Zimbabwe was already in decline and behind Kenya by 2003

[jaybro]

Hhm can you please tell me how many times the POST REBEL ERA Zimbabwe toured India, England, South Africa or Australia ?? And how many times Zimbabwe toured those countries PRE REBEL ERA ??

These players you call "hopeless" were taking on the best in the World in their own back yards, so before you go calling anyone hopeless get your facts right.

#justsomemorebullshitstatsbythekingofbullshit

[pariah]

Hhm can you please tell me how many times the POST REBEL ERA Zimbabwe toured India, England, South Africa or Australia ?? And how many times Zimbabwe toured those countries PRE REBEL ERA ??

These players you call "hopeless" were taking on the best in the World in their own back yards, so before you go calling anyone hopeless get your facts right.

#justsomemorebullshitstatsbythekingofbullshit

Why does this always have to happen? Arguing the bleeding obvious? Full Members are such because of Tests, and in their entire existence as a Test side up to that point - 12 whole years and tens of matches - Zimbabwe only won 7 times, of which among the away wins, only one of those was against a top 8 side (Pakistan).

If that's not hopeless, then I don't know what is.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... ew=results

Excellence?

oz.png (33.49 KiB) Viewed 2946 times

In 21 years as an ODI side up to that point (Dec 2003), Zimbabwe won just 66 times out of 245 matches of which 25 were against Kenya(13) and Bangladesh (10), NAM(1) and NED(1). That leaves 41 wins in 21 years against top 8 sides - an average of less than 2 wins per year against a top 8 side(mind you between 2006-2011, Zimbabwe were virtually an Associate, just like that ZIM side were between 1983-1992).

In those 21 years, that ZIM only won 11 just ODIs away against a top 8 side.

Again if those are not symptoms of hopelessness then I don't know what is.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... opposition


It's a pity they don't play anywhere near enough Tests to be ranked, but in 14 years since Jan 2004, ZIM have won ODI 14 times against top 8 sides.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... ew=results

[jaybro]

Why does this always have to happen? Arguing the bleeding obvious? Full Members are such because of Tests, and in their entire existence as a Test side up to that point - 12 whole years and tens of matches - Zimbabwe only won 7 times, of which among the away wins, only one of those was against a top 8 side (Pakistan).

Only test win away from home was against Pakistan !!!

Oh I must have forgot our record post rebel era away from home

11 matches zero wins 1 draw

[eugene]

Pariah, there is nothing to advance in your opening post. It is a dead end, pointless post. I could just as easily post the scorecards from our 1999 CWC victories over SA and India and claim that the rebels were a top three team in the world as they defeated two super powers.

Zimbabwe were never worldbeaters but they faced far stronger opposition between 1992 and 2002 than we ever have since. They were also essentially semi-pro for much of that time. Pariah, try as you might, you will never convince anyone that Timycen Maruma is superior to Andy, or even Grant Flower.

The majority of the rebels were coming towards the end of their careers anyway so Zimbabwe may not have fared much better long term, but imagine how much more prepared Taylor, Chigumbura, Panyangara, Rainsford, etc could have been had they been phased into the side gradually and not just all thrown in together. The old rebel-era team made it past the Preliminary stages of the CWC twice, and were ranked in the top 8 for tests and ODIs at different points, nothing the post-rebel era have ever achieved.

[Kriterion_BD]

Eugene, was the pre 2004 Zim team ever ranked in the top 8? SL were minnows but by 1996 were fairly strong and hadnt lost many games to Zimbabwe. The ICC's official rankings came out in 2002 I think.

I think its important to ask whether the tiny white population would be able to sustain the game at the highest level in Zimbabwe even if the politics and economy were doing well. At peak levels how many white lived in ZIM? 500,000? Thats a really small pool of players unless and until cricket becomes the #1 sport amongst the majority black population.

[TapsC]

maybe Kriterion can analyse the match winners for us in the 90s when he has time.

I personally feel there are a lot of those players we look up to would have been dead average still if they had played in this era. what I think those guys had over the current crop was that they were more of a unit but when you actually look at the top batting averages for Zim overall you will see 10 or so guys averaging above 30 and half of them played post 2004. it says a lot.

there were obviously a lot of great players in the 90s like the flower brothers, Neil Johnson, Murray Goodwin, Campbell and a few others but most of them were not much better than the current crop if you ask me.

I remember Pommie saying he felt that Taylor was the best one day player we ever had in his last game. don't know how I felt about that but it showed me that you only really appreciate some guys when they are gone. the current crop were also forced to play under some incredibly adverse situations and were thrown into the limelight as kids. it hasn't been an easy ride for them too

[eugene]

Yes, at one point England was ranked below Zimbabwe, I haven't found the dates on this yet, but I remember it distinctly. Perhaps another forumite can help me find evidence of this.

The shrinking white population of Zimbabwe was never going to be enough to sustain cricket long term in Zimbabwe - perhaps if 100-200,000 had remained in the country it might have been possible? White Zimbabweans have always punched far above their weight in sporting terms. One could argue granting Zimbabwe test status in 1992 was a short sighted move, just as granting Kenya test status in 2003 would have been.

[eugene]

maybe Kriterion can analyse the match winners for us in the 90s when he has time.

I personally feel there are a lot of those players we look up to would have been dead average still if they had played in this era. what I think those guys had over the current crop was that they were more of a unit but when you actually look at the top batting averages for Zim overall you will see 10 or so guys averaging above 30 and half of them played post 2004. it says a lot.

there were obviously a lot of great players in the 90s like the flower brothers, Neil Johnson, Murray Goodwin, Campbell and a few others but most of them were not much better than the current crop if you ask me.

I remember Pommie saying he felt that Taylor was the best one day player we ever had in his last game. don't know how I felt about that but it showed me that you only really appreciate some guys when they are gone. the current crop were also forced to play under some incredibly adverse situations and were thrown into the limelight as kids. it hasn't been an easy ride for them too

Correct, as a unit they were great and they far out-performed their abilities, but take out Johnson, Goodwin, the Flowers, and Streak, Paul Strang, Blignaut, and you really aren't left with much. Campbell had his moments I guess and was better than most, and was of course statistically a superior bowler to Prosper Utseya, but he was never quite in the class of the others. The rest (Rennie's, Wishart, Carlisle, Marillier, Evans, etc) were not any better than the current lot. Of course comparing from one age to another is always tricky.

[Kriterion_BD]

maybe Kriterion can analyse the match winners for us in the 90s when he has time.

That sounds like a plan. 1992 up to April, 2004. I've got a couple other things going on right now, but I'll let you know when I get started on it.

[pariah]

I think its important to ask whether the tiny white population would be able to sustain the game at the highest level in Zimbabwe even if the politics and economy were doing well. At peak levels how many white lived in ZIM? 500,000? Thats a really small pool of players unless and until cricket becomes the #1 sport amongst the majority black population.

Your estimates are highly exaggerated.

http://www.tomdecastella.com/the-last-h ... t-monthly/

At independence there were as many as 200,000 whites in the country; in 2000, when the farm invasions began, there were 70,000; today, there are as few as 25,000, many of them elderly. ‘I and a minority of other administrators recognised that if left unchecked it would only be a matter of time before cricket died in this country. But when a choice had to be made between a black and a white player, the white player always got the nod.’

The white players held the board to ransom, he continued. In 2000, for instance, when Zimbabwe toured the West Indies, he claims that ‘the players decided they didn’t want the coach Dave Houghton any longer so they forced him out’.

The allegation was later backed up by Ali Shah, who was tour manager at the time. ‘It was the tail wagging the dog,’ he said. ‘The players always had to have their way. Davie wanted to drop Alistair Campbell and pick Craig Wishart, but the royal family of Andy Flower, Grant Flower, Campbell and [Guy] Whittall wouldn’t stand for that.’