Eras are cyclical but now's the time to beat the Aussies

So says this journo.

Time to beat the Aussies
24 Oct 2008

Ten years ago, when the Australian team was at its most dominant, it became fashionable for the rest of us to believe that the Australian way was the route to take for those who wanted a share of their hegemony.

We cast envious looks at their layers of club cricket, where boys were exposed to men and club cricketers to seasoned Test veterans. Their abbreviated first class structure of just six teams was the touchstone to produce toe-to-toe cricket of an intensity that honed great players.

We saw that their state and national academies had managed to turn rough talent into a succession of jewels. Thus other countries needed to acquire their own academies in order to polish their own gems. Hell, the Poms even established their academy in Australia under the direction of Rod Marsh, the archetypal Aussie.

Australian coaches popped up in charge of all the subcontinent Test teams, of the West Indies, Zimbabwe and even New Zealand. England employed an Aussie bowling coach in their successful quest of the 2005 Ashes. Even the Australian administrators were looked upon as more than mere coathangers. If the ICC wanted a new chief executive, its directors looked no further than the bloke who ran the ACB and airlifted him into Lord’s.

All this was based on the belief that the Australians had found a way to keep the production lines of talent rolling constantly. After all, did not Mr Cricket himself, the amazing Michael Hussey, he of two triple hundreds, have to wait until past his 30th birthday before someone gave him his baggy green. Even the great Gilchrist was kept waiting until perilously close to his big 30.

The message the world received was that you had to be something special to make the Australian team, so rich was the country in its deep seam of talent. Yet this was not the story coming from the Aussies themselves. For some years, they have been warning that their cupboard, while not resembling Ma Hubbard’s, was running out of quality stock.

The flock of spinners that were supposed to have been inspired by Shane Warne have found his example too tough to emulate. Genius may be the child of imitation, but comprises more perspiration than inspiration in order to accomplish the mastery of variation and consistency achieved by Warne. The tubby leg-spinner may have been a larrikin, but the work he put into his art is beyond the reach and determination of all but the most singular of characters.

The truth is that serious talent cannot be prescribed. It was Australia’s fortune that a huge crop of gifted cricketers came along at the same time, just as it did in the West Indies in the 1980s and in South Africa in the 1960s and ’70s. Such bounty is uncommon, but does seem to happen from time to time in countries where the flowering of talent is assisted, not hindered.

The coming together of a bunch of gifted players at the same time is a phenomenon that is not easily explained. The Welsh rugby team of the 1970s is another example of an absurd collection of precocious talent that provoked many to believe that Wales would rule rugby for all eternity only to find that, once age had withered those great players, the Welsh became no more than ordinary.

It is always a mistake to assume that a great team is evidence of a structure that can perpetuate success. A good structure such as that in Australian cricket will, however, ensure that barren periods are relatively short. Those who have been waiting for years to beat them will have to make sure that they do not fluff the opportunity that is now so manifest. Unlike the West Indies, where structures are close to collapse, the Aussies will not hang around waiting for something to turn up.

The Indians will not surrender their lead in the current series. The present Australian team simply does not have the firepower to win a series on Indian pitches. The fast bowlers do not have the skill to run through the Indian batting on the abrasive surfaces that favour reverse swing and the spinners look unlikely to trouble tailenders, let alone India’s “fab five”.

The Australians will return home after this tour with little time to fix their bus.

Andrew Symonds will make a difference when he returns for the South African series and the bowlers will be more effective on their own pitches. The fact remains that this will be our best chance to defeat the Aussies in Australia for the first time. In four or five years, when the next chance comes, the compositions of both teams will be substantially different and only a fool would now bet against the Aussies then.

For example, this will be Jacques Kallis’s last tour to Australia as a world-class all-rounder. He may return just as a batsman, but his bowling days are drawing to a close. When he is bowling, Kallis lends the team the balance it needs to compete with the Aussies. As we know, cricketers of his quality do not come round with the regularity of a London bus, but we need him to be at his very best. Let us hope that Duncan Fletcher has stitched up his batting.

Ten years ago, when the Australian team was at its most dominant, it became fashionable for the rest of us to believe that the Australian way was the route to take for those who wanted a share of their hegemony.

10 years ago we were getting thrashed by India in India.

The Australian team was at its peak between 2001 and 2004, imo.

I agree with Henry. It's about teams which peak, even though we've been the dominant throughout this era. The reasons why teams either side of Henry's window are weaker than when they peaked. If you put the Aussies from our period of so-called hegemony up against those such as the SA one of the late 60s, the great West Indians circa early 80s and the 'invincibles', you would settle on that one. When comparing it has to be about a team, not a whole era because they vary a bit in terms of potence.

I agree with his central point though, that having the good structures in place optimises talent development but no country is guaranteed perpetual dominance. In the West Indies case, they largely took their collective eyes off the ball and their cricket is now paying the price.

I do feel that the media is getting a little carried away by one test loss, as emphatic as it was. Aus will still be hard to beat at home. However, they've hardly played any test cricket away from home since 2006. Since then, they were pushed hard by the Windies earlier in the year, and they're trailing in the current series against India. Home ground advantage will be more of a factor for them, imo.

I still do not believe that Australia can be beaten easily. Their batting is too strong and their bowling is better than most of the countries. Along with that they have a unique discipline and fighting ability. Just losing one match, and that too in India doesn't indicate the free fall most are predicting. I think the series vs SA in December will indicate the situation if any country can challenge Australia for the number one spot!

Henry wrote:I do feel that the media is getting a little carried away by one test loss, as emphatic as it was. Aus will still be hard to beat at home. However, they've hardly played any test cricket away from home since 2006. Since then, they were pushed hard by the Windies earlier in the year, and they're trailing in the current series against India. Home ground advantage will be more of a factor for them, imo.

I want to see AUS vs SL in SL.

Historically AUS have a very average record in sub continent, they have only won one test in Pakistan since 1959/60 and only one series in India for around 40 years. In SL i remember they lost in 1999 as well but swept SL in 2004.

At home they will still be very tough to beat. Even in places like SA and ENG they should do fairly well because the conditions there would help people like Lee and Clark

I think some people are overreacting to one loss but symbolically we look a lot weaker than other times we've had losses, even big ones, which have proven to be more aberrant than an indication of a permanent slide.

In reality though the loss was as emphatic as it comes. 320 runs but that after India cruised to a three wicket loss declaration.

Our batting and bowling depth looks all right but significantly doesn't include the standout talents of a Gilly to replace the incumbet like he did with Healy or even a
Stuey to hold the fort until a decent spinner comes along. It was these outstanding performers who gave us the edge over all comers. A Warne, Gilly and McGrath can lift all around them, and it's great bowlers who often determine the outcome of tests. They've been supported by good batsmen anyway and in Hayden, someone who's the catalyst for opposition maulings and quick runs, even if it's mainly on flatter tracks.

Our bowlers have always had runs to play with, hence attacking fields, have been kept on the field generally for comfortably less time than the opposition and have been backed by great fieldsmen.

We should still beat most, if not all, in home conditions but probably less convincingly at times. Indian conditions are a challenge because they're the most foreign to ours. We've tended to do well in Sri Lanka, not least because Warne has prospered there but it will be closer now that he's gone and with Mendis looking as menancing as Murali.

Even when SA have had good teams, we've adapted well to their conditions because they're similar to ours and they never seem to break the mental hex we have over them.

As a rule we do all right in England because most of our batsmen have played there for extended periods and we've always had Warne to mess with pommie minds. 2009 will be interesting if reverse swing comes into play as we're still to sort that out. England is difficult to read as its form tends to vacillate between almost unbeatable, mediocre and manifestly poor and insipid. KP may change all that.

Aus are still a tough team to beat for any cricketing nation in the world. Their standards have not dropped.

It is just that India's standards have improved that much better.

Red wrote:I agree with Henry. It's about teams which peak, even though we've been the dominant throughout this era. The reasons why teams either side of Henry's window are weaker than when they peaked. If you put the Aussies from our period of so-called hegemony up against those such as the SA one of the late 60s, the great West Indians circa early 80s and the 'invincibles', you would settle on that one. When comparing it has to be about a team, not a whole era because they vary a bit in terms of potence.

I agree with his central point though, that having the good structures in place optimises talent development but no country is guaranteed perpetual dominance. In the West Indies case, they largely took their collective eyes off the ball and their cricket is now paying the price.

There seems to be a change in the Aussie ability to actively pursue the burden of expectations others have loaded on their shoulders. I don't think the cupboard is empty. More likely they find there are few left in the age group 30+ and its not easy to find players that fill the Michael Clarke bill, or more precisely, ones that fill the vacant position bill at an earlier age.

Academies and stringent qualifying requirements all very well, but nothing can beat international exposure at the front. When you’ve reached the pinnacle there’s got to be a downhill. Unless, of course, they think the zenith hasn’t been reached yet.

JGK wrote:

Ten years ago, when the Australian team was at its most dominant, it became fashionable for the rest of us to believe that the Australian way was the route to take for those who wanted a share of their hegemony.

10 years ago we were getting thrashed by India in India.

Yup.

1996 - Lost the the inaugural Border-Gavaskar Trophy test in Delhi. Ironically it was Nayan Mongia's Gilchrist like innings that set India up.

1998 - Lost to India 2-1 in India.

2001 - Lost to India 2-1 again in India.

It was India:5 v/s Aus:2.

Spelt retirement for both Taylor and Waugh without that 1 away trophy.

So, the Aussies lose a test and their supporters are ready to show the white flag then?

Basil wrote:So, the Aussies lose a test and their supporters are ready to show the white flag then?

Such a British mindset...for the Australians I mean. tut.

Chandan wrote:I still do not believe that Australia can be beaten easily. Their batting is too strong and their bowling is better than most of the countries. Along with that they have a unique discipline and fighting ability. Just losing one match, and that too in India doesn't indicate the free fall most are predicting. I think the series vs SA in December will indicate the situation if any country can challenge Australia for the number one spot!

Reasoned & reasonable Chandan but I'd think that most Aussies would view India as the tougher opponent. It's lateral ball movement that worries Australian batsmen. The japies don't have the same weapons that India do. In the bowling stakes, both RSA & Aus have similar fast bowling talent but I see leg spin as a telling difference. Quite ****** obviously Aus don't have the legspin talent of the recent past but I do see the likes of McGain &/or White causing problems.

Just like 2001 it's not really our bowlers who are the problem. It's our batsmen and captain.

Bradman wrote:Just like 2001 it's not really our bowlers who are the problem. It's our batsmen and captain.

Bowling is a problem if SHYTYT is your best available spinner!

How good was this thread?

xx

Bradman wrote:Just like 2001 it's not really our bowlers who are the problem. It's our batsmen and captain.

According to Shane Warne, Punters captaincy is improving but his imagination is failing...

Batman wrote:How good was this thread?

Forum Aluminium.