2004 Team v 2024 Team

[Saint_Mel]

2004 team hands down, at least they were getting pumped by the likes of Australia and India full-strength. The current team get pumped by Uganda and Singapore and we get excited if we get to play a full-strength Ireland.

Despite 2004-09 or so being depressing, at least it was fun to watch how the newcomers were progressing against the best in the world. It's hard to feel the same excitement when we're playing Rwanda and Jersey.

Yeah but teams like Uganda and Singapore were not as good in 2004 as they are now.

[ZIMDOGGY]

2004 team hands down, at least they were getting pumped by the likes of Australia and India full-strength. The current team get pumped by Uganda and Singapore and we get excited if we get to play a full-strength Ireland.

Despite 2004-09 or so being depressing, at least it was fun to watch how the newcomers were progressing against the best in the world. It's hard to feel the same excitement when we're playing Rwanda and Jersey.

Yeah but teams like Uganda and Singapore were not as good in 2004 as they are now.

Lets put Uganda and Singapore against Australia and India and see how they fare.

[secretzimbo]

if we are talking ODI cricket, which I assume we are as we have only played like 2 Tests in the past 3 years and T20I didn't exist in 2004, - then there is absolutely no competition and the current 2024 side shits all over the 2004 one. Sorry, but they probably beat the 90's one as well.

Cricket is unrecognisable to twenty years ago. Players from 20-30 years ago would not last a minute in todays game, for any country. It's just so much higher quality, higher fitness, higher skill, higher intensity. Batting in particular is so much better - at all levels - and bowling has adapted a lot too. We all look at the past with rose tinted glasses but the standard of cricket around the world now is so so so so much higher.

And yeah Uganda of 2024 would probably be fairly, at least half, competitive with the top teams of 2004.

Shoot me. I'll die on this hill quite happily.

[Googly]

1000% agree. It's like the Bradman die-hards- he wouldn't make a Div2 club side
Every sport the players get bigger, stronger, faster, practice 3 times as much, get paid 100 times more and yet people think a player or team from 20-50 years ago would compete. They're in dream land.

The only guys I think would be as good are Wasim and Waqar (but the 30 cameras would probably pick up how they were messing with the ball ) and the WI quartet .

[Googly]

And Warne and Murali. Except Murali would have not been allowed to bowl

[mnelson68]

if we are talking ODI cricket, which I assume we are as we have only played like 2 Tests in the past 3 years and T20I didn't exist in 2004, - then there is absolutely no competition and the current 2024 side shits all over the 2004 one. Sorry, but they probably beat the 90's one as well.

Cricket is unrecognisable to twenty years ago. Players from 20-30 years ago would not last a minute in todays game, for any country. It's just so much higher quality, higher fitness, higher skill, higher intensity. Batting in particular is so much better - at all levels - and bowling has adapted a lot too. We all look at the past with rose tinted glasses but the standard of cricket around the world now is so so so so much higher.

And yeah Uganda of 2024 would probably be fairly, at least half, competitive with the top teams of 2004.

Shoot me. I'll die on this hill quite happily.

Surely this is a piss take , Better than the 90's side ? You are dreaming or dillusional.

[secretzimbo]

Significantly better and it's not even close.

[Pat_Bee]

Significantly better on paper, the game has moved on but we haven’t.

Young BT would make a decent 50 striking at 84.78 or something, powering the 2004 side to an under par 117.

The 2024 side would come out guns blazing, totally bottle it, be 3 down in the power play. Raza would fancy a bit of Ed Rainsford and hole out instead of consolidating. Clive would play a valiant innings but ultimately they’d fall about 20 short.

Facts

[ZIMDOGGY]

if we are talking ODI cricket, which I assume we are as we have only played like 2 Tests in the past 3 years and T20I didn't exist in 2004, - then there is absolutely no competition and the current 2024 side shits all over the 2004 one. Sorry, but they probably beat the 90's one as well.

Cricket is unrecognisable to twenty years ago. Players from 20-30 years ago would not last a minute in todays game, for any country. It's just so much higher quality, higher fitness, higher skill, higher intensity. Batting in particular is so much better - at all levels - and bowling has adapted a lot too. We all look at the past with rose tinted glasses but the standard of cricket around the world now is so so so so much higher.

And yeah Uganda of 2024 would probably be fairly, at least half, competitive with the top teams of 2004.

Shoot me. I'll die on this hill quite happily.

You are right in all that, but if you adjust it for era.
Most if the older players will have adapted easy. We saw ten years ago players that were still around in the nineties, and how they adapted quite well. Not everyone of course. Cricket is a weird game.

[Kriterion_BD]

if we are talking ODI cricket, which I assume we are as we have only played like 2 Tests in the past 3 years and T20I didn't exist in 2004, - then there is absolutely no competition and the current 2024 side shits all over the 2004 one. Sorry, but they probably beat the 90's one as well.

Cricket is unrecognisable to twenty years ago. Players from 20-30 years ago would not last a minute in todays game, for any country. It's just so much higher quality, higher fitness, higher skill, higher intensity. Batting in particular is so much better - at all levels - and bowling has adapted a lot too. We all look at the past with rose tinted glasses but the standard of cricket around the world now is so so so so much higher.

And yeah Uganda of 2024 would probably be fairly, at least half, competitive with the top teams of 2004.

Shoot me. I'll die on this hill quite happily.

Uganda don't even have ODI status, so I highly doubt they'd have been able to compete even with 2004 Bangladesh or 2004 Zimbabwe much less the top 8 sides of that era. If the Tikolo based Kenya could have time traveled to 2024, they'd have beaten Uganda 5-0 in an ODI series, and if they played 10 games, Uganda would have snuck in 1 win, to make it 9-1 in Kenya's favor.

Associate cricket has improved as a whole in the past 20 years because the ICC funded it and supported it through the WCL system and InterContinental Cup (they need to bring that back again, but looks like red ball cricket is dead outside the WTC teams).