But there is a difference between the ‘Rambo’ days of Australian cricket and the present.

First, is the lack of international trophies in their cabinet, even as they enviously look at the World Test Championship mace securely held across the Tasman (Unconfirmed news reports suggest that the New Zealand Parliament has voted for the mace to be protected in a top-secret vaul?t against possible threats from mischievous elements). Second, unlike the Australians of the past who would walk into unchartered territory (West Indies 1995, India 2004) and conquer them after dominating the proceedings, the Australians of the present find it tough away from home.

The ‘away’ record is an important element of Test cricket, especially given its relative lack of ‘world’ trophies as compared to other formats. Domination at home is easier to achieve, however, it is away from home where the real strengths are tested. If a team is to be called world-class, it should be good across conditions.

At present, there are teams that possess the arsenal to challenge all teams when they tour (Australi??a, India, England, and New Zealand), however, there is not one team that can lay a claim to having achieved dominance across the globe.

The Test match playing nations can be divided into four rough groupings: The top teams which have been m?entioned above, The middle sides (Pakistan, South Africa) which have the potential and structure to challenge all teams but are being kept back by one reason or the other, The strugglers (West Indies, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh) who have faced many crises in recent times which has reflected in their cricketing fortunes and the bottom three (Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, and Ireland) comprising of newer nations or those which have suffered long-term troubles.

It is a given that the teams from the first two groups would dominate at home against sides from the other ?groupings. (Though there are upsets, such as Sri Lankan victory over South Africa in 2019)

More factors come into play away from home, in conditions which aren’t best suited to the tourists. Then there are circumstances peculiar to a team such as England, who haven’t been the strongest at home or away, but can always spring a surprise (victories over Sri Lanka away from home) or India, who have found the going good in Asia, Africa, Australia, and West Indies but haven’t touched quite the same form in England and New Zealand.

Having stated the above, the question that comes to mind in the context of World Test Championship encounters is, should ‘away’ contests be given greater importance than ‘home’ encounters? This isn’t something novel or revolutionary. That ancient war ritual turned sport, Football, uses an ‘away goal’ rule. Even Virat Kohli has suggested double points for away wins in the past.

For some of the ‘Top’ sides, it probably doesn’t matter much, but for the lower-ranked teams, it can make a world of a difference. For example, if the West Indies play to the best of their skills to beat South Africa (whom they have beaten only once away from home) in South Africa, shouldn’t that win count more than home victories? The players and fans would definitely treat it as a special win, how about the WTC points table reflecting the importance of this win.

The linking of an increase in WTC po??ints for away encounters can also make for more exciting cricket, with teams prioritizing away success and thus, ensuring that they aren’t one-trick ponies.

At the same time, the administrators could also explore the possibility of a scaled points system, wherein, a lower ranked side gets a ‘bonus’ or extra points for their win over high-ranked sides. Of course, to use this in the WTC itself would be an attack of the egalitarian principles of the cricketing community.

How about using these bonus points for setting up the next WTC schedule? If Sri Lanka beat India, Australia, and New Zealand in a particular WTC cycle, they deserve more series against higher-ranked teams in the next cycle. This ‘bonus’ points system could be solely allocated to teams below a particular ranking (say 4) in the ICC Test rankings. Obviously, an away win here too would garner more points to the team.

Such a system could be eventually evolved to also serve the teams which at present aren’t a part of the WTC cycle. If a side like Ireland can consistently challenges the likes of Bangladesh, West Indies, Pakistan, etc. then it can be promoted to be a part of the WTC cycle. Thus, there can be an added incentive behind every game of Test cricket.

During the first few hours of my game, where my performances went as smoothly as Dhoni’s tenure as India captain, I was able to juggle between the various game modes on offer. There is the full game mode, where one can choose to play the First-Class, List A, and Twenty 20 competitions of seven Test-playing nations- India, Australia, England, Pakistan, West Indies, South Africa, and New Zealand, (The Bangladesh career offers only Twenty20 competitions, no first-class team at present) along with the option of leading their favourite national teams. There is an international career where players can focus solely on leading the twelve Test-playing nations.

Then there are custom series where players can rack up any number of fantasy contests, the all-time great series, the World Cup, Champions Cup, Twenty20 World Cup, and classic Test series featuring retro Test series such as India tour of England 2007 (India’s last Test series win in England) and New Zealand tour of England 1983 (The first time New Zealand won a Test in England, courtesy Lance Cairns).

The gameplay, and the same holds for the last few iterations, is a fun a?ffair. The continued presence of the newest format of the game, The Hundred (introduced in Crick??et Captain 2020 before the competition was even played in real life), would surely interest several newer fans to the game.

One of the positives is that the game mirrored the real-life form of certain players. So, Jasprit Bumrah wasn’t at his best during the Test Championship final against New Zealand, while Rishabh Pant continued his exceptional form during the England Test series.

The E. RPO depends on the batsman’s aggressive intent (so someone like Andre Russell will automatically have a higher E. RPO as compared to say a Virat Kohli, even if they are at the same aggression bar while batting), the opposition bowlers, the state of play and how settled the batsman is into his innings. This helps in making the batting an interesting affair in the game.
Another good point while playing the game was the fact t?hat teams like Ireland, Afghanistan etc. have a proper schedule. This development would surely de??light the fans of these sides.

But discussing only the positive of the game would be giving half the account. Like when I had stated earlier that my gaming performance with Cricket Captain 2021 went as smoothly as Dhoni’s tenure, I forgot to mention that I was comparing my performances in away Tests with his captaincy in whites away from home, particularly during India’s tour of England and Australia in 2011.

Similarly, the Crick??????????????????????????et Captain has done a fine job in certain departments, however, is lacking in some places.

To begin with, fans would expect an evolution in terms of gameplay, structure, and content over some time, but the Cricket Captain series seems to be doing the same ?at a slow rate. So, while each year there are minor changes such as the introduction of a new league, DLS or Super over, the product, by and large,? remains the same.

An instance of the same is the coaching department. There are 8 batting/bowling sessions available in addition to 2 fielding sessions and 2 physio sessions. In earlier versions, there was the provision of only 8 practice sessions (batting/bowling) and no practice was available for other players. The modern version seems to continue with the scheme of things but gives a facelift to the entire operation by turning ‘No practice’ into ‘Standard Practice’ in the modern game and ‘Extra batting/bowling sessions’ in place of ‘Batting/bowling sessions’ which were present in the older versions.

This means that at the base, there has been little change in terms of how a player goes about r??eadying his side for an encounter for the last f??ew years.

The ‘innovations’ present in the game aren’t something new or innovative, for e.g., the Super over is introduced in the game a whole 13 years after it was first used on a cricketing field.

Another glaring issue is the omission of the women’s game, which has become the talking point of the sport in the last few years, especially with the success of the World Twenty20 last year and the introduction of The Hundred. Its inclusion surely wouldn’t hurt the franchise.

The point remains that these ‘newer’ changes shouldn’t be that tough to implement. Some of the other cricket management games back in the day allowed players to coach one of the many international sides, including non-Test playing nations, and switch between sides long before Cricket Captain did the job.

No one expects a cricket management sim to provide graphics similar to even the EA Cricket/Codemasters era games, but the players do take exception to the lack of novelty in the Cricket Captain series.? This can easily be gauged through the fan reactions on web forums and websites like Steam.

The game does a f?ine job in helping the armchair cricket fanatics to lead their favourite teams ?to glory and live out their cricket fantasies. But the trouble is that other than some minor changes, it plays in the same fashion to earlier iterations of the game.

Cricket Captain is the most complete cricket management sim today, but a big reason behind that is that it is also the only cricket managem??ent sim out in the market today. One could discuss several changes/improvements to the game (such as introduction of DRS, inculcation of ?more classic matches, greater interaction between the game interface and fans etc.), however, the fact remains that it is hard to see any major improvements unless there is a change in market conditions.

By change in market conditions, I refer to change in consumer preferences (a greater number of people start buying th?e games and start demanding for changes in subsequent editions) or rise of a competitor who can produce a similar (cricket management title) yet differentiated product, which can tussle it out with Cricket Captain series for the top spot. Or maybe the New Zealand parliament can vote to divert significant resources of the island nation towards creation of the perfect cricket management franchise. Of course, minus any Super Overs.

Cricket Captain 2021, the latest iteration of Childish Thing’s Cricket Captain series, bears a newer look on its face with the introduction of a new logo, a yellow helmet, which is also present on the game’s folder icon. There are newer features present in the game too- it boasts the addition of a ‘Super Over’ to the game (Unconfirmed reports suggest that the New Zealand parliament has taken a grim view of this development), allows the players to receive job offers from around the world and has made certain changes in its interface, like an updated database, Target RPO (T. RPO) being replaced with Estimated RPO (E. RPO), etc.

During the first few hours of my game, where my performances went as smoothly as Dhoni’s tenure as India captain, I was able to juggle between the various game modes on offer. There is the full game mode, where one can choose to play the First-Class, List A, and Twenty 20 competitions of seven Test-playing nations- India, Australia, England, Pakistan, West Indies, South Africa, and New Zealand, (The Bangladesh career offers only Twenty20 competitions, no first-class team at present) along with the option of leading their favourite national teams. There is an international career where players can focus solely on leading the twelve Test-playing nations.

Then there are custom series where players can rack up any number of fantasy contests, the all-time great series, the World Cup, Champions Cup, Twenty20 World Cup, and classic Test series featuring retro Test series such as India tour of England 2007 (India’s last Test series win in England) and New Zealand tour of England 1983 (The first time New Zealand won a Test in England, courtesy Lance Cairns).

The gameplay, and the same holds for the last few itera?tions, is a fun affair. The continued presence of the newest forma?t of the game, The Hundred (introduced in Cricket Captain 2020 before the competition was even played in real life), would surely interest several newer fans to the game.

One of the positives is that the game mirrored the real-life form of certain players. So, Jasprit Bumrah wasn’t at his best during the Test Championship final against New Zealand, while Rishabh Pant continued his exceptional form during the England Test series.

The E. RPO depends on the batsman’s aggressive intent (so someone like Andre Russell will automatically have a higher E. RPO as compared to say a Virat Kohli, even if they are at the same aggression bar while batting), the opposition bowlers, the state of play and how settled the batsman is into his innings. This helps in making the batting an interesting affair in the game.

Another g??ood point while playing the game was the fact that teams like Ireland, Afghanistan etc. have a proper schedule. This development would surely delight the fans of the??se sides.

But discussing only the positive of the game would be giving half the account. Like when I had stated earlier that my gaming performance with Cricket Captain 2021 went as smoothly as Dhoni’s tenure, I forgot to mention that I was comparing my performances in away Tests with his captaincy in whites away from home, particularly during India’s tour of England and Australia in 2011.

Similarly, the Cricket Captain has done a f?ine job in certa??in departments, however, is lacking in some places.

To begin with,?? fans would expect an evolution in terms of gameplay, structure, and content over some time, but the Cricket Captain series seems to be doing the same at a slow rate. So, while each year there are minor changes such as the introduction of a? new league, DLS or Super over, the product, by and large, remains the same.

An instance of the same is the coaching department. There are 8 batting/bowling sessions available in addition to 2 fielding sessions and 2 physio sessions. In earlier versions, there was the provision of only 8 practice sessions (batting/bowling) and no practice was available for other players. The modern version seems to continue with the scheme of things but gives a facelift to the entire operation by turning ‘No practice’ into ‘Standard Practice’ in the modern game and ‘Extra batting/bowling sessions’ in place of ‘Batting/bowling sessions’ which were present in the older versions.

This means that at the base, there has been little change in terms of how a player goes abou?t readying his side for an encounte?r for the last few years.

The ‘innovations’ present in the game aren’t something new or innovative, for e.g., the Super over is introduced in the game a whole 13 years after it was first used on a cricketing field.

Another glaring issue is the omission of the women’s game, which has become the talking point of the sport in the last few years, especially with the success of the World Twenty20 last year and the introduction of The Hundred. Its inclusion surely wouldn’t hurt the franchise.

The point remains that these ‘newer’ changes shouldn’t be that tough to implement. Some of the other cricket management games back in the day allowed players to coach one of the many international sides, including non-Test playing nations, and switch between sides long before Cricket Captain did the job.

No one expects a cricket management sim to provide graphics similar to even the EA Cricket/Codemasters era games, but the players do take exception to t?he lack of novelty in the Cricket Captain series. This can easily be gauged through the fan reactions on web forums and websites like Steam.

The game does a fine job in helping the armchair cricket fanatics to lead their favourite teams to glory and live out their cricket fantasies. But the trouble is that other than some minor changes, it plays in the?? same fashion to earlier iterations of the game.

Cricket Captain is the most complete cricket management sim today, but a big reason behind that is that it is also the only?? cricket management sim out in the market today. One could discuss several changes/improvements to the game (such as introduction of DRS, inculcation of more classic matches, greater ??interaction between the game interface and fans etc.), however, the fact remains that it is hard to see any major improvements unless there is a change in market conditions.

By change in market conditions, I refer to change in consumer preferences (a greater number of people start buying the games and start demanding for changes in subsequent editions) or rise of a competitor who can produce a similar (cricket management title) yet differentiated product, which ca??n tussle it out with Cricket Captain series for the top spot. Or maybe the New Ze?aland parliament can vote to divert significant resources of the island nation towards creation of the perfect cricket management franchise. Of course, minus any Super Overs.

They have donned the parts of shrewd captains (Brendon McCullum, MS Dhoni), explosive openers (Quinton De Kock, Adam Gilchrist), and streetfighters down the order (Moin Khan). Somewhere down the line, there has also been an evolution of keepers whose batting skillset is superi??or to their role behind the stumps.

Some of them have had to choose concerning their preferred roles in the team. So, legends of the game like Kumar Sangakkara, Brendon McCullum, etc. have giv??en up the role of a keeper ?to concentrate on giving their best as batsmen for the side.

Bradley-John Watling, the New Zealand Keeper-Batsman, has been a bit of an interesting case in modern times. For the Northern Districts?? player started as a keeper in the domestic circuit but was ve??ry soon turned into an opener by his team.

He made his New Zealand debut in this capacity. However, some games later he was chosen to keep wickets against Zimbabwe. Having impressed in the Test match, he was a regular ??wicket-keeper batsman for his national? side.

What makes BJ Watling special is that he is one of the few players in the modern era who could be selected for his batting alone yet has?? fulfilled the needs of his side both as a wicketkeeper and a batsman for the majority of his Test career.

He began in the shadows of ?Brendon McCullu??m but still managed to secure a regular place in the side.

His Test average of 38.11 is very good for a keeper (MS Dhoni averaged 38.09), and he came into his own batting at no. 6 (average 44.67) and 7 (average 35.3) where he scored the ??majority of?? his career runs (3284 out of 3773).

He stands 11th in the list of all-time run-scorers amongst cricketers who kept wickets, however, Andy Flower and Mu??shfiqur Rahim are?? the only ones ahead with a lesser number of games to their name.

Go??ing beyond numbers, his impact has been in the crucial runs he has been able to deliver for his side in key games. ?His debut itself featured a blistering 60 off 62 (New Zealand was chasing a small target and needed quick runs at that moment), however, he would gradually become known for his calm and collected contribution lower down the order.

There was the match-saving 124 against India in Wellington. Up against a deficit of 246 runs, New Zealand had their backs against the wall at 94/5. However, Watling? joined hands with Brendon McCullum to stitch together a partnership of 352 runs (The third-highest partnership for the sixth wicket) and ensure that New Zealand was out of danger. His knock came at? a strike rate of 33.78 and broke the back of the Indian bowling effort.

Less than a year later, he fished out New Zealand out of trouble with the help of future New Zealand captain Kane Williamson. Going into the third innings, New Zealand was trailing Sri Lanka by 135 runs. Sri Lanka could sniff a win when Jimmy N??eesham lost his wicket to Nuwan Pradeep, leaving the Black Caps at 159/5.

However, Kane Williamson and Watling remained unbeaten for the rest of the New Zealand innings. They added 365 runs (The second-highest partnership for the sixth wicket) of which BJ Watling’s contribution was 142 runs off 333 balls. New Zealand went on to win the Test by 193 runs.

The Kiwi gloveman is all set to retire at the end of the England tour, the home side is a?n opposition he loves performing against. He has scored 778 runs at an average of 55.57 against the English team. These include two match-winning contributions, that of 120 at Headingley, Leeds in 2015 and 205 at Bay Oval, Mount Maunganui in 2019.

BJ Watling has been a? splendid ??gloveman for his national side too, having picked 257 dismissals, placing himself at 9th place in the all-time list. Moreover, he has an impressive dismissal per innings of 2.09.

BJ Watling is a not much-discussed player in a format that doesn’t garner the maximum number of views. However, he has only enriched the game in his 12-year career as a cricketer. BJ Watling may perhaps even get overshadowed in his final Test, but his legacy will remain that of a team player who rose to the occasion whenever the situation demanded.

New Zealand have the added adv?antage of playing a two-Test series against England prior to the final. They would also feel that their pace quartet (Tim Southee, Trent Boult, Neil Wagner and Kyle Jamieson) would be better suited to the English conditions. With a victory in the finals, Kane Williamson would hope to add an ICC trophy to his cabinet.

In recent years, Ne??w Zealand have come quite close to winning an ICC Trophy, but haven’t quite been able to seal the deal.

The last World Cu??p finals in 2019 was a ??heartbreak for New Zealand fans, when they missed out on a victory by the barest of margins.

In 2015, they were led by the brave Brendon McCullum, and were unbeaten through the tournament as they marched their way to the finals. Ho??wever, they fumbled against Mitchell Johnson, James Faulkner and Mitchell Starc and it was their neighbours, Australia, who ended up as World champions.

Even in the past, New Zealand has maintained a steady run in their ICC tournament appea??rances, usually making it to the ?knock-out stages. However, they have failed to win the ultimate prize.

So, they reached th??e 200??9 ICC Champions Trophy finals, but lost to Australia. They made the semi-finals of the 2011 ICC World Cup but were soundly beaten by Sri Lanka.

There have been many heartbreaks, but New Zealand’s trophy cabinet is??n’t quite empty??. They won the 2000 ICC Knockout Trophy quite convincingly.

The 2000 ICC Knockout Trophy took place in Kenya. Nairobi was no str??anger to the game, having witnessed several international and domestic matches in the past.

The tournament was played in a knock-out format, where the positions of respective teams in the previous World Cup, i.e., the 1999 edition, determined whether they wo?uld be placed in pre-quarter final or quarter final.

New Zeala?nd, who were the semi-finalists in the 1999 competition, got to play the?? quarters. They were to play against fellow automatic quarter-finalists, Zimbabwe.

The Chevrons were no easy opponents. Zimbabwe possessed the greatest team in the?ir cricketing history and could get the better of any team on their day. This can be attested by the fact that New Zealand would go on to lose back-to-back One Day International series against Zimbabwe in the 2000-01 season.

On this occasion though, New Zealand beat Zimbabwe with ease. Once placed at a slightly precarious situation of 120 for 4, they got to 264 and then were able to bowl out Zimba?bwe for 201.

Their next e??ncounter was against Pakistan. The men in gre??en often got the better of New Zealand in those days and were favourites to win the game. Pakistan had faced New Zealand twice in World Cup Semi-finals in the 90s and had chased to win in both the matches.

T?he latest of these was in 1999 and both sides bore a fairly similar look to the outfits that had met at Old Trafford. New Zealand were further dented as their star all-rounder, Chris Cairns, was missing this game.

In the semi-finals, Pakistan won the toss and chose to bat f?irst. They got off to a decent start, but Shayne O’Connor & co., kept them limited to a total of 252. Roger Twose and Craig McMillan then helped them overcome a tricky chase and New Zealand made it to the finals.

In the finals, they were up against a young Indian team, who were making a comeback aft??er the match-fixing scandal had hit their setup. The side had gelled well under Sourav Ganguly’s leadership. They had beaten some top-notch opposition in Australia and South Africa.

On the other hand, New Zealand were boosted by the return of Chris Cairns. Deciding to field in the finals (??In recent games, sides winning the toss had chosen to bat first), New Zealand held India to 264. This was achieved at the back of some good fielding, which helped break India’s momentum at right times to keep them from reaching a total of 280-290.

While batting, ??they were in trouble early on, with half their team back in the shed at the score of 132. However, it was Chris Cairns who came to the pa??rty and helped New Zealand win the trophy.

New Zealand of 90s were a decent cricketing team, but often fell short against better sides like Australia, South Africa and Pakistan. Thus, the 2000 I?CC Champions Trophy win would always be a special one for the New Zealand fans.

In fact, as we look back at the way cricket was back in the 90s it could be easy to say that the ‘experience�of watching the game was so dissimilar to the present times that it cou??ld be equated to perhaps being in ‘Another Country� the phrase taken from movie (1984) and play of the same name, sign??ifying that a certain phase of life whether located in a particular time or physical location, has an independent existence and experience of its own. To make it relatable look back at events from your school or college lives, memories which can be remembered but never returned back to.

Cricket in the 90s can b??e looked back in a similar fashion, something so divorced from the present that to some it can look as if a ‘different�sport was played back in the day. So, let’s take a look back keeping in mind things which were once deemed undetachable from the idea of cricket, but have since been discarded as the game has evolved.

1. Tri-Series: The success of the Australian tri-series (inspired by the Kerry Packer years) was not without those envying its scale and festive atmosphere, and it was in the 90s that the potential of these One Day International carnivals was realized at a global scale. There were the Hero Cups, Centenary cups, Singer Trophies, Independence cups as nearly all the countries jumped into the tri-series bandwagon. This included England, who forsook the prim-and-proper Texaco Trophy affairs for the Natwest series featuring three sides.
   However, it was in the non-test playing venues that the Tri-Series thrived the most and helped in spreading the game of cricket. Sharjah, Morocco, Nairobi, Singapore, Toronto etc. all had their iterations of Champions trophies, Cricket challenges which allowed the locals to be enthralled by some high-quality cricket. Tendulkar’s Desert Storm, the 1996-97 Carlton and United Series in Australia won by Pakistan, the close finals of 1997-98 Carlton and United Series between South Africa and Australia, England winning the Sharjah cup in 1997, the 1996 Singer World Series were a few examples of successful triangular tournaments from the time.

On the downside, some saw it as meaningless extensions in the cricketing calendar whic?h contributed to player fatigue and injuries with no real incentive, unlike say the World Cups. Irrespective of the same they continued well into early 2000s, with several attempts made to recreate the magic of these tournaments even as recently as mid to late 2010s in Sri Lanka, Australia and West Indies but it seems that with the arrival of Twenty20 leagues and crammed international calendar one would find it tough for these tournaments to sprinkle around the world again, barring those already seen in associate cricket.

2. Where have the minnows gone? The term ‘Minnow�is used to signify the up-and-coming cricketing nations, who are yet to prove themselves on the international arena. While it is true that there are better opportunities present today such as the Twenty20 international status for all cricket playing nations, welcome addition of Afghanistan and Ireland to test ranks and an ODI league, it has done little to change the exclusionary nature of the game.
   In the past, the opportunities given in the world cups, champions trophies and triangular series allowed the non-test playing nations a chance to take on the best, open doors to better opportunities and improve their cricketing skills. However, with the death of tri-series, trimming down of World tournaments and an international calendar biased against the associates, there is little opportunity for these sides to face up against the best.

In theory, they have their chance in the T20 World Cup but the fact remains that only the ‘best of the rest�end up meeting the big guns in these tournaments. Even Afghanistan and Ireland have had little opportunity in the test arena, which is baffling given how little test match cricket the lower-ranked sides like Zimbabwe, Bangladesh play.
Contrast the present time to mid-90s leading up to mid-2000s, when minnows were able to pull off upsets against the likes of West Indies, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe or someone like John Davison was able to light up the entire World cup with his scinti??llating batting. Sides like Kenya were able to fully utilize these opportunities and make a name for themselves at the world stage.

3. Funky Jersey: While sides like Australia, New Zealand still bring out innovations in their Limited overs cricket jerseys, the majority of teams play cricket in one or two (In case of a separate Twenty20 jersey) uniforms. This is a far call from the colourful 90s, where nearly every ODI tournament had their own kits and some of these memorable ones remained with the fans.
   The recent retro jersey tours in Australia (For New Zealand and India) seem to be a step in the right direction to give fans something different.
4. The Shorter Formats: Hong Kong Sixes, Super Max and Super 8s were the T10, T20 and The Hundred of the 90s. This shows how the broadcasters and boards have always been trying to work out ways to attract a broader audience. The need for products which could satisfy the cricketing needs in a few hours as compared to 7-8 hours of an ODI or five days of a test led to these innovations. There were yearly tournaments (Hong Kong Sixes), attempts to create an international series for some of them (Super 8s) and games added to international tours (Super Max games between Black Caps and tourists like England, India etc.) to push these formats. Despite the massive success of Hong Kong Sixes, which continued quite strongly in the early years of Twenty20 (losing the fizz only around recent years), these formats couldn’t quite take over.
   Still there were several interesting aspects about these formats which are remembered fondly, like Batsmen retiring after reaching a particular score in Hong Kong Sixes, the ‘max zone�and the two ten-over innings formula of Super Max.
5. All Stars Encounters: These encounters allowed the viewers to enjoy the best of players in a relaxed atmosphere. These games didn’t have an international status and were organized for a cause. It seems almost unreal today to find that most of the full-time players participated in these encounters. From the Tendulkar-De Silva special trumping Chanderpaul in 1998 in MCC vs Rest of the World encounter to Michael Bevan’s unreal knock for rest of the world XI vs Asia in 2000, these games will forever be etched in the memories of cricket fans.

Part of the 90s charm was the fact that even though there were a limited number of international sides, the difference between the good, mediocre and average wasn’t as pronounced as it might have been in any other cricketing period. This along with the fact that there was always some ODI tournament on the brink, allowed for a number of match-u??ps and rivalries to build up, the kind of which one won’t see today unless in a world cup or a test tour.

These are the words uttered by Marcus Stoinis after almost singlehandedly propelling Australia to a win with a splend??id 146 agains??t New Zealand, only for his efforts to go in vain John Rambo in First Blood.

The portrait created is of a combatant in the aftermath of a disastrous conflict, who is not read?y to give in to forces of man or nature. A one-man army if you may. To draw a parallel to this situation in the game of cricket, a match where everything is lost and done for, only for one player to keep fighting till the end.

This is not w??ithout examples in individual games but what about an entire Test series? A player outplaying the rest of his side is exceptional in itself, however, the stakes are raised higher when performances around him have been below par throughout the tour.

But? how would one define a series as where ‘everything is lost and done for� For that, we would consider those series where the team with adverse results against its name has lost all (or nearly all) of the games. In other words, they stood little chance of winning any game.

In this article, we will take a look at such exceptional batting performances?? over the last twenty years.

5. Rahul Dravid vs England (2011): India entered England as the World Cup holders, ranked first in Test match cricket and on the back of an all-format win in West Indies. They were yet to lose a Test series under the captaincy of MS Dhoni.

They returned wit?hout an international win on the tour, be?ing wiped out 0-4 in the Test series. Injuries and bad form caught Indian players like a plague as they weren’t able to show even a semblance of fight barring for a few sessions in Trent Bridge.

This seemed to have no consequence on Rahul Dravid, the indomitable wall of Indian cricket for over a decade and a half. He stood tall in what was the sternest Test of Indian team since the 1999 tour down under. The 38-year-old was the third highest run getter in the series at an average of nearly 77, scoring three centu?ries and facing 965 balls. The next best for India were Sachin Tendulkar averaging at 34 and MS Dhoni at 31.

His exceptional performance also included instances of him carrying the bat, re?maining 146 unbeaten in the final Test at the Oval. Unfortunately for India, this was to be one of the last moments of Dravid in whites for he retired in 2012.

4. Mohammad Yousuf vs England (2006): Pakistan of mid-2000s weren’t the strongest of sides that Pakistan have possessed. Yet, they still had the talent from late 90s and early 2000s to bank upon.

Apart from the fact ?that they were touring England, a place where they hadn’t lost in a long time, they had experienced a turnaround of fortunes under Bob Woolmer. They had beaten England, India and Sri Lanka in the 2005-06 season and with England under the pump aft?er defeats against Sri Lanka, they might have fancied their chances again in a country that always seemed to favour their skills.

England came on the top winning the series 3-0, with Pakistan coming close to a positive result only in the final game (though England seemed to be hanging in there at 298-4) which ended in what is known as the Oval Test controversy. But an English side missing many of their A??shes 2005 stars such as Ashley Giles, Simon Jones, Michael Vaughan and Andrew Flintoff, was able to dominate proceedings on back of young stars like Cook, Bell, Pietersen and Panesar with able guidance from likes of Strauss and Harmison.

Pakistan on the other hand saw disappointing performances from most of thei??r players. They would’ve stood a better chance if some of their bowlers had exchanged their averages with the batsmen. Only pla?yers who stood out were Younis Khan, Umar Gul and Mohammad Yousuf.

Mohammad Yousuf in particular batted as if on another plane. Not only was he the highest run-gett?er in the? series (631, next best from either side was Andrew Strauss at 444) he averaged 90 per innings with three centuries.

But then it shouldn’t have been a surprise to many as 2006 was his year. His 1788 Test runs in that calendar year are still ?a wo?rld record. Interestingly, Yousuf would only score a solitary Test hundred after his annus mirabilis.

3. Shivnarine Chanderpaul v England (2007): Chanderpaul was a man who often played the role of a monk in a side usually caught in chaos for the majority of his playing career. (Though not by any means incapable of letting himself loose, as his 69 ball hundred versus Australia and various adventures as an opener in limited overs cricket would Testify)

In 2007, he found himself up against the challenge of England after the great Brian Lara had retired during the world cup. West Indies in white kits were no longer a force to reckon with and it? showed in the 0-3 result. Chanderpaul though, used to performing in adverse situations for some years now, was the second highest run-getter of the series only twenty runs behind Kevin Pietersen. (He featured in three Tests as compared to Pietersen’s four)

He batted in five innings and was able to cross fifty in each of them, ending with an average of 148.66 for his effort. His contribution for the tour didn’t end there as he continued his form in a tied twenty20 series and an ODI series which W?est Indies ende?d up winning.

Additional Fact: Chanderpaul was often among the few men standing fo??r West Indies in a tough decade. He rendered a very similar performance at home versus Australia in 2008, crossing fifty in five of his six innings in that series as well. And along with Chris Gayle he was the one of the top two run-getters in the Wisden trophy 2004, which England won 4-0 at home.

2. Andy Flower vs India (2000) and South Africa (2001): The ‘Flower Power�years or the time when Andy Flower entered the ‘zone�and refused to leave. Zimbabwe can rightly call late 90s to early 2000s the golden period for their side. This period saw them challenge the top sides of the world, beat them in Test series and at the world stage.

This was no doubt down to the fact that their greaTest ever batsman Andy Flower pl??ayed in this period. In the above two instances, he bested the lik?es of Dravid, Kallis, Tendulkar, Kirsten, Ganguly and Gibbs.

Across eight innings in these two series, he crossed fifty on seven occasions. ?While Zimbabwe lost both the series, they were able to draw two Tests which was no mean achievement for them, given that India were one of the toughest assignments to tour and South Africa were one of the best sides in the world. His finest moment came in the defeats, where he scored 341 runs in Harare and 253 in Delhi. These are second and ninth most runs by a batsman in a Test defeat. South Africa and India won the Te??sts convincingly but not before Andy Flower had left his mark on the game.

He scored 540 runs at the average of 270 in India and 422 at 211 versus South A?frica.

1. Brian Lara vs Sri Lanka (2001): Or the reason why this list exists. His 351 vs Sri Lanka in Colombo are the most runs by a batsman in a Test defeat. Vaas and Murali picked 26 and 24 wickets at the average of 15 and 22 respectively as West Indies were routed in all the games. (Losing by 10 wickets, 131 runs and 10 wickets)

Ramnaresh Sarwan proved to be a capable ally of Lara scoring 318 runs at an average of 53. What makes Lara’s run majestic is that his total of 688 at 114.66, dwarfed even the second best West Indian effort in a series where most of the West Indian batters f?ailed to find a solution to the Murali-Vaas combination.

If we take out Sarwan’s contribution, Lara alone scored more than rest of his team-mates c?ombined. His scores read 178, 40, 74, 45, 221 and 130. The corresponding team scores were 448, 144, 191, 190, 390 and 262.

Defeats can take a toll on even the best of batsmen irrespective of the form with which they enter into the series or the form they display for the first few innings. When in full-flow Lara created his own rhythm, regardless of the collapses around him. This is what helped him score exceptionally in Sri Lanka and in several other encoun?ters where West Indies were not up to the mark. Given the state of things, many of his great knocks ended up in failures in the latter half of his career, but this shouldn’t take away from his perf??ormances.

As two spent swimmers that do cling together

And choke their art.�/p>

If one were to describe a ‘draw�in cricket, there won’t be many better images than the one created from the above lines of Shakespeare’s Macbeth. Test cricket is unique as it has four possible results: Win, Loss, Tie and Draw. The difference between a tie and a draw can be explained in the following words: In a tied test both sides can equally lay claim to success in the game, a sort of joint winners without the word ‘winner�used. If one were to explain this in the context of Limited overs cricket, the Natwest Series final of 200??5 ended in a tie between Au??stralia and England and they were deemed to have shared the trophy. (Though this was the situation in simpler times, we have since moved on to the era of Super-Overs)

On the other hand, in a draw both sides have failed to dislodge the other in order to achieve success in the game. It doesn’t matter if the two teams have played out a run-fest on a flat deck or a nail-biting thriller, the result would still ??be deemed as a draw.

This ‘f?ailure�could pan out in several forms. Let us take a look at them:

1. Plain-ones: The worst of this lot are games washed out by rain, for the little or no cricket that you get can be really frustrating as a viewer. Mostly though, these play out on flatter decks where both sides pile on immense totals and there is little or no chance of a result by the fifth day.

On occasions though, even these can have ??their moments of entertainment as some of the non-regular bowlers can be given a bowl even getting a wicket at times (Alastair Cook getting Ishant Sharma at Nottingham in 2014) or the teams can try and focus on creating mini-contests in a game which is otherwise, heading towards a certain draw. (Sri Lanka in Chennai Test 2005 finished a rain affected game after taking a lead of one run over India’s first innings effort)

2. Decisive Draws: These are those which determine the outcome of a series and thus have a particular value in the eyes of fans. They are usually the final tests of a close series. A comparable situation in Limited overs cricket are the knock-out games, which irrespective of the manner in which they pan-out always garner the maximum eyeballs. The Oval Test in 2005 became valuable because it helped England regain the Ashes. The Sydney 2004 test helped Australia save a series against India.
3. The Near Results: Let’s open up towards the more exciting of the lot now. These tests produce some good cricket, with the game open till the end however, the nail-biting contest ends up in a draw. India vs West Indies (2011) at Mumbai and Zimbabwe vs England (1996) at Bulawayo ended with the scores tied but the chasing side had not lost all its wickets. (Otherwise, the game would’ve been a tie) These are fun to watch because they usually feature sides taking risks towards the end of the game, thus opening up possibilities of all four results to the game.
4. Twist in the Tale: The games where the conditions and pitch indicate that the match would finish in a particular way, but things take a turn for something else. Could be an excitement on the final day of an otherwise dull test like in 2006 on an extremely flat wicket of Faisalabad, where only 23 wickets had fallen over 410+ overs, Pakistan went from 488-3 to 490-8. This loss of five wickets for two runs was down to some excellent bowling from Zaheer Khan and RP Singh but had little impact on outcome of the game. Another instance is the first Test of England tour of Pakistan 2015, which saw a Pakistani collapse and England left with a chase of 99 runs in the final few overs. The English failure to do the same ensured a draw, but the final day was a stark contrast to the way in which the rest of the test had panned out.

On the other hand, it could also mean a test which seems like it is heading for a certain day 3 or 4 finish being converted into a draw like in Wellington 2014 where India had a lead of 152 runs over New Zealand who had only five of their wickets left in their second innings. Brendon McCullum scored his country’s only triple hundred and Watling and Neesham chipped in an epic fightback which not only took a certain win away from India but also allow??ed New Zealand to have a go at Indian batters for about 50 overs.

5. The Great Escapes: The ‘what-makes-test-cricket-special�category of draws. Game set on the last day with only one side in sight of victory. And at one point it seems that they have enough overs in hand to enforce that win. It takes a special kind of fight to endure the pressure if your skill-set doesn’t include batting or are injured and have to play out for a draw. In fact, playing out for a draw in itself might muddle a few heads and defensive mindset might lead to collapses. England at Cardiff 2009 with James Anderson and Monty Panesar surviving the crucial last overs, a weakened Australia fighting out to save the test versus Pakistan in Dubai 2018 and the recent Sydney special by Ashwin and Vihari can all come in as examples of the above.
6. The Blockathon: South African specialty, but teams with South Africans can do the job as well. (England at Eden Park 2013)
   Basically dig in the trenches and bat like your T20 contracts depend on the number of dots you play. South Africa at Adelaide in 2012, Colombo 2014 and even the failed vigils at Capetown 2020 and Delhi 2015, took some special effort and a kind of cricket that includes batting at a scoring rate reminiscent of the middle of the 20^th century. Definitely not always the most exciting of tests to watch, unless you are hoping your team pulls off the impossible.

The playing XI for the fourth test ended up featuring ??three players who had stayed back as net and back-up bowlers- Washingt?on Sundar, Shardul Thakur and T Natarajan.

They played twenty player?s across four tests- the most any touring team has ever featured in a Test series. Let us not even go into the personal sacrifices and comm?itments that many of these players missed out on while playing this Test series, just keep them in your mind while you develop a background of this series win.

It is not that the Australian side was without its challenges, Warner missed out on the first couple of games and Smith battled some indifferen??t form. Young talent Will Pucovski had an unfortunate time with injuries and the Australia bowling line-up seemed exhausted on the final days of the Sydney and Brisban??e tests.

Still going into the third and fourth Tests, Australia would’ve been reasonably confident of doing well. For the Australian bowlers, this was the very backyard that has spawned out several gre??at wins. Cummins, Hazelwood, Starc and Lyon are the best bowling line-up for Australia in recent times, quickly replacing the likes of Warne, Mcgrath, Gillespie, and Lee.

Smith, Labuschagne, and Warner the enforcers of Australian batting were supposed to run away with the game against India’s ??inexperienced bowling line-up. Tim Paine had grown into the role of the captain with his leadership in the Ashes 2019, when through astute strategy and calculated risk-taking the visitors became the first Australian side to return with the urn since ??2001.

That aside the record of Australians in their own backyard is an intimidating one. I could pull out stats and state that they are amongst the toughest places to tour in the world, even though their proud r?ec??ord of late has been soiled due to recent losses against South Africa and India.

But that doesn’t tell the complete story. It is how Australian conditions are different from any other touring destination that makes the difference. You might give your best performance on the first three days of the tes??t and yet end up on the losing? side. First innings leads mean only so much if you have the endurance to turn up and continue fighting for every single session.  It is why the Australian players well adapted to those conditions, are able to best even the most resilient of performances from visiting sides.

There is no?? terrible swing or turn on offer t??o seep doubt into your mind like in other places, but there is the feeling that even if you get in and stitch in a decent partnership, a couple of wickets here and the game might open up. Look no further than England in Adelaide 2006.

This is what makes winning in Australia all the more special. And to do that with a s??quad that featured only two players featuring across all four tests, with inexperience to the boot in the bowling line-up and missing one of the best batsmen in the world is a job comprehensively well done.

The team management and Indian setup in general (including the NCA, A team and U19 setup) need to take the credit for this turnaround. Every single Indian player walked in with the intent to not just do well but win the game. India might have lost the Oval Test in 2018 but its spirit is what helped them with a series win down under. There would have been no epic draw had Pant and Pujara not continued with their natural game in Sydney and gotten India closer to the target. India only decided to shut the s?hop after Vihari was left in a position where he found it was tough for him to stand, let alone continue with the game.

The young Siraj, Shardul, Sundar and Gill all walked in and performed as if they were veterans on a third or fourth tour down under. The old lot Pu??jara, Rahane, Bumrah, Ashwin and Jadeja used all their experience to best use, even putting the??ir own well-being on the line for the team.

Then there was the small matter of Rishabh Pant. He was mocked by fans and critics alike for his mistakes on the field as a keeper (who’d often chant ‘Dhoni, Dhoni�as if to remind him who remained the people’s favourite), even questioned by team management on occasions for his ‘repetition of mistakes�only months after he had been India’s find o??f the tour in Australia (2018-19) and left out of the playing XI in the pink ball test only days after he had scored a scintillating hundred in the practice game.

Without taking away from efforts from any other player from either side: the number of runs, the tempo of innings, the fifth day pitch and the situation at which the games were poised- all indicate that the fire-and-ice approach of Pant was the difference between the two sides on the final da??y. If there are issues with his keeping (not saying that he can’t improve, as many of his famed predecessors did over the years) and Saha is preferred as a keeper, he has done enough to show through his sixteen-test career that he is definitely a good fit purely as a batsman.

To call it merely a sigh of relief for Indian fans for their team to figure out how to deal with the final day of a test match for back-to-back games w??ould be incorrect. (Though many fans would admit that the ghosts of Mumbai 2006 must’ve been hanging on their minds as India were looking to bat on day 5 of the last two tests)

It was one of t??he greatest comebacks ever in the history of Test match cricket, definitely the greatest overseas series win for India. It wasn’t just about bouncing back from �6�or winning on the final day in Gabba. It was about the fact that India were in a corner having endured an excessive number of injuries, facing abuse and tough conditions were able to beat a full-strength Australian side.

The argument that many experts brought forward before the series was that with Warner and Smith, Indi?a would find it tough to compete let alone beat Australia in Australia.

India has improved massively as a touring side with a b??lip between 2011-2014 but have largely been able to compete and even win abroad. However, their series wins in England, New Zealand and Australia (traditionally tough touring places for Subcontinental teams), came against teams that lacked some of their better players. India won in England against a side that missed out on services Harmison, Flintoff and Hoggard, they won against New Zealand in 2009 but that wasn’t the strongest of New Zealand teams and they won against Australia in 2018-19 without playing Warner or Smith.

This is not to take away from any of these wins, they were all brilliant wins in their own right but to put the present result in context. This win came again??st the side consisting of David Warner, Steve Smith, Josh Hazelwood, Marnus Labuschagne, Mitchel?l Starc, Nathan Lyon and Pat Cummins. Some of these players are already considered or on their way to become all-time greats for Australia.

For Australia as they plan to set out on a big tour to South Africa, the questions remain. Was it prudent to continue with the same bowling attack for all four games, despite the indifferent form of Starc and Lyon? One feels that had Australia rested a seamer for the third test and rotated players effectively after th??e first two games, they would’ve had fresh le??gs running on day 5 of the test.

The second big question for Australia will be looking for a leader going ahead. WIll they cont??inue with Tim Paine for this important Ashes year? Chris Silverwood’s men would certainly be making plans and stratagems of their own, taking notes from Indian success as well as the Australian side of 2019 for a victory down under. It would be wise for the selectors to take a call now and build towards the next home season.

All is not lost as Australia got some good performances from Marnus Labuschagne and Pucovski, Smith returned back to what he does best, Cummins and Hazelwood were at their absolute finest and Cameron Green holds a lot of potential. If we ?know anything about Australia, they will be raring to go and fight back after this disappointing result. That means that we can look forward to some great cricket.

For people who value Test cricket, the big series are valued as much as some of the World tournaments in cricket. This?? Border Gavaskar trophy will certainly go down as one of the greatest ev??er series rivaling the likes of Ashes 1981, Border-Gavaskar Trophy 2001 and West Indies tour of Australia 1960-61.

These utterances seem like they belong to another world in the era of T20 leagues and friendlier relations between cricketers. Sure, International c??ricket still holds its importance but it has found strong financial challengers in in the form of franchise cricket around the world like IPL, BBL, CPL etc. which in??evitably feature the best of talents from around the world.

Cric??ket continues to be played with similar vigour as it was played in the past, but scheduling of international tournaments and player priorities are worked out owing t??o their contractual obligations with leagues around the world.

A recent example of the talent drain was seen in the form of ??Andre Russell, who refused to feature in the New Zealand tour Twenty20 games, yet was seen plying his trade in the Lankan Premier League, which left even the West Indian coach Phil Simmons baffled.

The scenarios today include players retiring from one of the formats (usually Tests), making themselves unavailable for tournaments or players entering ?into important tours with little preparation in terms of practice games, given that T20 engagements run around the year.

At the same point of time national cricketing boards and team managements across the world have tried to scramble for a solution. The red-ball and white-ball cricket tours are largely played separately these days, shortened tours are the norm and boards seek to manage player fitness by r??esting them from one format or the other and keeping a larger pool of players to choose from.

The solution is a different one depending on a country’s situation. The commonality remains in the fact that the hard t?askmaster approach has given way to a stress towards a more tactical solution. West Indies have recently come to terms with keeping their cricketing talent intact, even if it means that some of their Twenty20 stars are unavailable for certain international assignments. Some others allow their players to feature in specific Twenty20 leagues, given that they are availa??ble for International assignments.

While these innovative solutions work for the day and allow for international scheduling calendar to continue largely unhindered, there is no guarantee that the same w??ould continue in the future. T10 and The Hundred are the young entrants, even as T20 leagues continue to blossom. In the earliest days of T20 leagues, only the IPL could attract the best of the talent. But now nearly every test cricketing nation (quite a few non-test nations as well) have jumped into the T20 bandwagon.

The result being that the T20 player, irrespective of nationality, have a decent chance of making money by playing in these leagues. Those who miss out on the bigger leagues, will always find takers in other leagues. Coupled with the fact that the nat?ional first class pay is paltry c??ompared to the sums that these leagues offer and the cricketing calendar is heavily skewed in favour of certain ‘bigger�teams playing against each other, so that many nations don’t have top teams visiting them for years on the go, these leagues are a great financial relief for several players.

We have already seen ex??amples of players choosing formats, retiring from other formats to concentrate on T20 leagues. There is no rea??son to believe that the same would stop and on the contrary, it is quite possible that such cases would only rise giving more troubles to national cricket boards. But such queries and their solutions need not concern us.

It should remain with the cricketing fans who witnessed the rise and fall of the tri-series (with all their colourful jerseys and joyous memor??ies), who saw the birth of Border Gavaskar, Chappell Ha??dlee, Warne Muralitharan trophies, who saw friendship cups contested between national sides to improve cricketing relations and whose world revolved around the One day and Test schedule of the year.

A lot has changed: Champions trophy once a novelty, has been done away with, the triangular series are gone, there is little to no chance of having an international test championship of the sort witnessed in late 90s (Asian Test Championship with round-robin format) and T20 cricket is on the rise. And it?? seems the future has a lot of changes in store for the present-day fans.

A strong possibility is the possible dilution of International cricket to an extent that the cricketing?? schedule of tomorrow resembles that of modern-day football (leagues with a sprinkling of internationals) with Test cricket, somehow adjusted into the scheme. (Till it continues to find its takers amongst the powers that be in the name of ‘tradition�

But then one must understand that change is something what one would associate with the word ‘cricket� An exclusive game featuring only certain nations (with a history of colonial rule) with only l??imited number of international Tests, the spectator interest lay greatly in the domestic affairs of their countries with long tours by international sides featuring a great?? number of side-matches.

With the interest waning in 60s, limited overs cricket was introduced which caught the imagination with the initial world cups and after the Kerry Packer years. The Indian economy liberalized in the 90s and the game got a different colour to it. While International tours had always been a part of the cricketing tradition, the One-day interna??tionals were seen as?? a welcome addition.

Multi-country international tournaments such as World Championship of cricket, Australian tri-series, Sharjah Cups and Champions trophy dotted the 80s and 90s. They were not brought about by cricket lovers imagining them into existence (If the same were true, we would’ve just finished with the 27^th Test World cup), rather that cricket boards could profit i??mmensely from them.

Tournaments were booked?? as Independence Cups, Asia Cups, Australia-Asia Cups which raised the viewers interest with marquee contests between arch-rivals. With the lure of financial riches, all boards jumped into the bandwagon, the tri-series cricket being hosted by nearly all the test playing nations in the late 90s and early 2000s. It seems that the cricket boards? learnt their nationalism in the market.

And when the dictates of the market favoured the rise of Twenty20 cricket, we saw the rise of T20 leagues aro??und the world. There are a number of people who have questioned the efficacy of ‘The Hundred�due to ‘release�this year, but if it becomes a hit don’t be surprised if a world cup is played in this format before the end of this decade.

The ??attitudes might have changed but the commitment of the player has remained the same, case in point being the epic rear-guard action by Ashwin and Vihari in the Sydney test. At the end of the day players are human beings, who would prefer better lives which can be secured by the financial incentives of the T20 leagues. It is no different from the past, when a lot of informal tournaments (Siyaram cup featuring near full strength India and Pakistan) attracted a number of top names.

For the international cricket to continue, the answer lies with International cricket council, the viewers watching the game and the cricketing boards who run the game around the world. They have the option?? to decide if status quo is the best way to go forward or making such changes which allow international cricket to remain a viable product for the consumers. The decision to give all Twenty20 games between ICC members ‘International�status will help the game spread. The World Test Championship and Cricket World Cup S??uper League are small steps in the right direction to introduce a league-based system permanently.

It is obvious that the international game will stick along for quite some time, but the direction it heads towards can be m?odified by chang??es made to the calendar today. It might take innovation on the part of administrators and some tough calls.