I think it can be said with reasonable certainty now that Australia’s era of global dominance has come to an end. They will still be very difficult to beat, but that aura of invincibility has disappeared in a puff of smoke. But which country is best-placed to begin world domination, the type which Australia achieved for 13 straight years, and West Indies before them? Let’s have a look:
Australia: rich in batting; a recession in bowling. Plenty of quality cricketers but no Warnes or McGraths to be seen. Domestic competition remains strong, but less so than in previous generations.
Bangladesh: talented minnows, an occasional rising star. World domination unlikely in the next 20 years. Reliant on Asian bloc for support.
England: solid if unspectacular batting talent but better-than-average stocks of fast bowling. Loads of money and ambitious if greedy board. Domestic competitions now world class.
India: financial powerhouse allied with supreme talent makes for a juicy cocktail. Domestic tournaments strong. Very strong youth cricket. Fast bowling stocks as good as they’ve ever been. Batting traditionally strong. Politically the most powerful, but increasingly autocratic.
New Zealand: over-reliant on flexible characters and cricketers (ref: Vettori). Still impressively competitive considering the puddle of resources to choose from, but currently suffering a recession of genuine talent.
South Africa: nothing much changes. Fast bowling is promising on paper but inconsistent on the pitch. They continue to lose far too many outstanding players to England’s counties, and are politically unstable. Always challenging on the pitch and strong in youth cricket, but not a contender for world domination.
Pakistan: an absolute goldmine of natural talent, most of it untapped or unrefined. A crying shame they play such little Test cricket. Their board are about as clued up as a cauliflower, sadly. Fast bowling stocks are always impressive, if the contenders occasionally contentious…
Sri Lanka: they have everything apart from fast bowlers and money. Batting is ridiculously strong, and they’re a sick prospect at home but will always struggle abroad. I have more money under my mattress than their board. Will continue to lose players to India’s leagues.
West Indies: no amount of Stanford’s dollars will rekindle the cricket love. Facilities dreadful. No sponsorship for their domestic tournament this year suggests that the decline is still in freefall. When Chanderpaul, Gayle and Sarwan depart, who will step up? One of modern sport’s greatest losses.
So, the only three I can see are Australia, England or India. Of those three, England’s pace-bowling future is probably the most healthy but India aren’t far behind and their batting is frighteningly good. England have a number of young, exciting fast bowlers – but we’ve said that for years and some have fallen by the wayside. As ever, the key to world domination lies with bowlers: so who will take up the mantle over the coming decade?
My money is on India, but there remains a danger that they’ll burn themselves out and/or lose a lot of friends politically.
I think West Indian cricket’s actually on the rise somewhat. Since John Dyson took over, they beat South Africa away, drew at home against Sri Lanka and fought Australia a lot harder than most people would have thought possible. The Stanford series has also produced a much more disciplined and professional team than any in recent memory. Their bowling stocks look pretty good (now that Edwards is finally looking the part as a Test bowler) with Taylor increasingly consistent, Bravo ever reliable and Benn looking a good spin prospect. Powell doesn’t quite make the grade at Test level, but Kemar Roach looks impressive. As for the batting, you’d expect at least some of Marshall, Fletcher etc. to stand up.
As for Australian domestic cricket being less strong than in previous years, I don’t know about that. In many cases the bowling attacks are at least as strong (if not stronger) than they were five years ago.
Fun to speculate. Another fun speculation is when will Australia lose a test series at home? By the way, when was the last test series they lost at home?
Until somebody beats Australia at home it’s hard to say they’re not the best, even if they no longer dominate abroad. So far India has looked like the side most likely to threaten them. Sri Lanka is a threat wherever spin is effective. England seems too moody and inconsistent, but if Captain KP can rally the troops anything is possible.
Good post, personally I’m pretty certain on India becoming number 1. They bassicaly run the game, have huge skill when it comes to the bat and exciting young bowling talent.
Australia is still no.1,just not undisputed.India lost at home to Australia 2-1.Australian pitch at Nagpur helped the kangaroos but even so India should have won.It’s funny how everyone’s going after the Aussie bowling.Mohali is either very quick or very flat.This time it was the latter.They got bowled out very quickly twice & would have lost 3-0 if Harbhajan was available in Delhi.
I’d be stunned if Aus lost to England in the ashes.
Lee,Johnson,Clark are enough.
Sri Lanka ??Not really.Mendis & Murali are unplayable at home.But how many years does Murali have left??Jayasuriya’s 40.
Marcus:I watched highlights of the Windies-Pak game in Abu Dhabi going on.I think its safe to say windies are at the bottom of world cricket,gayle notwithstanding.
India will not struggle after Laxman goes out,even Tendulkar.They’ll put more pressure on opposition batting & bowl out sides for lesser totals.It’s excess cricket that will screw their chances.Rotation Policy is essential.
This will sound cliched,but even so,India’s becoming no.1 is like judgement day.It can be delayed but is inevitable.
Pretty neat summary, Will. Yes, bowlers are the key. And it seems less predictable exactly where and how a truly potent bowler can be nurtured.
The disappearance of McGrath and Warne and the subsequent mediocrity of the Aussie attack has shown what absolute legends they were – and how difficult to replace.
India’s rise and rise has been gradual (fits and starts) but somehow inexorable. This cricket mad nation had only to get their professionalism in order and at the least they would be ultra-competitive.
At the moment they are an exciting outfit. To be part of their senior side would be exciting times. One thing that could spoil their own dominance is the part of their own boards in fracturing and splintering the entire international game.
England under KP could be a wildcard. The jury is out.
interesting article in the Guardian this week about indian circket and the obnoxious behaviour of their marketing arm in selling media and TV rights. Some broadcasters refusing to cover the games as a result (ref: the publishers of this blog).
Indian cricket should be the best for the next 30 years – they have billions in terms of both dollars and players. What is more, it is there national game – to the exclusion of all others. No other country can claim this.
| 
Posts and words
Loading ...
