Has standard of test cricket declined in past decade?

I feel the standard of international test cricket has declined in the past decades... we were lucky to have so many greats but the new generations across many different countries for me have not lived up to their predecessors.

I will do a team comparison for the potential teams if fully fit in 2010 vs 2017, player for player

India:

2005 Jaffer Sehwag Dravid Tendulkar Laxman Ganguly Dhoni Pathan Agarkar Kumble Harbajan

2010 Gambhir Sehwag Dravid Tendulkar             Laxman Raina Dhoni Harbajan Zaheer Sreesanth Sharma

2017 Vijay Rahul Pujara Kohli   Rahane Rohit Saha Ashwin Jadeja Yadav Shami

-
-
South Africa:

2005 Smith Gibbs AB De Villiers    Kallis Prince Rudolph Boucher Pollock Boje Nel Ntini

2010 Smith Peterson Amla Kallis AB De Villiers     Prince Boucher Steyn Morkel Harris Tsotsobe

2017 Elgar Kuhn Amla Bavuma   Du Plessis De Kock De Bruyn Maharaj Steyn Morkel Philander

-
-
Australia:

2005 Hayden Langer Ponting Clarke Martyn Katich Gilchrist Warne Lee Gillespie McGrath

2010 Watson Hughes Ponting Clarke Hussey North Haddin Smith Johnson Siddle Hilfenhaus

2017 Warner Renshaw Smith Marsh Handscomb Maxwell Wade Starc Hazlewood Cummins Lyon

-
-
England:

2005 Strauss Trescothick Vaughan Peitersen Collingwood         Flintoff G. Jones Giles Harmison Hoggard S. Jones

2010 Strauss Cook Trott Pietersen Bell Collingwood Prior Swann Broad Tremlett Anderson

2017 Cook Jennings Westley Root Malan Stokes Bairstow Ali R Jones Broad Anderson

-
-
Some analysis:
England batting line up almost certainly better in 2010, top order a real mess now. 2 all rounders though now, so perhaps more strength in depth lower down the order. Bowling wise, I'd say Anderson and Broad were marginally better in 2010 than now, and Swann is better spinner than Ali. Overall 2010 team cruises. 
South Africa there's nothing to say really, they had a team of greats in 2010. Included Steyn in current team as he would get in if fully fit, but facing lots of injury problems and he has declined. Obviously the 2010 team is better, but the 2017 team is still fun to watch especially Bavuma. 
Australia's bowling and batting were better in 2010, although by 2010 Ponting at number 3 had declined and Smith was not even close to where he is now. 
India had overall better team in 2010, apart from spin bowlers as Ashwin and Jadeja have really taken off. Neither Yadav or Shami are yet at the level of Zaheer, but they're both probably better than Sreesanth and Sharma. Batting line up better in 2010, although current team is still very strong in that department. 

Overall the big 4 I feel were significantly better in 2010. My analysis may be biased but the fact many of the current players are new to the team so we don't see them as household names and once they've proven themselves maybe we'd look back at these 2017 XIs differently. But at this stage even taking that into account, I'd stick to my conclusion.

On paper yes the teams aren't as strong but there are reasons for that. Every team in 2010 has underwent necessary changes as legends of that era retired. Legends take a long time to be replaced. Also I would say as a result of the number of retirees teams are going through a transitional phase as they try out different players and look to bed them into the side. Also in the 2010 sides sure there were legends but for some (by that time) form may not have been as great as their status. 

That is my opinion but a very interesting topic.

Just out of curiosity why did you choose 2010 for the comparison? For me the quality of the side is a cyclic process. So depending on when you choose to make the comparison affects the conclusions of said comparison. For example comparing England now to the 99 vintage one could argue that the test team has improved. However, it is very interesting to note that arguably every team was stronger in 2010 compared to now. One would expect that some times would be stronger and some would be weaker. Hence maybe you have a point about there being a general decline....could it be linked to the increase in 20 20 cricket?

Going solely on the England side then the batting line-up was stronger but I'd say the bowling attack is stronger now. Give me Stokes as an all-rounder over Collingwood and although Swann was a specialist spinner unlike Ali in recent times Ali has become more prolific wicket-taker and is a far better batsman. Also in the 2010 side Trott, Bell and Pietersen were to hit skid row either form-wise or in other ways for Pietersen.

I thought this was about changing skill sets. There seems to be more money in new forms of the game - the one day game and 20 - 20 cricket, so skill sets are being developed for those forms of the game, at the expense of the more patient form of the game (five day game). In the West Indies cricket has become less popular as West Indian culture has become more influenced by the US and US sports.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Going solely on the England side then the batting line-up was stronger but I'd say the bowling attack is stronger now. Give me Stokes as an all-rounder over Collingwood and although Swann was a specialist spinner unlike Ali in recent times Ali has become more prolific wicket-taker and is a far better batsman. Also in the 2010 side Trott, Bell and Pietersen were to hit skid row either form-wise or in other ways for Pietersen.

The bowling line up in 2010 was far far better; Swann is so far ahead of Ali as a spinner that's it non really a comparison.

Far far better? That is stretching it a bit given that the two main bowlers are still in place (Anderson and Broad). Okay Swann was better than Ali but on the other side of the coin Stokes is a better all-rounder than Collingwood to level things up. Tremlett V Roland-Jones is a tough comparison given that TRJ is just breaking into the side.

Stuart Broad averaged nearly 38 with the ball in 2010. He wasn't particularly special then. He's come on leaps and bounds.

JDizzle wrote:Stuart Broad averaged nearly 38 with the ball in 2010. He wasn't particularly special then. He's come on leaps and bounds.

Yes I was going to say both Broad and Anderson have got better with age and experience.

LivinginItaly wrote:Just out of curiosity why did you choose 2010 for the comparison? For me the quality of the side is a cyclic process. So depending on when you choose to make the comparison affects the conclusions of said comparison. For example comparing England now to the 99 vintage one could argue that the test team has improved. However, it is very interesting to note that arguably every team was stronger in 2010 compared to now. One would expect that some times would be stronger and some would be weaker. Hence maybe you have a point about there being a general decline....could it be linked to the increase in 20 20 cricket?

I was just thinking of when we had very strong test teams, and chose 2010 at random more or less. 
England is an interesting comparison, we do still have Anderson and Broad around who have gained more experience, but Swann as a bowler was a different level to Ali. But the top order is just such a concern, I feel at times they are so reliant on Root.
And very good point on whether it could be linked to an increase in 2020 cricket. Could be that the next generation aren't learning to accumulate runs in a patient and tactically flexible manner as is needed in test due to the influence of 2020, and thus we aren't having as many test cricket greats emerge.

No name Bertie wrote:I thought this was about changing skill sets.  There seems to be more money in new forms of the game - the one day game and 20 - 20 cricket, so skill sets are being developed for those forms of the game, at the expense of the more patient form of the game (five day game).  In the West Indies cricket has become less popular as West Indian culture has become more influenced by the US and US sports.

As someone who loves test cricket, I think your point is sad but true. 
I think it becomes especially obvious when teams play away from home in conditions which aren't favourable. As I said in my post above, instead of being able to whether out the storm, batsman just go for it and get out. 
Another thing I have noticed is that for limited overs cricket, the pitch is very batting friendly, so we can get more sixes which viewers lap up. Often means there is nothing for the bowlers and batsman aren't tested; I mean Bangladesh got 305/6 in 50 overs in the Champions Trophy this year and frankly if it was a test series against England with normal conditions Bangladesh would struggle to cross 300 all series.

Added 2005 teams as well now. 
England, South Africa and India didn't change that much from 2005 to 2010, looks strong all around.

Another issue is surely that teams develop - and decline eventually. So in 2005 , that particular England team was at its peak. The current one is still early in its cycle.
Interesting thread though. Might look again when this Test Match is over.

Yep, an interesting thread for sure. For a geriatric like me though, a decade isn't long enough to properly detect and chart any possible decline in standards of Test cricket.

One aspect - or at least, a perception (I haven't done any research) - I would flag is that less Tests these days end as draws. Whilst I'm sure many viewers and particularly the tv companies prefer a 'positive result', there's sometimes still much to be said for seeing a side under the cosh hold out for a draw. Not sure how far you, It Must Be Love, go back but I'm especially thinking of Atherton & Russell performing their own version of Rorke's Drift against South Africa.

So often now* (again it may just be a perception) it seems that a couple of wickets lead to 3 or 4 and then it's all over in a flash. Think VTR said similar during the third Test when even a self-admitted pessimist like him saw no way that South Africa would wriggle off the hook!  Suspect the proliferation of t20 - the shots and the general approach - has something to do with this together with the DRS system resulting in more dismissals.

* Written before the current Test ended in 4 days!

Yes, I did say that in the last Test. And we saw similar today, what was that collapse in the end 7-30 or something? Pretty tame after Amla and Du Plessis had put a bit of pressure on England. If South Africa had grafted another 50 run partnership they could have put some pressure back on and at least got to day 5

alfie wrote:Another issue is surely that teams develop - and decline eventually. So in 2005 , that particular England team was at its peak.  The current one is still early in its cycle.
Interesting thread though.  Might look again when this Test Match is over.

Good point, interesting to also observe where these various teams are in their cycle. What stood out for me though is that all the top 4 teams are worse now than in 2005 or 2010; maybe it's just luck as to when many superstars will be around at the same time, or perhaps it's connected to the rise of 20-20.

Just looking at where the various teams are in their cycles:
England have Anderson at 35, but rest of team are all around prime of their careers. 3 of the top 5 batsman though have very concerning question marks over them and could get replaced (unprecedented in recent history for England?), so they're pretty lucky they have a genius like Root and 2 classy all-rounders. 
India have most of their players pretty much at the prime of their career, and they've proven they're as good as ever at home. They have South Africa away, England away, and then Australia away all in the next 1 and a half years. This is where they'll be judged. 
Australia seem to be fluctuating more than most. They were doing poorly before 2013, then Lehman took over and turned it around for a while. Last winter when South Africa were touring they were 2-0 down in the series, then made dramatic radical wholesale changes, and have been very good since then. So they've 'restarted' their cycle, still too inconsistent and too reliant on Smith. 
South Africa have a real mix of experience and youthful players, they will be fun to watch and follow for the next few years. But let's be honest, it's going to be tough to match the mouth watering line up they had in 2010.

guildfordbat wrote:--------------
 Suspect the proliferation of t20 - the shots and the general approach - has something to do with this together with the DRS system resulting in more dismissals.
---------

Yeah, I think you raise some valid points. Unfortunately I wasn't around to watch Atherton and Russell batting, but even in the last 10 years I have noticed there have been less draws. 

Few points on this actually:
1/ The proliferation of t20 and batsman losing the art of accumulation and defensive batting, as you pointed out, I do think plays a part in less draws. Innings finish quicker, and even when this new generation of batsmen are required to, they can't grind out a draw. 
2/ I also feel that this has meant we've had away teams struggling more. It seems to me batsman can't cope in alien conditions because they don't focus on defence as much. I haven't looked up the stats, but I suspect that compared to 2000-2010, 2011-2017 has had more very one sided series for the home team when teams outside the subcontinent visit the subcontinent and vice versa.
3/ I also have a feeling that individual test matches are becoming more one sided. Even when we have close series results like Ashes 2015 (Eng 3-2) and Aus-SA 2016 (SA 2-1), the individual matches themselves are rarely close. Like when one team get on top, the other team seems to just fold without resistance. Maybe nostalgia makes me biased, but I think back to Ashes 2005 where both of England's test wins were nail biters. Or India Aus 2010 in India, where India had 2 very close matches to win 2-0.

I'm not so convinced that it's wholly the influence of T20 / ODI cricket on batting techniques that has led to the change. Really, the great Aussie team of the late 90s set the template of looking to score close to 400 in a day so there is greater opportunity to win the match - obviously they had such a strong batting line-up that they rarely collapsed and so won a high proportion of games. Trying to do the same with a less consistent line-up (e.g. England's current team) will lead to a few bad losses when it doesn't come off.

I'd also add in that teams don't generally play as many pre-Test tour matches, so get little opportunity to adjust to foreign conditions before being thrown into important matches.

I also wonder if the current playing conditions / pitch conditions are more extreme than in the past - English conditions with a ball that seams and swings effectively compared with very slow crumbly turning wickets in the sub-continent.

Possibly in the last decadse, certainly a number of teams have dcleined. But if you look back 20-30 years the standard of players all round games has improved enormously.
Whilst old scholl test batting may be a dieing art fielding, tactics and lower order batting has improved beyond recognition. As have fitness levels (Philander excused) and inujry management.
Its almost a different sport now. The impact of well paid professional coaches and across all teams shows.

Another thing Ive found interesting is that although we reguallry here that there arent any good spinners any more the bowling and all rounder rankings are dominated by spinners. 


When you look at the struggles batsmen have stepping up form County cricket into tests, depsite excellent records and recent form, you have to question teh assertion that bowling isnt what it used to be and that those who are established players are just one day bashers made good. The difference between the likes of Kholi Root and Smith and a batsman like Hales (one of the best T20 players) is startling. The top test batsmen are clearly doing something special.

Whilst the Windies have continued their decline, and Sri Lanka joined them in freefall, New Zealand have got their acts together a bit as have Pakistan and Bangaldesh are finally starting to look like they are worthy of test status.

DRS has helped take the umpires out of the equation a bit, and trail by media reduced the worst excesess of bias/corruption/incompetance for the betterment of the game.


Theres a lot of rose tinted thinking about the pre 90s from the old boy commentators, especially in regard to just how fast fast bowlers used to be. No question that picthes and bats have made the game easier in one sense...yet fielding improvements, less padding away from spinners thanks to DRS and less pie chucking fill ins bowling full days have meant that for the most part scoring hasnt got out of control.

Elements of truth in the assertions that limited overs has affected the way people bat, but its not all negative and a reduction in skill. The likes of Hayden and Gilchrist changed test batting before the T20 revolution by proving that success was possible through aggression. As to some extent had the Windies of the 70s/80s.
Guys like Warner are a continuation of this. The purists sniff at it and whinge sue but that doesnt make them right.


The biggest issue for me is the mental fortitude of touring teams, or lack of. Far too many one sided home series victories.
If / when the new test champs format finally comes about we may see an improvement in this.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/16906/scorecard/63376/England-vs-West-Indies-2nd-Test

I tend to think that Greenidge was the archetypal one day player whilst Botham could whack it around a bit too.

I do think that the limited overs stuff has had an effect on test cricket, just have to look at the dip in form Cook had whilst playing the 50 over crud and his resurgence after stopping. It's a bit different for the likes of Root, Kohli and Williamson who are just busy players capable of the big shots as opposed to Hales.

It Must Be Love wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:--------------
 Suspect the proliferation of t20 - the shots and the general approach - has something to do with this together with the DRS system resulting in more dismissals.
---------

Yeah, I think you raise some valid points. Unfortunately I wasn't around to watch Atherton and Russell batting, but even in the last 10 years I have noticed there have been less draws. 

Few points on this actually:
1/ The proliferation of t20 and batsman losing the art of accumulation and defensive batting, as you pointed out, I do think plays a part in less draws. Innings finish quicker, and even when this new generation of batsmen are required to, they can't grind out a draw. 
2/ I also feel that this has meant we've had away teams struggling more. It seems to me batsman can't cope in alien conditions because they don't focus on defence as much. I haven't looked up the stats, but I suspect that compared to 2000-2010, 2011-2017 has had more very one sided series for the home team when teams outside the subcontinent visit the subcontinent and vice versa.
3/ I also have a feeling that individual test matches are becoming more one sided. Even when we have close series results like Ashes 2015 (Eng 3-2) and Aus-SA 2016 (SA 2-1), the individual matches themselves are rarely close. Like when one team get on top, the other team seems to just fold without resistance. Maybe nostalgia makes me biased, but I think back to Ashes 2005 where both of England's test wins were nail biters. Or India Aus 2010 in India, where India had 2 very close matches to win 2-0.

In terms of draws...certainly in this country ...games were much more susceptable to weather. It was  rare to not get a game wiped out entirely by rain when I was a kid. Improvements in covers, forcasting and drainage have had a huge impact there.
Improvemenst in bowling depth have also had an impact on grinding out draws. It used to be the case that teams would often only have 3 real test quality bowlers, a foruthe rpretnding to be one, and a couple of chaps who insted on turning their arms with part time fodder. Now most sides are coming in with 5 proper bowling options, this being an impact of the T20 revolution leading to far more all rounders or bowlers who can bat pretty well (plus keepers battinmg improving) enabling more depth to the bowling ...less flogging of the two good seamer.  I alsways find it interesting that Bayliss talks about england having 8 batsmen, as I see it they have 5 plus a keeper and two all rounders.

Gone are the days when Hick would bowl 69 overs in an innings (yes it happened)

There is certainly truth in the increased agression and loss of defensive techniques and mindsets of batsmen, as well as a reduction in mental fortitude and wwillingness to hold one. But its not the whole picture.

alfie wrote:Another issue is surely that teams develop - and decline eventually. So in 2005 , that particular England team was at its peak.  The current one is still early in its cycle.
Interesting thread though.  Might look again when this Test Match is over.

Is it? The core of this team has been much the same for 3 or 4 years now. The problems with no proper fast bowler, no proper spinner, and top 3 batsmen have been current for ages. They have gradually turned Bairstow into a proper keeper though.
Root, Cook, Stokes, Moeen, Bairstow, Broad, Anderson ...they've been set in the side for an extended period, granted theres been a captaincy change but not a dramatic one. The supporting cast isnt mature but the basic spine and set up hasnt changed. Frankly it doesnt look like they will have frimaly sorted the issues by the time Anderson retires, and Broad wont be long after him. Id say this 12 months could well be their peak before the retirements hit and the side restructures again (pushing 33 its hard to know how long Cook will keep going...maybe only another year). 
Its possible that in two years only 3 of the side that played in this series will still be in test team (or less if they get injured/lose it).

Surely only Anderson is anywhere close to retirement ? And even he looks anything but finished on the evidence of the last couple of games.
True a few of these have been together a while now : but apart from the two quicks and Cook , Root is the only player who has been a constant for more than two or three years. OK , perhaps "early" in the cycle was an overstatement...more mid-rise , shall we say ? The missing parts are indeed still missing , though I would suggest if the batting parts were fixed we would have no real problem with the bowling attack. You can always get a better one : but the current five man group (with maybe a Wood or a Woakes on a day) is perfectly adequate for Tests anywhere with the exception of India and UAE - and I don't see any other non-Asian team recently that could claim otherwise !
Still think there is time for this group to hit a significant high - as long as a couple of batsmen can be added to the mix.

alfie wrote:Surely only Anderson is anywhere close to retirement ? And even he looks anything but finished on the evidence of the last couple of games.
True a few of these have been together a while now : but apart from the two quicks and Cook , Root is the only player who has been a constant for more than two or three years. 

Moeens been constant in the side since 2014
Bairstows played in pretty much every test since 2012 except a patch in 2014
This is Stokes' third summer in a row in the team and he played sporadically prior to that for a year a half.
So really theres 6 players who meet that 3 year criteria.
Woakes, when fit, is becoming established in sides where they dont want additional spinners.

Of those 4 are the wrong side of 30. Its pretty rare for England players to go past 34 now...Strauss the oldest at 35.
Anderson and Broad are both definately pushing it for the next two years. Cook looks young and still seems to have his eye, and relived of the captaincy could keep going if the desires there....but equally I wouldnt see it as a great shock if he retired in the next couple of years, there was talk of him doing it after India rather than just leaving the capatincy. As it stands they certainly wont want him to mind.
Moeen youd expect as a late comer and a player still developing to keep going a while longer.
Bairstow and Stokes (and Woakes) are reaching their prime ages.

Overall Id say this current side is pretty good on its age profile and hitting its peak years.


The 2005 Ashes team had a similar mix. Pietersen was a new cap; Strauss G Jones and Bell had only recently joined the side (2004). Simon Jones had been dropped over the winter, Collingwood was in effect a new face having played a couple of games years before.
Perhaps a bit more settled than the current squad but not a great deal, and the same experienced core and similar age profile.
It did collpase pretty quickly after though, several early retirements and dramatic losses of form as well as the expected natural ones.