*Official* Australia in decline thread

[Uppercut]

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.

It seems to have been forgotten, too, that Australia were undeniably and by some distance the better team in the first test. Only one team was ever going to win that match. All they were missing was the ruthless streak to clinch it on the final day.

 

[Richard]

What I think they were missing was the calibre of bowling to knock India over.

Not neccessarily the calibre of spin, but the calibre of seam.

Their failure to win that Test was certainly pretty notable IMO. Had that been McGrath, Gillespie and even (yes) Warne in 2002 or 2004, I'd have been extremely surprised had they not won it.

What's interesting is that there were a few overs lost. I think it was only about 30 or something, and 6 wickets in 30 overs is extremely unlikely when just 4 have fallen in 80-odd or whatever it was.

But it's certainly not impossible when 3 of them were tailenders.

 

[Uppercut]

What I think they were missing was the calibre of bowling to knock India over.

Not neccessarily the calibre of spin, but the calibre of seam.

Their failure to win that Test was certainly pretty notable IMO. Had that been McGrath, Gillespie and even (yes) Warne in 2002 or 2004, I'd have been extremely surprised had they not won it.

What's interesting is that there were a few overs lost. I think it was only about 30 or something, and 6 wickets in 30 overs is extremely unlikely when just 4 have fallen in 80-odd or whatever it was.

But it's certainly not impossible when 3 of them were tailenders.

Certainly, yes. Their ruthless streak was evidently lost in the middle West Indies test too. Nevertheless, when speaking of their decline it's worth remembering that they've outperformed India once and been outperformed (more comprehensively) once. Very little can be concluded from the series so far wrt how far Oz have declined.

 

[Richard]

I agree completely that saying too much or jumping to too many conclusions before this series is out is very unwise, but they'd almost certainly have won 3-0 in West Indies had lost time been make-up-able - there was a fair bit of time lost in that Second Test.

 

[SJS]

I am also one of those who thinks that inspite of whatever is the outcome of this series, Auatralia and South Africa continue to be the two top teams in Test cricket.

India are inconsistent as it is and once the fab-4 go, they will become consistent and weaker.

 

[Athlai]

SA are overrated IMO. Can never get both their batting and bowling firing. Second place is up for grabs I think. SL at home would have to be probably the hardest team in the world to beat right now though.

 

[Uppercut]

I am also one of those who thinks that inspite of whatever is the outcome of this series, Auatralia and South Africa continue to be the two top teams in Test cricket.

India are inconsistent as it is and once the fab-4 go, they will become consistent and weaker.

How typical that as soon as their pace attack starts to look the part their legendary batsmen are set to retire. Can't ever have it all.

 

[Richard]

SA are overrated IMO. Can never get both their batting and bowling firing. Second place is up for grabs I think. SL at home would have to be probably the hardest team in the world to beat right now though.

When do Australia next tour Sri Lanka?

 

[SJS]

How typical that as soon as their pace attack starts to look the part their legendary batsmen are set to retire. Can't ever have it all.

You right. Its sad. And batting cant make you a great Test nation. It works far better in ODI's. Thats why India missed a great chance to win the World cup in 2003. God knows when they will get that close again.

 

[Uppercut]

SA are overrated IMO. Can never get both their batting and bowling firing. Second place is up for grabs I think. SL at home would have to be probably the hardest team in the world to beat right now though.

Agree with the bit about Sri Lanka. SA may be overrated, but the relative weakness of everyone else means i'd still have them at number 2 for sure. 7 wins and a draw in their last 8 test series, the draw being in India, is pretty good going. They must be doing something right- while they appear to lack the quality of earlier SA teams, they know how to win.

The two series against Australia will be crucial, though. Victory against them and their record would be 100% complete.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

When do Australia next tour Sri Lanka?

2011.

They really don't like playing them

 

[Richard]

2011/12 I presume?

Else, it's going to be smack-bang in the middle of The Ashes and the World Cup in Asia. Which, of course, would be plain madness.

If so, that's 8 years between tours. No excuse for that.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Yeah, it's penned in for August-September, so Aus don't lose their home season.

 

[Richard]

No problemo with August\September whatsover (though the weather is unlikely to be helpful, as it wasn't in 1999/2000 when they did the same thing - essentially it was a one-off Test because the last two were completely disrupted), but cripes that's poor that it's September 2011 rather than September 2009.

 

[manali]

SA are overrated IMO. Can never get both their batting and bowling firing. Second place is up for grabs I think. SL at home would have to be probably the hardest team in the world to beat right now though.

Pak beat SL at home in 2006 easily

 

[Richard]

That was in 2006, with Inzamam, Mohammad Asif, Danish Kaneria, Younis Khan and Mohammad Yousuf.

Only Younis Khan remains likely to be a particulary good Test player again whenever Pakistan next play a Test IMO.

In any case, if lost time could be made-up the series in 2005/06 could quite possibly have been drawn 1-1.

 

[Richard]

Another merger?

And surely this "manali" is itduzz?

 

[Burgey]

What I think they were missing was the calibre of bowling to knock India over.

Not neccessarily the calibre of spin, but the calibre of seam.

Their failure to win that Test was certainly pretty notable IMO. Had that been McGrath, Gillespie and even (yes) Warne in 2002 or 2004, I'd have been extremely surprised had they not won it.

What's interesting is that there were a few overs lost. I think it was only about 30 or something, and 6 wickets in 30 overs is extremely unlikely when just 4 have fallen in 80-odd or whatever it was.

But it's certainly not impossible when 3 of them were tailenders.

AWTA, anf I think the problem's the third quick, not the absence of an outstanding spinner. You can have aserviceable spinner in most parts of the world and win more than your share if you have three good quicks.

Yesterday, I thought Clark and Lee were good, but Johnson wasn't despite getting two wickets. You could almost see the pressure come off the batsmen when he came on.

Likewise, there was that dire period just after tea, when the RR went through the roof after two sessions of keeping the lid on things. That was the erpiod where Watson and Johnson bowled together.

If I had to choose one thing for Australia right now, it would be a truly test class third quick, even over a quality spinner.

 

[Johnners]

If I had to choose one thing right now, it would be to have Lee & Clark bowling at their best.

 

[Precambrian]

Clark did well. He was in prime form, except when Tendulkar carved him for 2 wondrous boundaries. Even he had his comebacks against Tendulkar. I would peg him for a 4 for a 5 for tomorrow.