*Official* Australia in decline thread

[Pratters]

EDIT ii: The other point is where you take the decline from. Some may consier that India were probably a better team around 2004 or so than what they are now. But they're probably in better shape than in parts of 2005 and 2006.

The Ganguly era ended in decline. One can argue that the success in Australia (or in Pakistan under Ganguly were higher peaks than what this team has achieved but where I am concerned, I would separate post and pre Ganguly periods as it stands just as I would pre and post Azhar periods. There have been a lot of same players playing, yes but the teams have been lead differently, passed through phases (particularly after the way the Ganguly era ended) and where I am concerned, it is not right to put post and pre Ganguly era as one.

 

[vic_orthdox]

The Ganguly era ended in decline. One can argue that the success in Australia (or in Pakistan under Ganguly were higher peaks than what this team has achieved but where I am concerned, I would separate post and pre Ganguly periods as it stands just as I would pre and post Azhar periods. There have been a lot of same players playing, yes but the teams have been lead differently, past through phases (particularly after the way the Ganguly era ended) and where I am concerned, it is not right to put post and pre Ganguly era as one.

Sorry, but that paragraph is just a rambling statement that is loosely related to what I just said.

 

[Pratters]

I'm sure there's some sort of punctuation mark missing that will help me understand that sentence better, but oh well.

Someone who hasn't routinely performed at the highest level can only be called a good prospect, IMO. Sree and RP haven't done that, but have the potential to.

Ya added the missing word in the sentence.

I know what you mean but I differ in that. I will give you an example. I saw Akhtar bowl very well versus South Africa in South Africa beating the batsmen for pace. I thought he was a very good bowler right there. You can see aspects and think .. ya this bowler or batsman is very good. For instance. Rajinder Goel never even played at the highest level for India but Gavaskar rated him very highly. Gavaskar can have the view that Goel is a very good bowler. However, some one else might not necessarily have the same view.

 

[Pratters]

Sorry, but that paragraph is just a rambling statement that is loosely related to what I just said.

You explained how some one might take the starting point from x. I explained why according to me it wouldn't be right to take the starting point from x. Whatever.

 

[vic_orthdox]

You explained how some one might take the decline from x. I explained why according to me it wouldn't be right to take the decline from x. Whatever.

I said that talking about whether or not India had improved in recent times depends on what/when your starting point is. That is all.

 

[Perm]

In India, the ODIs showed that without Hayden & Symmonds Aus are an ordinary team.

Haha, no it didn't. You're fast turning into a very anti-Australian member.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

About a year ago, I think some Australians would have been saying that about Warne, McGrath and Langer.

Indeed.

(5:13 PM) He covets the pr: Warne will definitely be there in '09 if he's fit
(5:13 PM) He covets the pr: the **** won't retire until he's dead

 

[deeps]

You can sense that Australia can lose a match these days....but imo, Steve Waughs side was invincible.

Not invincible, but particularly in Tests, if you wanted to beat his side, it meant there had to be an extra-ordinary game from one or more individuals.

Lara produced some gems, Laxman and Dravid likewise, and a few others. There's only a handful of losses there, and most of them were due to some sort of brilliance from the opposition. Now it feels like there does not have to be some brilliance, but just some above average cricket and the Aussies may lose.

 

[stephen]

In India, the ODIs showed that without Hayden & Symmonds Aus are an ordinary team.

In India, the ODIs showed that in Indian conditions, without Hayden, Symmonds, Hussey, Tait and Watson, that India are capable of upsetting Australia, particularly if Tendulkar gets set.

We have yet to see Aus lose a test in Australia for many a year. We have yet to see Aus lose a test series (maybe even a single test - I'm not sure) in any country since 2005.

Stop talking about T20 as if it is a true test of a teams skill. It's a lot more of a coinflip than other forms of the game. Stop talking as though winning a couple of ODIs means anything. Witness the Chappell-Hadlee series last year and the drastic effect that it had on Australia's World Cup.

 

[aussie]

Solid points made by the usual very knowledgeable Cricketweb community to counter this unfortunately very dire thread.

As mentioned already if Australia are defeated in one of their 6 test another thread would come up. We can only judge fairly after this summer is over. Let the post McGrath/Warne era begin..

 

[Athlai]

CH cup means NZ > Aus, yep single games definitely define which team is better.

 

[biased indian]

I know but Australia have not played a single test since their retirement. I still want to see a few things such as who is going to open with Hayden, who is going to be their go-to spinner and how are Lee, Clark and co. going to respond without Mcgrath and Warne.

That said I am not saying that Australia are going to be less dominant but I think its a fair question to raise at least for test matches.

AWTA

as i said above in ODI missing some good bowlers can be covered up by having very very good batsmen...

but in test matches if u want to win games u need good bowlers and ..that is yet to be proven..becuase they have not played any game..since those high profile retirements

and can any one be 100% sure and name who will open with hayden in the first test aganist SL...????

 

[NUFAN]

Jaques will open unless he gets injured.

 

[Perm]

Jaques will open unless he gets injured.

Most likely course of action. I think Rogers has picked up some sort of injury aswell, meaning he isn't playing in Western Australia's next game. Jaques is the one with some form behind him aswell.

 

[biased indian]

We have yet to see Aus lose a test in Australia for many a year.

i thought we had a 1-1 series in 2004,,and for me that is not many a year

Edit : just to prove him wrong, i am in no way saying ind is better than austraia

 

[honestbharani]

I am not sure why this thread has to be called "dire".

Maybe the statement in the title is not exactly true, but definitely it is worth discussing. Obviously a lot of it is just speculation at this point, as Australia are yet to play a test without Warne, McGrath and Langer and we don't even have the smallest sample size yet to make some kind of call, either way.


Having said that, I think it is only fair to agree with what SJS had to say on the issue. Australia WILL NOT be the team they were without these guys, esp. McGrath and Warne. That goes without saying, IMHO. But what we may see is that Australia may adopt a different approach to their bowling... They may just throw in 4 quicks and use Andrew Symonds for variation along with Michael Clarke. What worked for the windies in the 80s could work for the Aussies now. Esp. if the spinners coming through aren't good enough and the seamers are. And FWIW, I do think Tait, Lee, Johnson and Clark would be a potentially awesome attack and perhaps their best option to beat India.


And reg. India, we have been doing well in tests for a while now and it is something that can be viewed either way. You can see that the batters are not exactly scoring heavily for us, def. not the big 4 at least and we are still winning. Maybe it is a good thing that we are learning to win even without the contributions of these guys, so that when these guys do get back in form, we will be that much better off. Conversely, one can think that the best of these guys is well behind them and that this is all they can produce at the moment, and that against a strong side like Australia or even Pakistan at home (you cannot under rate their bowling), they may struggle.


For me, it is all a bit too grey at the moment and we really don't have anything to go by as yet. Let Australia play a few tests, let us see if our big boys can still produce the runs for India and then we can perhaps decide.

 

[bond21]

give me a break. Since when was T20 a test of skill?

the format is a slog fest with every advantage imaginable to the batsmen. The format is alright to watch but its not a test of skill.

Go by our last test performances - Ashes.

England are #2 in the world and we gave them an absolute hiding.

India are going to be weak in Australia because they rely too much on spin, and our wickets dont spin much.

Sreesanth is also in for a hiding when hes fielding on the boundary.

 

[bond21]

Our attack for the gabba will be Clark, Lee, Johnson and Tait, with Symonds bowling some spin.

England came with a far better bowling attack than India and got a hiding, so I am sure India will get beaten.

 

[Perm]

Our attack for the gabba will be Clark, Lee, Johnson and Tait, with Symonds bowling some spin.

England came with a far better bowling attack than India and got a hiding, so I am sure India will get beaten.

No, that most likely won't be the attack.

Also, I think India's bowling attack is atleast equal to England.

 

[Athlai]

No, that most likely won't be the attack.

Also, I think India's bowling attack is atleast equal to England.

Englands current one anyway, full strength I'd say Englands > Indias.