2008 has been a year of change, and I believe cricket has survived it and grown immensely.

It started on the 2nd Jan 2008 with India taking on Australia at the SCG. What transpired has taken this increasingly intense rivalry to a new level. Australia came out top but I thought the umpiring was pretty dubious.

Since then we have had some major changes in the cricketing landscape. The introduction of 20/20 competitions in India was a major change to the schedules. Many top players were playing in the ICL, whilst the majority of the current world elite were playing for ridiculous salaries in the IPL. Both were a resounding success, and are here to stay, changing the cricket schedules forever. In my point of view, I thoroughly enjoyed the ICL too, I see no reason why those players should be banned from test and provincial cricket. I think the BCCI (board of cricket control India) has a lot to answer for and should get their s?*t  sorted out. Why should those who were innovative and prepared to do something to promote and grow the game of cricket be disadvantaged?

Terrorism played a huge role too. Of this I think the ICC and BCCI have shown double standards. The fact that Pakistan got to play no test matches at all in 2008 is a disgrace! Yet when terrorism reared it’s head in India, England displayed the sort of courage and commitment required to ensure terrorists don’t take control. For India to then turn around and say they will not go to India reeks of hypocrisy. The fact remains that India control the game of cricket, and at world level, Pakistan are not big enough to make an impact in the political arena. Whilst we have seen some fantastic test matches this year, it is a shame it has really only involved 3-4 teams. Australia, India, South Africa and just recently England.

With the advent of 20/20 cricket, the one day has not produced a lot of note this year. India beat Australia in Australia, but there were few major tournaments this year. The introduction of the power plays and short boundaries is not something that I think has helped the game. Giving the 3rd power play to batting team also does not help. If anything it over complicates the game. I am not a fan of the short boundaries either. These days you only have to have a huge bat and get an edge on it and it is 4. or get a top edge and it sails over third man or fine leg for 6. I don’t think you should get rewarded for a poor shot. The longer boundaries (especially at the MCG, Calcutta etc) made the game more interesting by working the ball around the field and making the batsmen have to have greater endurance by running a lot between the wickets.

Interestingly all the major cricket commentators (the supposed experts of the game) have stated that India deserve to be ranked the number 1 test team in the world. And Dhoni has been hailed as a revolutionary captain. India are reported to have the most balanced attack in the world and the best batting lineup.

I personally (and I know I am biased) dispute that. South Africa have not lost a series for 2 years…home and away. We have beaten England, West Indies, Pakistan overseas. We have drawn with India, in India.

India on the other hand have not beaten Australia in Australia. They have always been good at home but have struggle overseas. Whilst they have got better, they are still not consistent enough. They have beaten the West Indies and England away, but have been beaten recently by Sri Lanka away and 2 years ago by South Africa. Dhoni may be a good captain, but lets see him captain a side overseas and see how he responds to some pressure situations. I feel Smith has done his hard yards and would be much calmer under pressure. His team would also respond much better as individuals too. The much vaunted bowling attack of India is not as good as many would have is believe. Zaheer Khan is an average bowler, and always has been. Sharma is ok, lacks consistency for my liking and doesn’t do enough with the ball. In any case I hardly think he will rip through a batting lineup. He is more likely to chip a few wickets out per innings. Harbhajan is past his best, and seems to only pick up wickets against the aussies. This is not an attack that I believe can travel around the world consistently damaging batting lineups.

South Africa on the other hand have the 3 exceptional pace bowlers, backed up with Kallis and Harris. All 5 of these bowlers get 2-3 wickets here and there, and then Steyn usually cleans up the rest.

In the batting department I feel it is more even, but if you get Virender Sehwag early, I think India can be in trouble. Dravid and Tendulkar are nowhere near the level they used to be, and Yuvraj is simply not a test player. He is fine on the sub-continent where he can get away with no footwork, but against pace, bounce, swing and seam he is found wanting. South Africa meanwhile have 6 batters who can all stand up and take responsibility.

So in both batting and bowling I believe South Africa are superior to India, and based on results over the last 2-3 years, I think they deserve to have the number 1 spot