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.

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

What’s your argument? They’d obviously perform better today than they would’ve 20 years ago.

[ZIMDOGGY]

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.

What’s your argument? They’d obviously perform better today than they would’ve 20 years ago.

No they would get annihilated, total carnage

[Saint_Mel]

Yeah and they would've been annihilated to an even greater extent 20 years ago. So again, what's your argument?

It seems some people are making the argument that the 2004 team was better simply because they played against better teams. This is obviously a ridiculous argument not only because the 2004 team was losing consistently but also because almost all associate teams in the early 2000s were entirely amateur. Teams like Ireland, Namibia and Uganda are an order of magnitude better than they were 20 years ago, so to say that the current team is worse compared to 2004 because they lose to such teams is disingenuous to say the least.

[eugene]

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 have missed the point, the comparison is relative to the wider game at the time. You obviously adjust for era, and players like Brendan Taylor and Tatenda Taibu would have adapted to the current game much better than our current lot do - BT right now is probably still better than most of our team. Going back to the 1990s, Andy Flower was one of the best in the world and had he played 20 years later he would still be one of the best in the world. Someone like Kevin Pieterson would have been immense in today's IPL. You put the players of yesteryear in todays training regimens and professionalism, and add in short boundaries and other rules they would easily adapt. Just like the game doesn't stand still, neither would people's talent if they could span multiple eras.

[eugene]

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 .

You don't think Bradman would have adapted to the current game with his talent? He was completely dominant with none of the advantages of todays players. Imagine Bradman in a fulltime professional environment with rules tailored towards the batsmen and boundary ropes brought in 20 feet? Relative to the game, the 2004 team was more talented than 2024.

[CholeZimbo]

A talented batsman like Craig Ervine has not adapted to the T20 format. So we cannot really assume that great players or any player from a past era was going to thrive/fail in the modern game, therefore making this whole comparison of the two sets of squads flawed.

[zimbos_05]

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.

I really can't take this seriously. Better than the 90s side? A side that regularly loses to the likes of Namibia, Scotland, Netherlands et al?

I get your point about how the game has evolved and athletes are different, but that is based on the assumption that our players are on that level too. That is not entirely true. I've watched our lads train and they are not doing things that other sides are. Their athletic levels are just no on the same as the other sides. Our lads in the 90s were also a fair bit behind their counterparts, but they actually competed. They beat some of the best sides of their time and matched it with some of the world's best.

I get your whole thought process and idea and I agree with it to a certain degree, but I can't genuinely take seriously that the current side would beat our best ever side. You can run longer and quicker, but if you can't play with a straight bat or regularly bowl a good line and length, then you are not winning.

You also need to remember, all this innovation and advancements in the game you are talking about, it's coming from coaches who played the game in the 90s. They are introducing new methods and styles of coaching that are allowing the athletes of today be the athletes they are.

[eugene]

Given the current team are less fit and worse fielders than 2004, let alone the 1990s, I'm not sure why people are so confident they'd wipe the floor with the greats of yesteryear.

[mnelson68]

Wouldn't get anywhere near the likes of the Flower brothers , Campbell , Johnson , Goodwin , Whittall , Streak , Strang , Carlisle , Houghton ,Blignaut , olonga etc .

[eugene]

Next people will be claiming that Innocent Kaia is better than Andy Flower.