have never believed in comparisons, whether they are about different eras, players or coaches."

While I agree with the thrust of this article I take issue with the implication that modern cricket is weaker than cricket in the 90's. More or less every sport that can be demonstrably stronger than it was 10 years ago is demonstrably stronger than it was those same 10 years ago. Why should cricket be different?

Bowling attacks are now apparently weaker than they have been in the past. Despite this the speed guns used during the latest ashes series claim that all the seamers involved, save Stuart Clark, regularly bowled at or above 90MpH. I doubt this was the case during any series during the 90's. While the great West Indian attacks of the 80's may have achieved similar average speeds, in doing so they blew opposition batting line ups away, something neither the Australian or English pacemen, nor indeed the similarly pacy South African lineup have managed consistently of late, indicating the modern international batsman is able to keep out and attack such consistently rapid bowling.

What progress of India has to do with Quality of cricket now?
You mean watching Gautam Gambhir playing against Kulasekara is better than watching Sachin-Azar-Dravid Playing against SA, OZ ,PAK and WI attacks even I used to enjoy Indian team playing against Morrison & and Cains or Brandaz and Streak than English team playing againt Helfenhaus and Siddle.
Cricket simply is much boring ...thanks to Baller and pitches.

I think Ashok just wrote it from an Indian team supporter point of view. If you are a supporter of the Indian team, yes, the 90's sucked. But not so for the rest of the world.

Pretty poor article amte. but it does nto seem to be your fault as you have said you started following from mid-90s which means you must have got the grip by late 90s. And mins you Australia dominated only the last year of that decade, otherwise they were a pretty beatable side. Pakistan and South Africa were the two most feared side those days. You certainly did not see much of Wasim, Waqar, Donald, Devilleirs, Walsh or Ambrose to be talking about glory - let alone making comparisons. Having more results by no means mean that we are living in better times. And as a matter of fact the reducing gap you are talking about just started reducing 18 months back. Otherwise almost all this decade we saw a completer Australia dominance - which flaws your argument even more. Ever wondered why the likes of Saeed, Mark Waugh, De Silvas, Azhar averaged SO LOW when compared to the modern day benchmarks? Talk about glory and talk about quality then.

Couldn't disagree more. You're confusing 'excellent' with 'exciting' -- the recent Ashes was an exciting series played between two fair-to-middling sides, but the quality of cricket -- in terms of skills on display -- was hardly excellent. The 90s, and the first few years of this decade, had far better bowlers: therefore Test cricket was far more exacting. There's a very visible decline today in most teams in terms of bowlers -- Lee/Johnson for McGrath/Warne in Aus; Harbhajan for Kumble in Ind (no one else has been around consistently); Umar Gul/Kaneria/Shoaib Akhtar for Wasim/Waqar/Shoaib/Mushtaq/Saqlain; Steyn/Kallis for Donald/Pollock/Kallis in SA -- and let's not even talk about WI and Zimbabwe! Only England, perhaps, or Lanka might be said to have a better attack now. I think it would make for an interesting analysis to see which of the so-called 'great' modern batsmen (who played at least 4 years in both decades) have been consistent, and which of them became 'great' post-2003!

I would bet no teams from this decade could have scored more than 3 runs an over off Ambrose/Walsh, Wasim/Waqar, Donald/deVilliers normally. So increased run rate as you mentioned does not hold water. Posting such baseless arguments doesn't give good impression rather devalue your posts.

I would bet (Some may disagree)Hayden and Sehwag's (The two most explosive openers of this decade because they played little or no cricket the past decade) average would have dropped by at 5 to 8 runs had they played in the 90's. Even Zimbabwe had a decent attack in Streak, Brandes, Strang, Olonga.

Competition always doesn't mean increased standard. A game between Nepal and Hong Kong is very competitive because both the teams are of the same standard.

one fact being missed about the bowlers is the no. of matches they have to play, and the workload of the team they carry. They now have to change to all 3 formats more often than not and where batsmen have big ad over them in shorter version also because more risky shots are being played. In 90's the workload was lesser and hence a bowler could extract full out of his body as he had to play less, but now so much cricket is there that a bowler has to alter his style sonner than later. Look at zaheer with short run up, Ishant, bhajji with less flight, lee injured, and hence tricks and smart bowling is the order of the day to stay in competition as long as u can.
Its because of these factors that bowlers of earlier quality are not seen but they do have the potential and that is shown many a times like freddi's spell at lords and ishant's against ponting.

Dearly wish though that spideybuff had written more . The 90s were better, much better than the this decade. And as more knowledgeable ones have commented here the bowling - especially bowling - was far superior. And so was the batting. Why the gap between the top sides have narrowed is due to the overall drop in quality. Remember for close match-ups you do not necassarily need high quality sides; even lesser quality sides who are closely matched can provide 'tough' battles. And that is more the case now, sadly.

Yadez, you are right, even Zimbabwe did have a decent attack, and Andy Flower was brilliant by anyone's standard. But I don't think the bowling is that bad nowadays. I put a lot of it down to the pitches and the bats.

Hopefully Bondy and Lee, if they can both stay fit, have a few missions left in them.

It all depends on personal viewpoint Ashok,May be this decade has produced more number of results in test cricket,but atleast 60% of the test series played from 1st jan 2000 till today have been completely one sided,the reason may be many like Australia's dominance in the 1st half of dis decade,more test matches involving Zimbabwe and Bangladesh,More test series played in Sri Lanka,below par performance by some of the yester year great teams like West Indies and England.
Over all,dis decade has seen many results but not many nail biting finishes or evenly balanced series,apart from few like the Indo-Aus series of 2001,2003 n 2008,ashes-2005,2009.Ind-Eng series in 2002 etc.
If u look at the results then this decade is way ahead of past 5 decades,but if u look at the quality,superior level of competition,individual brilliance then its always the 90's

Biased article, just because India where a mediocre team, does not mean the decade was over-romanticised.
Donald, Pollock, Wasim, Waqar, Walsh, Ambrose, Bishop all truly great fast bowlers in their pomp plyed there trade in this era. Quality of Spin bowling wasnt bad either, with Mushtaq, Saqlain, Warne, Kumble and Murali performing well.

Just because the gap between top 6 teams has narrowed doesnt mean the standard has improved, if anything I would say the standard amongst all teams has decreased.

I have been watching cricket in the 90's and all I can say is the quality of the cricketers and the love for their art is certainly less now than then...

Statistics are sometimes good liars and do not represent the better quality of attacks. As spideybuff correctly pointed out this was the decade of quality cricketers. You yourself mention this and say this era's quality is less.

The other thing is that cricket is all about the stories of the battles on the field. Wasim versus Aravinda or Waugh vs Ambrose are truly epic and its truly sad we go past those and look at mere numbers which really does not tell the whole story...

I grew up in the 90's so it will likely always be the decade I remember fondest. Many very salient points in this thread but only one in the article itself; the balance of world cricket. As I recall, any one team was only ever clearly in front in the first and last few years of the 90's ie. the West Indies and then Australia. The rest of the time things didn't seem a foregone conclusion, even if (as an England supporter) results were often dissapointing.
The great change has been in the quality of pitches which are now reared for five days of seating and broadcast coverage. Added to there being more great bowlers than batsmen in the 90's there was a more tagible 'fear' of good fast and spin bowling which has now receded, the occasional blip on a helpful wicket notwithstanding.
Having said that, there have been some excellent series in this decade; not least two recent Ashes series in England, Australia and South Africa last winter and Aus/India in 2001. Here's to the next decade!

Where I believe cricket has gone back is the way West Indies and Zimbabwe have fallen away. The same can be said of Pakistan. Even if we take into account the turbulence in that country, the overall quality of players is definitely not the same.It has a lot to do with less Pakistanis playing county cricket. As for bowling, Australia possibly missed a trick in the current series by not playing Clark. Having been in England before, his experience could have given the Aussie attack bite. India is now developing a good seam attack. South Africa has a good attack. England cannot perform unless there is something in the air, Sri Lanka has a decent bowling attack.Maybe you don't have express bowlers,but Glenn McGrath was never express,but he was still among the greatest bowlers.We will miss the giants who straddled the game in the 90's and the 2000's but the game will go on.

I find it ridiculous that a lot of readers have accused me of bias in viewing the 90s simply because India were a lousy side then. Come on folks, I'm not claiming that the quality of cricket is much better today and I've myself written an article on this very blog last August on the imbalance between bat and ball these days.

Tell me honestly, how many great series did we see in the late 90s? Remember West Indies' 0-3 & 0-5 thrashings? Remember the pathetic cricket England played throughout the late '90s (98 excepted)? Australia and South Africa (occasionally Pakistan) apart, was there a single side that made exciting viewing? Not that I can remember.

Ashok

Regarding your most recent post:

West Indies beat Australia by 1 run, Adelaide 1992/93
SA beat Australia by 5 runs, Sydney 1993/94
In amongst England's dreadful Ashes performances, there was a 12-run win at Melbourne, a 19-run win at the Oval and a stunning last-day smash and grab at Adelaide.
England drew a couple of series 2-2 at home against a declining, but still potent, West Indian side. The first included the best innings by an Englishman in the last three decades, the second a hat-trick, a 7-for on debut and three Lara tons.
Brian Lara and Shane Warne remain my favourite overseas sportsmen, thanks largely to the 1990s.
The 1998/99 series between Australia and the West Indies should be spoken of with as much reverence as the 2005 Ashes. The Bridgetown Test (the third in that series) is the real "greatest Test" of my lifetime (36 years).
England played some cracking matches against SA (and continued to do so in the mid-2000s).
I'm sure others have more...

MartinAmber- don't bother coming up with more examples; the writer is so obviously indo- centric and was probably 10 years old in 95 naturally he won't recall Pakistan winning 5 Test series' in a row in England and the Aussies' heroic performance in WI in 95 and the Pak/Aus series in 99, let alone the stunning Aus/SA series in 97, when I saw the best bowling attacks on the juiciest pitches ever. You might as well talk to your dining room table. It is a waste of time.

The problem is that unfortunately most of indian writers tend to see world cricket with a jaundiced eye and mindset. Indian team is still not that great as it is made out. While Pakistan completely thrashed Indians in 80s and 90s , india at its glory in 2000s have not been able to do that.Only the element of evenness has come in.Few good series against Australia aside there have not been any great deeds. Actually it is not the performance of Indian cricket team rather their financial clout and resultant stranglehold on international cricket which speaks.Cricket was definately more balanced in terms of contest between teams and between ball and bat in 90s. With inclusion of Bangladesh and depletion of Zimbabwe and West Indies, contests are lopsided. Placid and batting friendly matches have made of job of bowlers miserable and thankless. Cricket from 70s to 90s was at its best.

Recall 98 series of pakistan in india, 1st test was a memorable one and in 2nd test kumble taken 10 wicket haul (only the 2nd in history after Jim Lacker). And then in 97 Shoaib against South Africa, Shoaib against Dravid and Sachin in Kolkata. Pakistan beat Austrailia by one wicket in 95. Ambrose demolish england in 93. Pakistan defended 107 runs by bowling new zeeland out for 93 (5 each to 2ws). And so much more of Donald, Walsh, Ambrose, Wasim, Waqar, Mcgrath(in late 90s), Warne, Saqlain, Mushtaq Ahmed, Bishop, Heath Streak, Danny moreson, Darren Gough, Andy Caddick, Murali. There were so many golden moments in 90s. Easily one of the best era of the great bowlers (specially fast bowlers). We really miss the explosive spells of fast bowling witnessed in 90s. Really missing the sights of wickets flowing. Battle of great batsmen and great bowlers. Did you seen waqar bowling brian lara out by vicious yorker on leg stump. Every great fast bowler had so many moments in 90s. Really missing

Very poor article