*Official* Australia in decline thread

[Matt79]

They're not really that annoying, it's kinda funny actually. But it's so clear that he only comes here to troll that I'm confused why he hasn't been banned.

 

[pasag]

Been taken care of, was actually supposed to happen a month or so ago but didn't for whatever reasons.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

End of itduzz era

Itduzz....R.I.P

Do not Discuss!!!

 

[Richard]

No, just

Deadset contender for Skull 2008.

 

[Richard]

Already in the last year or so, we have seen something like 8 or 9 debutants, where I think we went close to 15 years, where they was only 10 or something.

This is another point of particular interest.

If we go, rather than on debutants, people who can be said to be (or at least appearing to be) "joining" the team rather than merely coming in knowing they'll be straight back out when an injured player returns, who's there been?

Let's say starting at 2000/01 (in 1999/2000 there was Gilchrist and Brett Lee, who were the last for a while) and running to 2006/07. There were several who played very briefly as injury fill-ins or when something totally unforeseen (like Gillespie's decline) had happened (Katich in 2001, Love in 2002/03, Williams in 2003/04, Bracken in 2003/04 and 2005/06, Symonds in 2005/06, Hauritz in 2004/05, Tait in 2005), but hardly anyone who actually came in and stayed:
Katich (2003/04) - replacing Stephen Waugh after initially coming in as an injury stand-in for Lehmann
Clarke (2004/05) - replacing Lehmann after initially debuting as an injury stand-in for Ponting
Hussey - even he only debuted because of an injury to Langer before eventually replacing Clarke. Had that not happened, as I say, how interesting would things have been?
Clark - as above, only debuted because McGrath missed the SA tour then replaced the combo of Bracken, MacGill and Kasprowicz who'd played the fourth bowler role in 2005/06.

Only Katich and Clarke established themselves as first-choices after another player retired. That's in the space of 7 years.

So far in 2007/08, 2008 and 2008/09 there's been:
Jaques (only played previously because of an injury to Langer)
Symonds (only played previously because of inexplicable preference to Katich, then injury to Watson, then injury to Hodge)
Johnson
Hogg (his only previous Tests came in India in 1996/97 when Warne was injured then in West Indies in 2005 when Martyn was, then also a farce against Zimbabwe when Warne and MacGill were both out)
Haddin
Plus maaaybe in time Watson and Tait. There's also been Casson and White who were extremely dubious selections and Rogers and Siddle who were injury replacements.

So 5, maybe 7, since 2007/08 and just 4 (2 of which were remarkable coincidences) in the previous 7 years. It's pretty revealing.

 

[slugger]

It also reveals ......... if it aint broke dont fix it... the team as a whole has been unchanged ..for as long as possible ... bar the injury (replacements) the aussie team quickly reverts back to it staus quo line up... always asap....... has this been a good thing.. yes... its kept themm at the top for 10 plus years.. but in the end it may bring them back level or on par with 2nd and 3rd ralitively quickly ... but it will only be short stay.. they will rise again and keep the same formular once the core of the team has been identified.. clark..hussey for starters.....

 

[tooextracool]

Err, they are the best team in the world. And they'll be the best team in the world even if they lose 3-0. They didn't get to the #1 ranking in one day, they aren't going to lose it in one day. By the way, in case you haven't noticed, Australia can still win this series.

They are the best team in the world based on past results. There is no evidence at the moment that they are the best team now because they havent done anything to suggest that. The decline didnt just happen during this series, it was clearly visible in Jamaica much earlier in the year when they were 18/5. Australia will in all probability still remain a force to reckon with outside of the subcontinent, but as I said before the series, they have about as much of a hope of winning this series as I do of winning the lottery.

 

[stephen]

They are the best team in the world based on past results. There is no evidence at the moment that they are the best team now because they havent done anything to suggest that. The decline didnt just happen during this series, it was clearly visible in Jamaica much earlier in the year when they were 18/5. Australia will in all probability still remain a force to reckon with outside of the subcontinent, but as I said before the series, they have about as much of a hope of winning this series as I do of winning the lottery.

Either you have a lot of faith in your ability to win the lottery or you're exaggerating.

Australia, while possibly not the Warne/McGrath world-beaters of yesteryear, are still at least among the top two teams in the world, and are capable of winning this series.

Capability does not mean that I think that they will, but that they have the ability to if things go their way and they force the issue with good cricket.

 

[Mister Wright]

This is another point of particular interest.

If we go, rather than on debutants, people who can be said to be (or at least appearing to be) "joining" the team rather than merely coming in knowing they'll be straight back out when an injured player returns, who's there been?

Let's say starting at 2000/01 (in 1999/2000 there was Gilchrist and Brett Lee, who were the last for a while) and running to 2006/07. There were several who played very briefly as injury fill-ins or when something totally unforeseen (like Gillespie's decline) had happened (Katich in 2001, Love in 2002/03, Williams in 2003/04, Bracken in 2003/04 and 2005/06, Symonds in 2005/06, Hauritz in 2004/05, Tait in 2005), but hardly anyone who actually came in and stayed:
Katich (2003/04) - replacing Stephen Waugh after initially coming in as an injury stand-in for Lehmann
Clarke (2004/05) - replacing Lehmann after initially debuting as an injury stand-in for Ponting
Hussey - even he only debuted because of an injury to Langer before eventually replacing Clarke. Had that not happened, as I say, how interesting would things have been?
Clark - as above, only debuted because McGrath missed the SA tour then replaced the combo of Bracken, MacGill and Kasprowicz who'd played the fourth bowler role in 2005/06.

Only Katich and Clarke established themselves as first-choices after another player retired. That's in the space of 7 years.

So far in 2007/08, 2008 and 2008/09 there's been:
Jaques (only played previously because of an injury to Langer)
Symonds (only played previously because of inexplicable preference to Katich, then injury to Watson, then injury to Hodge)
Johnson
Hogg (his only previous Tests came in India in 1996/97 when Warne was injured then in West Indies in 2005 when Martyn was, then also a farce against Zimbabwe when Warne and MacGill were both out)
Haddin
Plus maaaybe in time Watson and Tait. There's also been Casson and White who were extremely dubious selections and Rogers and Siddle who were injury replacements.

So 5, maybe 7, since 2007/08 and just 4 (2 of which were remarkable coincidences) in the previous 7 years. It's pretty revealing.

Jaques did return as a first choice option though.

 

[Richard]

I know, that was exactly the point I was making.

Had Langer not missed the MCG Test in 2005/06 and then been hit on the head by Ntini at The Wanderers, Jaques would've made his Test debut against SL at The 'Gabba in 2007/08. It's quite possible that Stuart Clark would've done the same as well had McGrath's wife not fallen ill again in early-2006.

 

[Mister Wright]

I know, that was exactly the point I was making.

Had Langer not missed the MCG Test in 2005/06 and then been hit on the head by Ntini at The Wanderers, Jaques would've made his Test debut against SL at The 'Gabba in 2007/08. It's quite possible that Stuart Clark would've done the same as well had McGrath's wife not fallen ill again in early-2006.

You know me. I've got about a 4-line post attention span, if it's more than that and I'm a little interested I'll scan the rest for the juicy bits, so may have lost a little in translation therefore.

 

[tooextracool]

Either you have a lot of faith in your ability to win the lottery or you're exaggerating.

Australia, while possibly not the Warne/McGrath world-beaters of yesteryear, are still at least among the top two teams in the world, and are capable of winning this series.

Capability does not mean that I think that they will, but that they have the ability to if things go their way and they force the issue with good cricket.

I think you are an extremely optimistic person, almost like the kind of person that buys lottery tickets every month despite the fact that statistically he has no hope of ever winning.

Winning a series in India has only been accomplished by 2 teams since I have started watchin cricket (early 1992). One was in arguably questionable circumstances, but there is no doubt that both teams were arguably at the peak of their powers when they won a series in India.Neither team did so after being one down (Im trying to think how many teams have ever?). This Australian team, seriously has a case for being the worst one to set foot on India soil. I cannot fathom a worse one for a very long time. I said before the series that Australia didnt have a hope in hell of winning this series, and their chances are even less now that they are 1 down.

The Australian batting revolves around players like Ponting and Hayden, both of whom are either past their best or very close to retirement. The batting looks decent on paper, but they are missing impact players like Symonds, Gilchrist and the old Hayden who could take the game away from you in a very short period of time. The bowling, well, even B.lee is bowling in his first test in India, Forget that, none of them have bowled a ball in a test match in the subcontinent when you exclude Bangladesh, and its easy to forget that both B.lee and Clark were absolutely pasted when they did bowl in Bangladesh. Sorry, but there are real problems when a bowler like Mitchell Johnson is your best fast bowler, and its even more discouraging when someone like Siddle who delivers straight deliveries at over 85mph is considered 'promising' especially for a side with usually such high standards. I just cannot see how Australia are going to take 20 wickets. Johnson has been impressive by his usual standards, but he is not going to be able to run through sides.

If you ask me, India are likely to face a sterner test in the series after this one against England. And thats when you know its a sad state of affairs.

 

[Richard]

You know me. I've got about a 4-line post attention span, if it's more than that and I'm a little interested I'll scan the rest for the juicy bits, so may have lost a little in translation therefore.

You're as bad as Manjunath.

 

[Anil]

if not australia, then who? india for all the fine showing in the last test hasn't shown the consistency needed from a number 1 team, nor have sri lanka outside of their country, s.a keep promising a lot and are probably the best candidates if australia abdicate the throne but they haven't had the measure of australia either at home or away...as for the other teams, pakistan isn't close to challenging for the top spot right now, same is the case with england so i feel that australia will continue at the top for the forseeable future...

 

[Neil Pickup]

I think you are an extremely optimistic person, almost like the kind of person that buys lottery tickets every month despite the fact that statistically he has no hope of ever winning.

Winning a series in India has only been accomplished by 2 teams since I have started watchin cricket (early 1992). One was in arguably questionable circumstances, but there is no doubt that both teams were arguably at the peak of their powers when they won a series in India.Neither team did so after being one down (Im trying to think how many teams have ever?). This Australian team, seriously has a case for being the worst one to set foot on India soil. I cannot fathom a worse one for a very long time. I said before the series that Australia didnt have a hope in hell of winning this series, and their chances are even less now that they are 1 down.

The point being made is one of gross exaggeration: Australia's chance of winning this series is 1 in perhaps 20, 50 at best. I am going to be surprised if they turn it round, but not to the point of wetting my pants and panicking that the Millennium Bug has arrived nine years too late.

Winning the UK lottery is 1 in 13,983,816. Australia are 280,000 times more likely (even taking odds of 1/50) to win this series. Over-exaggeration is not big, and it's not clever.

Well, actually, it's bloody massive, but you get the gist.

 

[GIMH]

Hakon (Y)

 

[Richard]

if not australia, then who? india for all the fine showing in the last test hasn't shown the consistency needed from a number 1 team, nor have sri lanka outside of their country, s.a keep promising a lot and are probably the best candidates if australia abdicate the throne but they haven't had the measure of australia either at home or away...as for the other teams, pakistan isn't close to challenging for the top spot right now, same is the case with england so i feel that australia will continue at the top for the forseeable future...

Australia vs South Africa is the really interesting one for mine. Between 1989 and 2006/07, Australia avoided defeat in India and Sri Lanka just once apiece (admittedly winning both of these) so if India beat them here it's nothing that didn't happen even in the glory days. However, never in the same timeframe could South Africa do better than a tied scoreline (which they managed just once in 4 attempts). The only series' Australia lost outside India and Sri Lanka were against West Indies in 1992/93, in Pakistan in 1994/95 (neither of which accurately reflected the cricket played in the series - the Australians deserved a draw at worst in both) and in England in 2005. If South Africa manage to beat them (say, draw the leg in Australia and win the one in South Africa) by genuinely outplaying them then someone will have chartered waters that have been reached just once since 1988/89.

In the immediate future starting from 2007/08, I didn't ever expect Australia to have any problem dealing with New Zealand, Pakistan or West Indies home or away, nor India or Sri Lanka in Australia. Nor, quite possibly, England home or away. I said a few months ago that I'd have backed Sri Lanka to beat Australia in Sri Lanka and I still would should a series be played now. Likewise I certainly had strong hopes of India here and so far they're looking pretty good. India and Sri Lanka should always pose a huge challenge to anyone at home.

But South Africa are the one team I'd have really decent hopes for both home and away. I'll be a bit disappointed if they lose in Australia and exceptionally disappointed if they lose at home - without neccessarily expecting victory in either. But I'd have said something fairly (though not exactly) similar in 2005/06. 2008/09 is so, so huge for SA.

 

[morgieb]

Stuart Clark will come through and make a really good test bowler, he is in the mould of McGrath. He should be blooded soon to get some experience.

Great Marsh-Lillie TBH.

 

[Richard]

I had already commented on that post.

 

[Son Of Coco]

We're obviously not going to be as strong as we were a couple of years back with Warne, McGrath etc but does 'decline' in this case refer to us being on the way to the bottom or just losing some talent and therefore obviously not being at the same level? Given some very good teams have been to India and lost I don't think it's a disgrace or time to become too alarmist. Admittedly, these guys did lose very very well. When you have a few new guys in the team trying to establish themselves in tough conditions though that can happen. Unfortunately it seems the established players are the ones not pulling their weight.