Should be like All Blacks but more like Wallabies - why Indian cricket team is one of world sport’s great under-achievers

Yep in many ways they’ve got real similarities. Interestingly both are on the verge of becoming semi pro sports (if the doomsdayers are to be believed!)

And Wallabies now are more like the Windies in cricket. Only two decades were we near the top regularly. Before the 80s lost more than 60% of games. Steady downhill trajectory since 2003.

Are India no.1 in Tests despite losing WTC?

Good points Greg, but while like you I expected England would be quickest scorers did a quick check on CricInfo and found that India have been quickest on average in ODIs over last four years, followed by SA, England then Australia. https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=25;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=runs_per_over;spanmax1=04+Oct+2023;spanmin1=05+Aug+2019;spanval1=span;team=1;team=2;team=25;team=3;team=4;team=5;team=6;team=7;team=8;template=results;type=team Don’t know whether that’s affected by playing more weaker teams like Bangladesh or SL, or more home games, but doesn’t look like it from a glance. To make a new line or para in comments, once you’ve posted your comment you need to go to edit, add a paragraph or line break or two where and then click the browser refresher (circular arrow) at top of web page. It usually adds in breaks as necessary.

Like the Wallabies? We should be so lucky. Maybe like the Wallabies in the 80s and 90s - 2nd or 3rd ranked most of the time, but snagged a couple of trophies. The Wallabies now have sunk to 10th, so a comparison with the Windies is apt, except perhaps for T20s. India after all was in the last two WTC finals, played away from home. Always near the top. Pointless to say they should be doing better. When they were less prosperous 30+ years ago they were almost never in the top 3 or 4 and weak away from home. They have made a lot of progress as they’ve got wealthier. On the long term trajectory, they could indeed be dominating everything in 10-20 years.

Good comment. The IPL commentators are clearly concerned about their paycheques.

It's difficult to really understand what is happening with world cricket right now. It's easy to blame the BCCI, but for example; who approved the UAE T20 comp that is taking up calendar room? I'm also not sure how the BCCI could stop the companies that own IPL franchises from owning other franchises in places like South Africa. I suppose they could have insisted on a centralised model like we have for the BBL, but I still don't think that would have stopped rich Indians from buying other franchises, not to mention continuing to try and launch competing leagues (think the ICL). I also don't see how it's the BCCI that is responsible for the T20 World Cup happening every two years or why certain teams like South Africa or New Zealand now only organise two test 'series'. We tour New Zealand at the start of next year, in March I think, but we only play two tests - why? Surely it's incumbent on all nations to keep test cricket strong. The issue is that the ICC doesn't prioritise test cricket or even see it as the future; there have been disturbing comments by the Kiwi who is now the ICC Chairman; he seems to suggest that the future is just more T20 cricket. What I'm not across is how much influence the BCCI has over the ICC, which could be at the core of your point. I'm not really sure you can compare the financial dominance of the BCCI/India to Australia's strong commercial position in the '80s and '90s following Packer's take over. Yes we probably had more clout than at any point since the sport expanded beyond us and England, but other teams weren't dependant on tours from us or to Australia in the way teams like the Windies, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh are basically dependent on India. Realistically Australia has never been a bigger enough market and commercial entity to prop up the sport in the way County Cricket once did and the IPL now does. Australia, and England/India, certianly could have done more to bolster test cricket around the world; we've never had Bangladesh tour during the summer, we don't insist on bigger tours away (a la my point about playing three tests in New Zealand) and as you've pointed out, we've never opened the Shield up beyond a few token foreigners. But it's not clear to me that even making a bigger effort would have prevented the path the sports gone down; professional sport will chase the easiest way to make the most money and that means non-stop T20 Leagues...

Fair enough Australia are the closest to the AB. I guess my difference is I find it sad what the BCCI are doing to cricket. Its also unfortunate that when we had our time we were no better, if only we had had vision and a global strategy then maybe the 8-9 competitive teams that played in the 90s would now be 10-11 instead of 5-6. As an example why wouldn't you have NZ teams in the BBL? The NRL does, The A League does, the AFL played matches in Wellington so what about cricket? CA have no vision.

Until the 1950s only 2 countries played so are you going to count that. Might as well count the whole 19th century when the English Empire only played. West Indies, South Africa, New Zealand and India all played prior to the 1950s, whether you want to say they were competitive or not isn't the point, but cool over-reaction. West Indies were the most dominant team ever going 15 years without losing a series. Yes, and that's also the only time they've been so dominant, so just once. Anyway I made my point, you didn't really refute it, only to say that the West Indies were, in that single period, the most dominant team ever. Okay, I can probably live with that comment. Doesn't mean it's analogous to the All Blacks at all. For the reasons I set out... which you didn't respond to. I don’t buy the myth of some never say die attitudue I think it's overstated and over-exaggerated, but I still maintain that Australian Teams, for many of the reasons you listed plus others, had a self-belief that they could win from anywhere and with that belief, they did (frequently). I do get what you say about Australia, but some of your points are far too extreme; we played Australia A in a single series in '94, it was an experiment due to Zimbabwe touring. I'm not sure how that adds or detracts from us being the closest analogy to the All Blacks. Also, touring here in the summer, yes because this is a summer sport. Perhaps what you meant to say was that we've had our pick of touring teams in our peak season and that won't last forever; I do agree, but that's about finances, I don't see it as inherently unfair that we asked teams to tour here during summer, which is the cricket season. I'm not going to keep on responding to your points, because they've got nothing to do with my points. I don't have an issue with the BCCI doing want they perceive to be in the best interests of India, as CA (ACB) did for Australia for so long.

you may be missing Morz's point , greatest cricket nation on earth, no, but when you boil down the available adult male talent they have to pick from which is probably similar to Queensland's, its quite remarkable what they have achieved over the years. Would , for example Australia have achieved what they have in cricket over the years if they could have only ever picked Queenslanders?

Well Blind Freddie could see we were robbed in 2019. We won the Champions Trophy in the early 2000s when Cairns got a century in the final.

Yes - the Kiwis have had some decent showings like the 2019 ODI WC final.... But as for the "greatest cricket Nation on earth", they aren't even in the mix. It isn't a strong case to say they've won 1 tournament in like 50 years we've been having world cups....not a persuasive argument IMO.

Recently, yep. I was commenting more. how. they always appear to be right up there in all formats, when they have no right to be. And if you are talking white ball cricket, I mean, they did tie the game in 2019. WC Final, with England and the planets did align nicely for England to even allow the Poms to Tie, let alone the boundary countback "Win".

Until the 1950s only 2 countries played so are you going to count that. Might as well count the whole 19th century when the English Empire only played. West Indies were the most dominant team ever going 15 years without losing a series. Australia 1995-2007 are 2nd but they never went more then 4 years without losing a series. Australia until recently were most resourced and so always competetive, never lacking for fast bowlers or batsman. I don't buy the myth of some never say die attitudue. We bullied the world just as India do, we forced teams to tour here in our summer, we invented ODI when it suited, we put our Aus A team in competitions, we forced India to give us warm up games as we required in order to tour, we cried foul over match fixing but had no issues when it was Australian players, we let no foreign players play the Shield. I don't like a lot of what the BCCI does but its nothing that wasn't done before. International cricket will survive but having enough teams for a competetive World Cup will be limted to T20, ODI will disappear and Tests will be played by the 4 big countries, Bazball style cause no kids are practising how to leave a ball outside off stump

Yeah I was thinking white-ball cricket. The WTC final is the only thing the kiwis have in fact won right?

Huh? "they don't win anything' Were you on the moon when they beat India in the inaugural world test championship final?

lol but the Kiwis don't win anything.... They've had a few great players - Hadlee, Martin Crowe, Kane Williamson. But hardly world beaters really. The Kiwis aren't at the top of my list! :)

West Indies the most intimidating team in history. This is a very limited view of the word ‘intimidating’ and also takes a very short view of history. The Windies were amazing for a single period, circa 1975 to 1995 (at its widest interpretation) and beyond this, have only ever been ‘good’ in one other period (late fifties and sixties). In contrast, Australia has been amazing in multiple eras; pre-WWII, post-WWII, again in the early seventies and then for a prolonged stretch between 1987 and 2007 (again, at its widest interpretation). We’ve also continued to be ‘good’, or even great, in for long periods outside those eras, including the Golden Years pre-WWI, the recent team (2015 world cup win…), etc. You’re also taking ‘intimidation’ to mean fast bowling, but if we take it back to the All Blacks analogy, the All Blacks aren’t intimidating because of their physical strength at say scrum time or the breakdown (though they are almost always a physical team, even if they’re not the most physical). Instead, the All Blacks are intimidating because they are known for having a never say die attitude and the skills to back it up. This is where the analogy with the Australian Cricket Team makes more sense; we have the best winning record in Tests and ODIs, we have five world cups compared to the rest of the world’s seven, we are a team that is historically known to never be out of it; that’s what makes these teams intimidating. There’s a reason why teams have hated touring Australia, and unlike India, it’s not because of our food or the other non-cricket issues. Cricket unfortunately down to the big 3 and Pakistan now. Everyone else will play some T20. Saffers look like the Wallabies and NZ will go the way of SL and WI once Kane and Boult go. I’m as downcast and worried about cricket as anyone and I think the ICC is potentially ruining the game. But at least for now, the Big 3 have not taken over cricket so completely. There is no reason why Pakistan won’t continue on as they always have, a good team, lots of talent, capable of winning anything and also losing to everyone. New Zealand too will continue on as they always have, usually pretty average, but with periods of success. Modern New Zealand fans have a skewed understanding of their team because they’re currently blessed by a conflation of several of their best ever players (Boult, Watling, Williamson, Taylor and Latham). This is like Wallaby fans who only knew the 90s and early 00s, they were under a misunderstanding of where the Wallabies sat in the historical world rugby rankings (a hint, traditionally not that great). Yes we’ve probably lost the Windies, but there’s no reason why Bangladesh, a country of 150m people, won’t continue to improve and become a decent world actor on the cricket stage. I also wouldn’t count out South Africa forever either. But I do agree, a lot of this is on a knife’s edge.

I'm going to tell you who is the greatest cricket Nation on earth. at this time - it is NZ. The Kiwis have a pathetically small population, and most of their best athletes, including physically gifted Maori and Polynesians (who would make great fast bowlers) choose the rugby codes Union or League. They also get a pittance, money wise, from the ICC, so have to allow their players time off their central contracts to go play IPL. They have no right to be anywhere near the top - or at one time on top when they held both WTC and #1 Test ranking -- yet they continue to be outlandishly good in all three formats. They are probably going through a change period now with some their stars retiring about to retire after this world cup. But no one can take away what they have done in the last decade. I tell you what - if some of their physically gifted polynesian people ever start to prefer smacking a bat and ball about, or learning the art of fast bowling - look out world cricket.

Inidian cricket definitely underachieves but I wouldnt say the Wallabies are underachievers. Australia achieves pretty much what I would expect in Rugby given the conditions under which they operate. Those conditions being a 2nd or 3rd tier sport that is barely professional.