Bear with me here.
Let’s say from the time SA were readmitted to cricket, are the Kiwis, all things considered, the best cricket nation?
Without even having to explain anything about the criteria I think we can rule out India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. One is over a billion people the other 2 are about half a billion combined.
Even allowing for infrastructure and resources there’s no way any of them could be in the discussion.
England as far as I’m concerned are light years off. They have a big population, great infrastructure, a country who breathes the game when soccer isn’t taking centre stage, entrenched first class system, franchise t20 comp, solid one day comp. A t20 World Cup, a fluke ODI World Cup and a couple of forays to #1 in tests and some ashes wins - really not much to write home about.
West Indies probably has the least infrastructure and resources of all and if we are talking all time, their 75-95 era is never going to be equalled ‘pound for pound.’ But for the majority of the period in question especially the last 20 years they simply haven’t been good enough. 2 world t20 titles, a champions trophy and really just wins against England in the odd test series for the last 15 years. In their favour is the fact that they aren’t one nation and have to deal with a few more external factors than most sides. I think we are in the conversation but inconsistency hurts our claim.
Australia as much as I don’t like them for a population base that we have, have been the most dominant team and overall only SA have been as regularly ‘decent’ and they haven’t got the trophies to match. I think Australia’s infrastructure and domestic set up gives them a distinct advantage over a few nations but for 12-13 years they were next to untouchable, 4 odi world cups, a t20 World Cup and probably the best test side for half that period.
SA has a bigger population base and I think the lack of trophies beyond a CT rules them out. The fact that it’s a slightly peripheral sport behind rugby and soccer gives them a good claim and to be fair, MOST of their population probably hasn’t had real access to cricket for half that time. Get points for almost always being top 2-3 in test cricket across that journey and generally among the best ODI sides and have an odd domestic structure. They have dealt with losing a lot of players overseas who would otherwise have played for them. Aside from a genuinely great spinner I think their Best Xi in test and ODI cricket from that era would be a very close match for Australia but no trophies in global tournaments rules them out IMO for a country of their size.
Sri Lanka have a World Cup in both short formats which is a big tick and I THINK were briefly #1 in tests. Have a normal population base but they’re cricket mad and are still a lot bigger than Aus, NZ and WI. Definitely punch above their weight and have had some test highs like winning in England and SA but personnel counts against them; their lack of fast bowlers is a cross against them and they never seem far from a colossal overseas disaster.
Which brings me to NZ
Like SA they don’t have a global limited overs trophy so that hurts their claim. Tiny population like WI - but they’re one nation so that helps them. Have won a world test championship which was a huge achievement. Had some incredibly uncompetitive sides in the 90s in test cricket but basically from the moment Stephen Fleming arrived they have never been TOO far from being competitive. Their lack of success against Australia especially in Australia hurts likewise SA but they are almost perpetual semi finalists and more recently finalists in global tournaments and were arguably robbed of a World Cup win in England. The sport is marginal, and for most kiwis just a way to get from one rugby Union season to the next.
I think all things considered pound for pound, they are #1 or very close to it
Let’s say from the time SA were readmitted to cricket, are the Kiwis, all things considered, the best cricket nation?
Without even having to explain anything about the criteria I think we can rule out India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. One is over a billion people the other 2 are about half a billion combined.
Even allowing for infrastructure and resources there’s no way any of them could be in the discussion.
England as far as I’m concerned are light years off. They have a big population, great infrastructure, a country who breathes the game when soccer isn’t taking centre stage, entrenched first class system, franchise t20 comp, solid one day comp. A t20 World Cup, a fluke ODI World Cup and a couple of forays to #1 in tests and some ashes wins - really not much to write home about.
West Indies probably has the least infrastructure and resources of all and if we are talking all time, their 75-95 era is never going to be equalled ‘pound for pound.’ But for the majority of the period in question especially the last 20 years they simply haven’t been good enough. 2 world t20 titles, a champions trophy and really just wins against England in the odd test series for the last 15 years. In their favour is the fact that they aren’t one nation and have to deal with a few more external factors than most sides. I think we are in the conversation but inconsistency hurts our claim.
Australia as much as I don’t like them for a population base that we have, have been the most dominant team and overall only SA have been as regularly ‘decent’ and they haven’t got the trophies to match. I think Australia’s infrastructure and domestic set up gives them a distinct advantage over a few nations but for 12-13 years they were next to untouchable, 4 odi world cups, a t20 World Cup and probably the best test side for half that period.
SA has a bigger population base and I think the lack of trophies beyond a CT rules them out. The fact that it’s a slightly peripheral sport behind rugby and soccer gives them a good claim and to be fair, MOST of their population probably hasn’t had real access to cricket for half that time. Get points for almost always being top 2-3 in test cricket across that journey and generally among the best ODI sides and have an odd domestic structure. They have dealt with losing a lot of players overseas who would otherwise have played for them. Aside from a genuinely great spinner I think their Best Xi in test and ODI cricket from that era would be a very close match for Australia but no trophies in global tournaments rules them out IMO for a country of their size.
Sri Lanka have a World Cup in both short formats which is a big tick and I THINK were briefly #1 in tests. Have a normal population base but they’re cricket mad and are still a lot bigger than Aus, NZ and WI. Definitely punch above their weight and have had some test highs like winning in England and SA but personnel counts against them; their lack of fast bowlers is a cross against them and they never seem far from a colossal overseas disaster.
Which brings me to NZ
Like SA they don’t have a global limited overs trophy so that hurts their claim. Tiny population like WI - but they’re one nation so that helps them. Have won a world test championship which was a huge achievement. Had some incredibly uncompetitive sides in the 90s in test cricket but basically from the moment Stephen Fleming arrived they have never been TOO far from being competitive. Their lack of success against Australia especially in Australia hurts likewise SA but they are almost perpetual semi finalists and more recently finalists in global tournaments and were arguably robbed of a World Cup win in England. The sport is marginal, and for most kiwis just a way to get from one rugby Union season to the next.
I think all things considered pound for pound, they are #1 or very close to it
