Enough of this 'Australia aren't good anymore' nonsense!

[AlanJLegend]

Ok, note that this rant is not so much directed at the members of this forum, but more-so the newspapers I have been reading.


Yes, we played quite badly against South Africa.
Yes, we lost a home series for the first time in 16 years.
Yes, we may not be the best team in the world anymore.


But think of it this way; shouldn't losing a home series for the first time in 16 years be a credit to how good we have been rather than a mark of how bad we supposedly are now? Australia are not a bad team. We are a very good team, still one of the best in the world.

And not trying to make excuses, but we have had some injuries and side changes as of late. In the 1st and 2nd test against SA we played very well at times (and very poorly at others), an example being Mitch Johnson's 8 wickets. If only we could pull it all together, starting with our top order batsmen doing better than they have been of late.


I guess my point here is that lately in the papers, nightly news, and even some Australian news programs such as A Current Affair and The 7:30 report (I think it was) are carrying on about Australia's 'fall from grace', when really, I don't think it is really such a big deal. Everybody loses some time, and we are still a top notch cricket team.

 

[susudear]

Lol at the irony

Yes, we played quite badly against South Africa.
Yes, we lost a home series for the first time in 16 years.
Yes, we may not be the best team in the world anymore.

All of the three observations lead to the conlusion : Aussies are not good (like they were) anymore.

The king is dead, Long live the king.

 

[inbox24]

All of the three observations lead to the conlusion : Aussies are not good (like they were) anymore.

The king is dead, Long live the king.

I love this song, <3.

 

[NZTailender]

I don't think many people are saying Australia isn't good and therefore a poor team, I think most of them are saying Australia isn't the dominant powerhouse it once was a few years ago, which is the truth.

 

[Craig]

I don't think many people are saying Australia isn't good and therefore a poor team, I think most of them are saying Australia is the dominant powerhouse it once was a few years ago, which is the truth.

Did you miss a word in there?

 

[krkode]

I think the only thing one can fairly say is that the "top team" mantle is now more or less shared. It used to be that Australia was leaps and bounds ahead of everybody - in a league of their own, so to speak, with everyone else following behind at some distance. That is no longer true and now Ind/SA/Aus are probably all equally placed at the top level of test cricket.

They're still good, just not great like they used to be. We'll see how things pan out in the next few months.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Australia's a bit an unknown quantity right now, mainly because of the bowling. The batting will sort itself out when Hussey finds some touch and they work out who's going to be batting at 6, but the bowling could go either way. Guys like Siddle, Bollinger and Hilfenhaus are pushing for spots, Johnson is still establishing himself, and Clark and Lee have injuries to come back from. At their best those guys could form a really dangerous attack that could see Australia be the best for a while to come, or a few of them could fall flat and Australia might slip behind South Africa or India for a while.

Interesting times anyway.

 

[Richard]

Ok, note that this rant is not so much directed at the members of this forum, but more-so the newspapers I have been reading.

Which kinda begs the question, TBH, of why post it on this forum?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Nah, it's all gone to **** now, hasn't it? Home defeat by Bangladesh next, doubtless.

Seriously, I just echo what everyone seems to be saying in. Australia are still obviously a good team (I still think that when the Hayden & the no.6 issues are resolved and Hussey finds form that their batting is arguably the best in the world, with only really India seriously rivalling them), but they aren't going to be head, shoulder and torso above the pack as they have been for the past decade and a half.

The bowling isn't terrible either, but they have had an almost unprecedented loss of great, very good and thoroughly decent players of late for one reason or another. Warne and McGrath obviously have the largest shoes to fill, but one can also add Gillespie, Kasprowicz, MacGill, Lee & Clark to them. It's a no-brainer that such a decimation of bowling resources is going to have an effect.

 

[Langeveldt]

I think the bowling is pretty terrible, I haven't been impressed by anybody at all post Warne/McGrath.. Johnson looks the closest to being a worthy test class international cricketer, but their attack at the moment is positively mouth watering for everyone else..

Batting is still same old same old, the sooner they get rid of Hayden the better, Ponting/Hussey/Clarke = the best middle order in cricket for mine

 

[susudear]

Which kinda begs the question, TBH, of why post it on this forum?

Facepalm.

 

[NUFAN]

The problem is absolutely the bowling, although not all of our top 6 is firing either.

At the start of the Aussie summer I listed Australia, Australia A, Australia B etc sides when I was bored.

Due to injuries and differences of opinions between selectors and myself, these are the teams that players playing in the current Sydney Test match made.

First Team
Katich, Hayden, Ponting, Hussey, Clarke, Haddin, Johnson.

Second Team
Siddle, Bollinger

Fifth Team
Andrew McDonald

Sixth Team
Nathan Hauritz

I think this clearly show that the issue is with our bowlers and the inability to get 20 wickets.. BTW - I think Hauritz has improved somewhat and I would have him a bit ahead of the sixth team now probably.

 

[luffy]

All of the three observations lead to the conlusion : Aussies are not good (like they were) anymore.

The king is dead, Long live the king.

Whilst not as dominant, we still have the ability to beat the best sides in world cricket.

Once our unexperienced bowling attack gets settled, you will see a new side to which we are currently seeing, due to the fact a couple of these younger bowlers don't have the experience at the current time to perform, whilst there raw talent isn't quite enough.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

but their attack at the moment is positively mouth watering for everyone else..

Very few bowlers have significant international success in their first few tests. Siddle showed a bit in Melbourne and bowled pretty well again today, I don't think you can write him off yet. Same goes for Bollinger who has only bowled 10 test overs after all.

The Australian attack could be anything from woeful to brilliant once the guys currently being tried get a few games behind them. Way too early to judge. The issue right now is just inexperience.

 

[Flem274*]

Its just a transition phase really. Aus, NZ are having them and India are probably about to (Dravid, Tendulkar and co. plus Kumble etc already gone) and maybe England if all hell breaks loose (and their bowling is a bit shabby too). Sri Lanka too possibly though Murali will be nicely replaced by Mendis.

Once Australia and all the other teams have sorted themselves out into a settled unit and played for a bit we'll be able to judge who's where.

So in short, I agree with Faaip.

 

[Richard]

Its just a transition phase really. Aus, NZ are having them and India are probably about to (Dravid, Tendulkar and co. plus Kumble etc already gone) and maybe England if all hell breaks loose (and their bowling is a bit shabby too). Sri Lanka too possibly though Murali will be nicely replaced by Mendis.

Every team is always in transition. There has pretty well never been any time in history where one team has stayed as the same 11 players for more than a handful of matches at a time.

There's just different levels of transition. But it's never completely absent.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Richard is right. The transition phase excuse doesn't cut it.

The Australian side of 1999 probably had less in common with the Australian side of 2007 than the current side with the latter.

The reason for the decline is plain and obvious - the quality of the replacements has gone down.

 

[Matt79]

Every team is always in transition. There has pretty well never been any time in history where one team has stayed as the same 11 players for more than a handful of matches at a time.

There's just different levels of transition. But it's never completely absent.

Richard is right. The transition phase excuse doesn't cut it.

The Australian side of 1999 probably had less in common with the Australian side of 2007 than the current side with the latter.

The reason for the decline is plain and obvious - the quality of the replacements has gone down.

DWTA actually. It's a motherhood statement to say that there is always change, but it is certainly not true to say that the change that is occuring is always significant, or always at the level that is going to impact on the team.

Take the given example of the Aus teams of 99 cf. 2007, vs 07 cf. 09. What changed between 99 and 07? Steve Waugh retired, and was more or less replaced by Darren Lehmann, then Michael Clarke. Mark Waugh retired and was replaced more or less by Damien Martyn, and then Mike Hussey. Gillespie and Kasprowicz left and were replaced by Clark. Some big names went out, for sure, but very good replacements, so the level of change was not hugely significant - especially as the exceptional individuals who made the team outstanding remained and continued to be remarkably consistent - eg. Warne, McGrath, Ponting, S.Waugh (for most of that time), and Gilchrist (for most of that time). I know I've probably got some of the precise changes wrong, but that's an accurate listing of who substantively replaced people as long term team members.

Compare that to what's happened in the last twenty four months - we've lost Warne, (and McGill and even Hogg) - to be replaced by no-one yet. We've lost Gilchrist to be replaced by Haddin - that's a pretty good replacement, albeit one that took a little while to find his feet and remains to be proven away. We've lost McGrath, to be replaced by Johnson and we've lost Martyn, replaced by Symonds, with a bit of shuffling of the order. Those are two pretty massive losses to the team - as well as Johnson has started to perform. This has meant that once Clark was injured, and Hayden and Lee have had significant form slumps, the core of what was a great team has been almost entirely gone.

There's nothing special about the baggy green that makes "Australia" the best team in the world - its the players on the pitch, and Ponting aside, this summer, none of the players in the team have been the players that were part of that champion team - and even he's been somewhat down on form from his best.

That's not to say we're doomed to years in the basement, or that we're not still a very good team, capable of mixing it with anyone, but we're clearly not the standout number one team anymore.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Every team is always in transition. There has pretty well never been any time in history where one team has stayed as the same 11 players for more than a handful of matches at a time.

There's just different levels of transition. But it's never completely absent.

Richard is right. The transition phase excuse doesn't cut it.

Not sure what point you guys are trying to make.

Yeah, teams change a lot. That's true. That doesn't mean that there's no difference between normal changes in a team with a player retiring, injuries, form changes etc and an exodus of your entire bowling attack and a few other key players over the course of a couple of seasons. Australia are in a "transitional phase" right now because there have been half a dozen or more guys in the last two test series who have been brought in with 5 or less tests worth of experience. Siddle, Bollinger, Krezja, Hauritz, Watson, White, McDonald... and if you go back a bit further you've got Casson, Haddin and Jaques. You can throw in uncertainty over the future of Hayden and possibly Symonds and Watson as well. That leaves Katich, Ponting, Hussey, Johnson and Clarke as solid members of the squad right now. That's pretty dramatic, and something Australia hasn't seen in a while.

Above all it just means Australia is kind of hard to judge right now. You can't really say how good Australia's bowling attack is compared to other teams in the world for example when only one guy in it has played a complete test series before.

It's not an "excuse"... there's not really anything to excuse. Australia have lost a test series because they've been outplayed. It's hard to judge the long-term prospects of the team though... because it's a transitional period. Siddle's good spells in the last two tests could be a flash in the pan or it could be the start of a great career. If it's the latter, it's obviously going to look a bit brighter for Australia say next summer than it would if Siddle has a test average of 50+ at that point in time.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Someone (ie. Matt79) is forgetting that Langer retired as well.