aussie
Hall of Fame Member
When i say "if Warne had arrived" i meant if the Shane Warne legacy had begun 5 or so years earlier, thus he would have made the difference in that 90/91 series.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* Australia in decline thread
- Thread starter MrPerko
- Start date
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Legacy? D'you mean dynasty? Yes, that much is obvious, but also Australia would have been a considerably better side much earlier than they were. Whereas, as it was, things turned around dramatically and instantaneously in 1989 and that fact is really rather cherished (to me).
Anyway, I think it's time for an *Official* "The Rise Of Australia" thread TBH. The story of Australia's rise to the top (as well as their preceding lull at the bottom) is as fascinating a one as the current are-they-aren't-they one of the decline.
Anyway, I think it's time for an *Official* "The Rise Of Australia" thread TBH. The story of Australia's rise to the top (as well as their preceding lull at the bottom) is as fascinating a one as the current are-they-aren't-they one of the decline.
Precambrian
Banned
What's official about it? CW doesnt endorse anythin en-masse right?
Precambrian
Banned
Mmpr?
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
It's a nice story because it means England fans can believe that some day they may completely randomly become the undisputed greatest team in the world for fifteen years.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
MMPR - Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers. Essential viewing for almost anyone who grew-up in the 1990s, which numbers the overwhelming majority of the posters on this forum.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Well, not quite, as even England have never been as bad as Australia were '84-'88/89 in the last 18 years. Though they were as bad around the same time as Australia were. Both sides truly plumbed the depths in the second half of the 1980s. England's nadir was the 1989 Ashes. But since then, though they've been bad, often, they've never quite been that bad again.
Precambrian
Banned
This you say after a 5-0 drubbing in the last Ashes?
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
fixed
This is what I was saying 3 months ago and it will be south africa they aren't rebuliding in test
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Irrespective of how good/bad Aus were in 89, their team in 06-07 was phenomenal and the 89 performance from England was worse - not to say we weren't toothless in 06-07 mind you
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
What on Earth does having won the World Cup have to do with anything? That's a ODI competition. Australia's team of 1988/89 had been roundly unsuccessful for many years and the turnaround in 1989 was sudden and in many parts wholly unexpected.
Until the 1989 season that was indeed one of Australia's worst teams, and but for rain England would've lost 0-6 to it.
Doesn't even remotely compare to losing 5-0 in 2006/07. 1989 was infinitely worse. England used 29 players in the series, that's how much thrashing around hopelessly trying to find a semi-decent cricketer there was. 2006/07 was simply a better side playing well without misfortune. Australia could quite easily have had whitewashes in 1998/99 and 2001 as well and were only denied them by the minutest of margins.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
You do realise that post you quoted was made over 6 years ago?
You can tell by the fact that the poster in question, who never uses capital-letters any more, was using them that it's verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry old.
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Without reading through the thread (cbf) I might state my thoughts which probably would've been covered before.
Insofar we can already see Australia has a problem with spin bowling, something people knew would come when Warne and, later on, MacGill would reitre.
We've been lucky in that in the past couple of decades as we've had the two best ever spin bowlers playing at the same time in Warne and Murali, plus Kumble not far behind these two. When you throw in the likes of Mushtaq, Harby, and MacGill, this era of cricket has possibly had the strongest spin bowling stock of all time.
However, this has lead to a complicated problem, not unlike the one created by Gilchrist, in that the current level of spin bowlers lifted the standard and expectations of spin bowling beyond what it ever was before. So now, when the greats retire and the next guys to step aren't immediately as good a bit of panic occurs, which is happening right now in Australia.
I think we, perhaps, need to lower our expectations in general in the coming years in the absence of guys like Warne and Kumble, because while guys like Mendis, Chawla and Mishra have talent and will probably move up to the class of the aforementioned greats later on, the next few years could quite well be painful for a lot of countries in regards to spin bowling, in that most spinners will be little more than adequate at test level, like Vettori, Panesar and Harris.
Basically, I think the quality level of spin bowling will drop below what it was when Warne, Kumble and Murali were knocking about at the height of their powers, but hopefully stay above what it was pre-1990.
Australia's spinning stocks can probably be summed up in one frequently used CW word - dire.
Casson, Heal, Hauritz, Cullen, Doherty, Krejza and Bailey, plus White, O'Brien and Smith. Hardly names to strike fear into the opposition, and all guilty of being incredibly mediocre either now or in the past. However, I think there's at least something there, in terms of talent and ability, that could be turned into at least a test standard spin bowler.
I think the key is persistence and faith.
Doing this by either by creating more spin friendly tracks at home for domestic games, by more coaching, or (hopefully) more A tours to the subcontinent and in general. The situation where Casson went to being the first choice spinner after Stuey's retirement to being dropped back into the wilderness and faith shown in someone considerably worse (White) and someone who is also probably not as good (Krejza) sends a poor message, not only to world cricket, but the rest of the spinners in Australia from First Class to backyard cricket level.
So, spin bowling is one area where Australia have a problem. A second, lesser, problem is that of the wicket-keeper.
For a while there, Gilcrhist averaged an amazing 60 at number 7 for Australia. While that inevitably lowered, I think one thing that can be agreed on is that Gilchrist was a true great, and easily the best keeper-batsman Australia has ever had. While I disagree with the statements that Gilchrist started a trend that the rest of the world has been trying to emulate in terms of wicket-keepers who can score as many runs as he did, effectively being as good as the top 6 batsmen above him, he did do something relatively new in that role in that he was able to successfully counter attack and save an innings, or play an explosive innings that would take the game away from the opposition. THIS is the main problem Australia will face, in that there will be a long time before someone of Gilchrists class will come about again, who can do what he did. Ronchi is trying to be that, but he never will IMO as he simply isn't that good (that's not to say he is a bad glovemen; simply that his batting will never be at the level of Gilchrists, and I very much doubt he'd average over 35 in tests).
Haddin is easily the best choice in the moment. He is a pretty darn fine batsman in his own right, and definitely class with the gloves, but I don't think he can play the type of innings Gilchrist did.
The keeping reserves after Haddin aren't quite there yet, as most of them are young, and some still establishing themselves. The likes of Paine and Wade are good prospects for the future in terms of being keeper-batsmen, while Ronchi is probably second in line now, with Manou probably being the best pure gloveman of the lot (I would personally like to see Paine develop his game and be the one to succeed Haddin).
Basically, Australia will need to accept that it will be a long time before another Warne or Gilchrist comes along for them, and even longer for them to be around at the same time.
The other departments - batsmen and pace bowlers, which usually make up 9 of the 11 players in the side, continues to be ridiculously strong.
At the top of the order there are three test class openers in Hayden, Jaques and Katich, with Katich (obviously) able to be a middle order bat as well, since he is indeed a manufactured opener. In reserve are guys like experienced Chris Rogers (much better than his debut suggests), fast maturing and talented Shaun Marsh.
When you throw in experienced middle order types like Brad Hodge, David Hussey, Marcus North, Adam Voges and Dominic Thornely it looks even better. Then there's the up and comers like Travis Birt, George Bailey, Luke Pomersbach, Callum Ferguson, Phil Hughes, Theo Doropoulos, Ryan Broad and Peter Forrest. Not to mention 3 guys in or around the test team - Andrew Symonds, Cameron White and Shane Watson.
The seam bowling stocks are just as good, if not better.
For some reason the poor showing from Siddle in his only test has some people thinking Australia's reserve bowlers aren't as good as they seem, which is obviously untrue. Siddles selection was pretty poor for mine, as I rate a few seam bowlers ahead of him, as do most people. Not to say he's a bad bowler - definitely one to watch for the future.
The seam reserves look like this: Ashley Noffke, Doug Bollinger, Ben Hilfenhaus, Steve Magoffin, Brett Geeves, Shaun Tait and Peter Siddle, with countless other guys who aren't quite up to standard at the moment, or are not too consistent (Edmonson, Harris, Cleary etc).
Most of those guys would be welcomed into some of the test sides around the world with open arms. In fact, you could probably form a test side from those players that would match it with the best and beat the rest.
The end result? Australia won't be quite as dominant as they were a couple of years ago. I don't think we'll be seeing 5-0 Ashes or as many series clean sweeps, but it's not like Australia will suddenly start getting trounced. Simply, I think there will be more 1 or 2-0 series wins with draws becoming much, much more common for the Aussies.
Insofar we can already see Australia has a problem with spin bowling, something people knew would come when Warne and, later on, MacGill would reitre.
We've been lucky in that in the past couple of decades as we've had the two best ever spin bowlers playing at the same time in Warne and Murali, plus Kumble not far behind these two. When you throw in the likes of Mushtaq, Harby, and MacGill, this era of cricket has possibly had the strongest spin bowling stock of all time.
However, this has lead to a complicated problem, not unlike the one created by Gilchrist, in that the current level of spin bowlers lifted the standard and expectations of spin bowling beyond what it ever was before. So now, when the greats retire and the next guys to step aren't immediately as good a bit of panic occurs, which is happening right now in Australia.
I think we, perhaps, need to lower our expectations in general in the coming years in the absence of guys like Warne and Kumble, because while guys like Mendis, Chawla and Mishra have talent and will probably move up to the class of the aforementioned greats later on, the next few years could quite well be painful for a lot of countries in regards to spin bowling, in that most spinners will be little more than adequate at test level, like Vettori, Panesar and Harris.
Basically, I think the quality level of spin bowling will drop below what it was when Warne, Kumble and Murali were knocking about at the height of their powers, but hopefully stay above what it was pre-1990.
Australia's spinning stocks can probably be summed up in one frequently used CW word - dire.
Casson, Heal, Hauritz, Cullen, Doherty, Krejza and Bailey, plus White, O'Brien and Smith. Hardly names to strike fear into the opposition, and all guilty of being incredibly mediocre either now or in the past. However, I think there's at least something there, in terms of talent and ability, that could be turned into at least a test standard spin bowler.
I think the key is persistence and faith.
Doing this by either by creating more spin friendly tracks at home for domestic games, by more coaching, or (hopefully) more A tours to the subcontinent and in general. The situation where Casson went to being the first choice spinner after Stuey's retirement to being dropped back into the wilderness and faith shown in someone considerably worse (White) and someone who is also probably not as good (Krejza) sends a poor message, not only to world cricket, but the rest of the spinners in Australia from First Class to backyard cricket level.
So, spin bowling is one area where Australia have a problem. A second, lesser, problem is that of the wicket-keeper.
For a while there, Gilcrhist averaged an amazing 60 at number 7 for Australia. While that inevitably lowered, I think one thing that can be agreed on is that Gilchrist was a true great, and easily the best keeper-batsman Australia has ever had. While I disagree with the statements that Gilchrist started a trend that the rest of the world has been trying to emulate in terms of wicket-keepers who can score as many runs as he did, effectively being as good as the top 6 batsmen above him, he did do something relatively new in that role in that he was able to successfully counter attack and save an innings, or play an explosive innings that would take the game away from the opposition. THIS is the main problem Australia will face, in that there will be a long time before someone of Gilchrists class will come about again, who can do what he did. Ronchi is trying to be that, but he never will IMO as he simply isn't that good (that's not to say he is a bad glovemen; simply that his batting will never be at the level of Gilchrists, and I very much doubt he'd average over 35 in tests).
Haddin is easily the best choice in the moment. He is a pretty darn fine batsman in his own right, and definitely class with the gloves, but I don't think he can play the type of innings Gilchrist did.
The keeping reserves after Haddin aren't quite there yet, as most of them are young, and some still establishing themselves. The likes of Paine and Wade are good prospects for the future in terms of being keeper-batsmen, while Ronchi is probably second in line now, with Manou probably being the best pure gloveman of the lot (I would personally like to see Paine develop his game and be the one to succeed Haddin).
Basically, Australia will need to accept that it will be a long time before another Warne or Gilchrist comes along for them, and even longer for them to be around at the same time.
The other departments - batsmen and pace bowlers, which usually make up 9 of the 11 players in the side, continues to be ridiculously strong.
At the top of the order there are three test class openers in Hayden, Jaques and Katich, with Katich (obviously) able to be a middle order bat as well, since he is indeed a manufactured opener. In reserve are guys like experienced Chris Rogers (much better than his debut suggests), fast maturing and talented Shaun Marsh.
When you throw in experienced middle order types like Brad Hodge, David Hussey, Marcus North, Adam Voges and Dominic Thornely it looks even better. Then there's the up and comers like Travis Birt, George Bailey, Luke Pomersbach, Callum Ferguson, Phil Hughes, Theo Doropoulos, Ryan Broad and Peter Forrest. Not to mention 3 guys in or around the test team - Andrew Symonds, Cameron White and Shane Watson.
The seam bowling stocks are just as good, if not better.
For some reason the poor showing from Siddle in his only test has some people thinking Australia's reserve bowlers aren't as good as they seem, which is obviously untrue. Siddles selection was pretty poor for mine, as I rate a few seam bowlers ahead of him, as do most people. Not to say he's a bad bowler - definitely one to watch for the future.
The seam reserves look like this: Ashley Noffke, Doug Bollinger, Ben Hilfenhaus, Steve Magoffin, Brett Geeves, Shaun Tait and Peter Siddle, with countless other guys who aren't quite up to standard at the moment, or are not too consistent (Edmonson, Harris, Cleary etc).
Most of those guys would be welcomed into some of the test sides around the world with open arms. In fact, you could probably form a test side from those players that would match it with the best and beat the rest.
The end result? Australia won't be quite as dominant as they were a couple of years ago. I don't think we'll be seeing 5-0 Ashes or as many series clean sweeps, but it's not like Australia will suddenly start getting trounced. Simply, I think there will be more 1 or 2-0 series wins with draws becoming much, much more common for the Aussies.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
1695 posts... don't blame you.
They have.
Anyway a couple of things:
1, I don't quite agree that the standard of seam-bowling is as strong as some make-out currently. It's certainly far from a bare-cupboard situation, but as I mentioned in another thread, there are currently (I'd say) 3 bowlers who've established their credentials: Stuart Clark (at Test and domestic-FC level), Brett Lee (at Test level, though only over a short period of time) and Ashley Noffke (at domestic-FC level). The rest of them still have some degree of question-marks over them, though Hilfenhaus especially remains a bowler of huge promise.
2, I think the spin "worries" of Australia are over-played. I've mentioned it before, but Australia has never been a spin-friendly country, nor have there been many spinners of excellence play for Australia. There've been any number of utterly mediocre spinners play down the years, especially between Benaud and Warne. Why Australia don't simply ditch the idea of spin completely (except maybe in Sri Lanka and India) and just go in with four or even five seamers is beyond me. Australia have had four exceptional wristspinners play for them (Grimmett, O'Reilly, Benaud and Warne), a few decent fingerspinners a long time ago in the days of uncovered wickets, and the odd spinner who was serviceable for a short period (Mallett, Higgs, Yardley - the latter two for a time of a whole 1 season). Plus one hell of a lot of bowlers who never, ever deserved a Test cap.
With spinning stocks probably lower now than ever, this would be the perfect time for Australia to wake-up to the reality that fingerspin simply isn't neccessary in Australia, or most other places, any more. If you've got a Grimmett, O'Reilly, Benaud or Warne, great, play them. But there is always going to be a hell of a long wait between bowlers of that calibre, because wristspin is so difficult to bowl. In the meantime, picking useless wayward wristspinners and fingerspinners who offer no threat simply weakens your team, utterly unneccessarily.
Precambrian
Banned
It's not like Ponting doesnt want to concentrate on all pace attack. Over rates have taken a huge beating, which has made Ponting to use Clarke and other parttime players to make up for it, and in the process ends up bowling a good chunk of overs, which in turn defeats the purpose of 4 pacemen attack.
A spinner's development is must. It's not as if they have won series outside without a spinner. Esp the Ashes.
A spinner's development is must. It's not as if they have won series outside without a spinner. Esp the Ashes.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
How many of Australia's Ashes victories between '61 (Benaud played no significant part in the '62/63 drawn series) and the 1993 Warne-induced one owed anything much to spin?
'64? Nope, best spinner was Veivers who averaged over 40.
'65/66 (which was a draw)? Nope, neither Veivers nor Philpott made the slightest impression.
'68 (again drawn)? Nope, even in the insanely damp summer Gleeson was outbowled by part-timer Cowper.
'70/71 (which was lost)? Nope, Gleeson and O'Keeffe were both ineffective, and Jenner and Mallett were no more than OK in the 2 Tests they each played.
'72 (drawn)? Mallett played a small part in the 2 Tests he played, with Gleeson again ineffective.
'74/75? Mallett's backup contributions were useful, but he was always playing distinct second-fiddle to Lillee, Thomson and Walker. Jenner was ineffective again.
I could go on, but you get the point. Spin played negligable part in Australia's success between Benaud's decline and Warne's arrival.
'64? Nope, best spinner was Veivers who averaged over 40.
'65/66 (which was a draw)? Nope, neither Veivers nor Philpott made the slightest impression.
'68 (again drawn)? Nope, even in the insanely damp summer Gleeson was outbowled by part-timer Cowper.
'70/71 (which was lost)? Nope, Gleeson and O'Keeffe were both ineffective, and Jenner and Mallett were no more than OK in the 2 Tests they each played.
'72 (drawn)? Mallett played a small part in the 2 Tests he played, with Gleeson again ineffective.
'74/75? Mallett's backup contributions were useful, but he was always playing distinct second-fiddle to Lillee, Thomson and Walker. Jenner was ineffective again.
I could go on, but you get the point. Spin played negligable part in Australia's success between Benaud's decline and Warne's arrival.
Precambrian
Banned
you are quoting obscure history. I am talking about modern day cricket.