Australians have alot to say now that they're winning ? - Tony Cozier

[Ilovecric]

The Australian media does usually go pretty harshly at opposing teams. But at the same time, I'm not sure it's much harsher than the criticism of the WI by the English media this summer and I thought that was justified at the time.

The record the West Indies have over the last few years is beyond dire, I think someone has to cop a lot of criticism. The question is whether the right people are, I suppose.

Did the WI media make a big deal about ENG after WI bowled out eng for 51 ?

Are you slow ?

If there is one team that should never bad talk WI its eng.

 

[Prince EWS]

If it is you are suggesting that there is a natural biasness by defualt, when judging players in from your own team in cricket. For some people i guess yea. But i personally have never taken that approach, always try to call a spade a spade.

Whether or not the bias has a significant impact on your judgement is not the issue; the bias is there whether it effects you or not.

 

[Richard]

lol.. I know aussie doesn't really speak for the majority of Aussie fans, mate.. Juz find it laughable that the guy is turning into a mini-Richard..

BTW just to note some of the criticism identified by Cozier there is indeed utterly ridiculous and OTT; and also to note that David Frith and West Indian teams of the 1970s and 1980s is not a combination anyone should take seriously. He honestly was like a man possessed, and would often make utterly nonsensical criticisms of them.

 

[Richard]

Ben Dorries is a sorry excuse for a writer and I'm embarrassed to even be in the same city as the paper he 'writes' for.

It's funny how that chap has been denounced by pretty much everyone I've ever heard comment on him on CW, yet he continues to be employed to write.

He must be very popular among the rabble if the aristocracy hold him in such universally low regard.

 

[aussie]

An inconsistent team cannot be called "clearly" #1 in the world... mate, you have unproven seamers, unreliable spinners and good batting..

How is AUS current pace trio unproven?. All of them have proven themselves in test cricket in various ways in the last 12 months & currently are better than IND & SA at full strenght & depth wise.

IND & SA has ONE quality seamer in Steyn & Khan. Everything else either inconsistent/unproven/passed their best (IND - Sharma, RP Singh, Sreesanth, Patel) - (SA - Parnell, Morkel, McLaren, Ntini, Langevelt, De Wet)

How does that make your side better than India or RSA? They are equal...

They are equal in batting. Nothing else. I would AUS to beat SA in test right now & IND (in AUS). The only issue with AUS is given the lack of world class spinner they would struggle to repeat the heroics in the sub-continent like during the glory years.

And the claim about depth is just BS as usual..

AUS fast bowling depth is clearly better in IND & SA come on. Behind Hilfy/Johnson/Siddle AUS can call on:

- Lee, Nannes, Bollinger, McKay, Noffke. Which could make all international test teams ATM.

Batting wise its the same thing. Hughes, Jaques, Rogers, Ferguson, D Hussey, Bailey. (SA could probably compare with this depth in batting). Plus as i mentioned Brad Hodge just retired from FC cricket, so that technically rules him out as option in AUS "depth", but he would clearly make every international test team ATM.

I dunno what you know of Indian reserves but I have enough faith in Badri, Vijay, Pujara and Rahane to tell you that our test depth is nothing like our ODI depth... We have enough depth in batting and reasonable depth in bowling for tests...

I have seen a few them yes Badrinath & Vijay definately alot. Plus Tiwary was in AUS the other day, i saw Pandey when he scored than hundred in the IPL 09 & of course Sharma & Raina. You personally may have enough faith. But if history us is to be a guide. Their is no guaranteed that those IND young talented batsmen are ready ATM to take over or will be as good as Dravid/Tendy/Laxman.

Even SJS recently was sharing his concern about this.

After all over the last 19 years. The IND middle-order has basically revolved around Dravid/Tendy/Laxman/Azhar/Ganguly. The other players that have gotten chances in a few tests where never test quality. IND have no Stuart Law or Jamie Cox etc type players who could say where unlucky not to play test cricket.

And Australia's reserves haven't been tested yet. We will see when they are...

Yes they aren't tested. But again using history as guide & the fact that AUS the best domestic system in the world & training, coaching etc. I would always back those players to step up & international level faster than most teams especially IND.

SA juz defeated Aus in Aus.

Yes this proves my point about AUS inconsistency in this McWarne era thus far. AUS losted that series more so to poor selection & SA took advantage of them. As aforementioned if SA & AUS play in test series right now i would back AUS to win.

 

[aussie]

Whether or not the bias has a significant impact on your judgement is not the issue; the bias is there whether it effects you or not.

Favouritism would be a better word than bias in this case.

 

[aussie]

Would just like to clarify that neither Ben Dorries or Aussie speak for most of the Aussie fans. Dorries is ****e, even in terms of the very low regard I have for journos. The conspiracy theories trotted out suggesting there's anything more at play than dumb **** journos being lazy in search of stuff for their columns is amusing however.

I dont need to, want to or have to. This is a cricket chat forum where everyones opinion is as good as the other person.

FTR. I dont agree with this Ben Dorries individual, i was just responding to post by an individual that i disagree with, before dishonestbharani came out throwin the stupid "i am biased" crap.

lol.. I know aussie doesn't really speak for the majority of Aussie fans, mate.. Juz find it laughable that the guy is turning into a mini-Richard.. At least Richard acknowledges that he is wrong sometimes and doesn't always maintain as if he knows everything about cricket...

No this is your usual inaccurate interpretation of my views on cricket.

 

[subshakerz]

That doesn't mean anything. In 2002/03 according to those rating systems SA became # 1in the world after AUS had smoked them over 6 tests.

Australia are no longer the dominant force of 95 to 2006/07. But they remain the best test nation in the world clearly.

Um, no. SA are just ahead of them based on recent form in test cricket. Though they each won a series against each other in the winter, Australia in the last year lost to both England and India whereas SA did far better in their tours there. Before SA lost to Australia, they were undefeated for 12 series.

You could also make the case that SA are a better ODI side than Australia given that they trounced them 4-1 both home and away in the winter as well.

 

[four_or_six]

Did the WI media make a big deal about ENG after WI bowled out eng for 51 ?

Are you slow ?

If there is one team that should never bad talk WI its eng.

There was a pretty harsh reaction after England got bowled out for 51, but I don't read the WI media so I don't know what their reaction was.

I don't see why someone from England can't comment negatively on the performance of the West Indies just because England lost a test match to them this year.

 

[subshakerz]

How is AUS current pace trio unproven?. All of them have proven themselves in test cricket in various ways in the last 12 months & currently are better than IND & SA at full strenght & depth wise.

Johnson was supposed to be the next big deal but was completely average in England. Siddle is lively but hardly seems the type to run through any side and lacks penetration when the pitch doesn't offer something. Both of these guys are inconsistent and none of Aussie's bowlers are on Steyn's level. They also looked toothless when they last played in the subcontinent. Not so Steyn.

Yes this proves my point about AUS inconsistency in this McWarne era thus far. AUS losted that series more so to poor selection & SA took advantage of them. As aforementioned if SA & AUS play in test series right now i would back AUS to win.

No, Australia lost that series primarily because of their bowlers' inability to dismiss SA. And shouldn't SA who didn't lose their last 12 series before they lost recently to Australia be rated higher for their consistency?

 

[Beamer]

There was a pretty harsh reaction after England got bowled out for 51, but I don't read the WI media so I don't know what their reaction was.

I don't see why someone from England can't comment negatively on the performance of the West Indies just because England lost a test match to them this year.

Our media chose to focus on the outstanding bowling of Taylor and Benn rather than belittle the English.

It's ok to want to thrash us as a result of what happened in the 80's and if we ever get strong again I will want us to humiliate England and Australia mercilessly for what they have put us through in the last 15 years. But the questioning of our test status, the 2 division test cricket, the constant talking about attendance figures that are no worse than last year etc is just crassness of the highest order.

We did not question Australia's test status when they were at their lowest. In fact as Garner points out, they used us to boost revenues. Some people have really short memories....

 

[aussie]

Um, no. SA are just ahead of them based on recent form in test cricket.

Before SA lost to Australia, they were undefeated for 12 series.

That recent form is potentially over since the bowling attack that gave SA such strenght between (SRI 2006 to AUS 2009 over 12 series) is in decline. Steyn is their only quality bowler, Nitni is finished & Morkel has gone backwards or rather has kicked on. Everything else is unproven.

Though they each won a series against each other in the winter, Australia in the last year lost to both England and India whereas SA did far better in their tours there.

AUS losing in IND wasn't a surpirse though. Without McWarne the sub-continent would become AUS achillies heal again. AUS would clearly beat IND in AUS as they did in 07/08.
SA winning in ENG is the past right now things have changed. SA did better in IND because they had a better pace attack (which is always the key to winning in IND) ATT & got some bowler friendly conditions.

AUS played on roads & their pace attack was weakened by injury.

You could also make the case that SA are a better ODI side than Australia given that they trounced them 4-1 both home and away in the winter as well.

That was an understrenght AUS team full of injury woes. AUS second XI (bowling attack) just won in IND. At full strenght also AUS have a better ODI team than SA ruight now.

AUS: Watson, Haddin, Ponting, Clarke, Hussey, White, Hopes, Johnson, Lee, Hauritz, Siddle.


SA: Smith, Amla, Kallis, AB D, A Pietersen, Boucher, A Morkel/McLaren, VDM/Botha, Parnell, M Morkel, Steyn.

 

[subshakerz]

That recent form is potentially over since the bowling attack that gave SA such strenght between (SRI 2006 to AUS 2009 over 12 series) is in decline. Steyn is their only quality bowler, Nitni is finished & Morkel has gone backwards or rather has kicked on. Everything else is unproven.

Potentially, but even your supposed rise of Australia after a poor year is potentially. Let's wait until SA's series against England before we say that their form is over. Until then, they have the record to claim the No.1 spot.

SA winning in ENG is the past right now things have changed. SA did better in IND because they had a better pace attack (which is always the key to winning in IND) ATT & got some bowler friendly conditions.

SA just won last year against a similar England side that just defeated Australia. So what if it was in the past, a year is not that far away, it was pretty much the same SA side. I view that as a point in SA's corner.

And SA did well in India primarily because of Steyn, and he's still going strong. Australia's pace attack just fell flat. Point again in SA's favor.

 

[aussie]

Johnson was supposed to be the next big deal but was completely average in England.

Its isn't as straightforward as that. Johnson problems in ENG IMO where two things:

- After finding swinging the destroyed the SA @ Home, in which he lowered his action. He came to ENG for the first time having not played with the duke ball before & struggled to adjust to ball. When he eventually returned to usual back of the lenght style bowling in 4th test he took a 5 wicket haul.

- Secondly as he himself admitted "Mitchell Johnson reveals Ashes demons | Cricket News | Australia v West Indies 2009/10 | Cricinfo.com". He had some personal issues around the first two test.

Cause lets be frank here the SA batting that Johnson destroyed in SA was far superior to England.

Siddle is lively but hardly seems the type to run through any side and lacks penetration when the pitch doesn't offer something.

I personally think Siddle potentially can be penetrative on flat decks. He is one of those bowlers who would run in hard on flat decks & would constantly make batsmen play.

Both of these guys are inconsistent and none of Aussie's bowlers are on Steyn's level. . Not so Steyn.

Steyn is better than both yes. But overall AUS attack Hilfy/Johnson/Siddle is better than SA since Ntini & co are not the same bowlers from 1 year ago.

They also looked toothless when they last played in the subcontinent.

Yes because of injuries to Lee & Clark & the fact that Siddle & Johnson didn't peak as bowler until the AUS summer.

No, Australia lost that series primarily because of their bowlers' inability to dismiss SA.

Yes that inability was because the selection picked the wrong bowlers & wrong balance in the bowling attack. Since AUS batting stood up to the SA bowler very well, they weren't exposed technically or anything.

AUS won in SA because they got that balance 90% correct. (McDonald should have never played)

And shouldn't SA who didn't lose their last 12 series before they lost recently to Australia be rated higher for their consistency?

Up to when SA won in AUS yes. But AUS ended SA's streak by beating them at home & as aforementioned SA attack in is decline from the team that won 12 series in a row.

 

[Richard]

Our media chose to focus on the outstanding bowling of Taylor and Benn rather than belittle the English.

Rightly so, too, because England were nowhere near as bad in that match - and more specifically that second-innings - as our own media portrayed (and as UK media prefer to portray in general - the UK is a place where negative publicity is much more preferred-reading than positive). WI were outstanding, England weren't great, not a case of WI being OK and England being abysmal.

It's ok to want to thrash us as a result of what happened in the 80's and if we ever get strong again I will want us to humiliate England and Australia mercilessly for what they have put us through in the last 15 years. But the questioning of our test status, the 2 division test cricket, the constant talking about attendance figures that are no worse than last year etc is just crassness of the highest order.

We did not question Australia's test status when they were at their lowest. In fact as Garner points out, they used us to boost revenues. Some people have really short memories....

Or rather, some things change and people doing reporting change. WI journos of the mid-1980s have precisely no relevance to Australians of the late-2000s. True, perhaps they should take a few more leaves from a few more books, but you'll notice that the types of journalists who have been doing what you complain about are those who are routinely trashed on CW - no-one on here thinks very much of them. They're employed because they appeal to the masses, not because they're recognised by the creme de la creme as... well, the creme de la creme.

Bad journalism is a result of bad journalists, not short-term memory.

 

[Richard]

AUS won in SA because they got that balance 90% correct. (McDonald should have never played)

And because SA were well below their best.

 

[The Sean]

And because SA were well below their best.

I'm pretty sure that's what you say every single time Australia ever beat South Africa.

 

[subshakerz]

Aussie, I get your points but again nothing is set in stone and you will have to see how Australia's pace attack performs in the next year (as WI and Pakistan's batting isn't really a big challenge) and how SA's attack fairs before you declaratively say that Australia's attack is better than SA's. Because as it stands now the SA's attack (Steyn, Ntini, Morkel) recent record is a draw in India, win in England, win in Australia and lost at home to Australia, and Australia's attack (Johnson, Siddle, etc) record is a loss in India, loss at home to SA, win in SA and loss in England. Results speak more than anything.

Again, let's see how SA's attack does against England. If they struggle overall, I will lean towards agreeing with you.

 

[Richard]

I'm pretty sure that's what you say every single time Australia ever beat South Africa.

Can't say I've ever said it about any series pre-isolation, mostly because I've never studied any of them in-depth. Wouldn't say I said it about 1993/94, but then, Australia didn't win those series so it wouldn't be of any relevance.

I've said South Africa were below their best in every series between 1996/97 and 2008/09, regardless of whether Australia or South Africa won, and regardless of whether Australia or South Africa would have won had South Africa been closer to their best. South Africa have an extreme tendency to underperform, sometimes substantially, when Australia are the opponents (best demonstrated by the epidemic of dropped catches in 2001/02 and 2005/06, which is such an un-South African trait and which was conspicuous by its absence in the Australia leg of 2008/09), though that doesn't necessarily mean they were always a better side than Australia IMO (it is a possibility and no more than that).

 

[aussie]

Aussie, I get your points but again nothing is set in stone and you will have to see how Australia's pace attack performs in the next year (as WI and Pakistan's batting isn't really a big challenge) and how SA's attack fairs before you declaratively say that Australia's attack is better than SA's. Because as it stands now the SA's attack (Steyn, Ntini, Morkel) recent record is a draw in India, win in England, win in Australia and lost at home to Australia, and Australia's attack (Johnson, Siddle, etc) record is a loss in India, loss at home to SA, win in SA and loss in England. Results speak more than anything.

Again, let's see how SA's attack does against England. If they struggle overall, I will lean towards agreeing with you.

Bullet. Fair enough uncle..