What happened to Australia?

[G.I.Joe]

It isnt just about looks. The differences I asked about were in attitude and aggression. Believe me, this England team and the past 5 or more years has become increasingly steely, professional, aggressive and less intimidated.

The English did have, for wants of a better word, wet lettuces for a long time that allowed themselves to be beaten down by their tougher opponents. That is not the case now.

Trademark Australian attributes seem to be missing from this team.

Are the English winning more because they appear tougher, or are they enjoying the freedom to appear intimidating because they're winning a lot though?

 

[Goughy]

Fair point with Siddle.

 

[vcs]

Love that picture of Siddle.

 

[GIMH]

The attitude is the same as ever imo.

See Michael Clarke's apology for not walking, and Mark Waugh's response

 

[Goughy]

Are the English winning more because they appear tougher, or are they enjoying the freedom to appear intimidating because they're winning a lot though?

Change in attitude always come first and the English made a priority of setting in place systems to develop it and selecting the 'right' type of player. That has led to some players who would have possibly been picked before left on the outside.

 

[Jono]

Honestly, it has possibly played a role in India not been as successful as it could have been and it certainly hurt when they played against WI. You talk to certain Indians and, maybe not now and they may not have been the only ones, they were intimidated by the West Indies and it wasnt just the speed they bowled.

The new generation of Indian cricketers are the ones trying to act tough (big chested Uthappa, loud mouth Sree, warrior behaviour from Harbhajan etc.)

They've been unsuccessful, whereas Sachin is one of the best batsmen ever, as is Dravid. Kumble has been amazing. Laxman has scared the **** out of the Australians despite being the nicest guy in cricket.

Also, Lara speaks like a girl and looks like a guy that you'd want to hug.

 

[Son Of Coco]

It isnt just about looks. The differences I asked about were in attitude and aggression. Believe me, this England team and the past 5 or more years has become increasingly steely, professional, aggressive and less intimidated.

The English did have, for wants of a better word, wet lettuces for a long time that allowed themselve to be beaten down by their tougher opponents. That is not the case now.

Trademark Australian attributes seem to be missing from this team.

It's easy to be aggressive when you're playing well as a team. The same was said about the Australian team during the early to mid-2000's, when you have the sort of personnel that can carry out a plan then it's much easier to be aggressive. They also had the belief they could win from pretty much anywhere.

I think this England team now is similar, as was the one in 2005. In between they've wavered somewhat. When they were destroyed in 2006 they didn't look particularly aggressive, especially in Adelaide when they scored nearly nothing and were picked off by Warne before losing a game that seemed impossible to lose.

If you have the basis of a good team, and you're playing well, the I think that affects you attitude and you become more aggressive. If you doubt your ability, like the current Australian team must do currently, it's hard to convincingly look aggressive on the field without either looking like a tool, or a fake.

Quite a few of these English players were also here in 2006, and they didn't look quite so steely and aggressive then. Whereas Clarke and Ponting looked assured. The shoe is now on the other foot.

 

[Ruckus]

This guy also looks intimidating He also happens to speak like a girl.

 

[Goughy]

This guy also looks intimidating He also happens to speak like a girl.

For ****s sake, do people read the thread? There is more than 1 way to intimidate. It isnt just how you look. Toughness- mental is one of them. As is ruthlessness. As is the ability to never say die and fight until your last. What looks can do is give the preconceived notion of the above and others. Players like Bradman intimidated by his determination and ruthless accumulation of runs. People only half joked that he was not human.

Similar strength of mind exhibited by Bradman is something I believe the Australians have held over the English for as long as I have followed cricket and, talking to others that have played, it stretched further back than that. Australians were tougher, didnt wilt, loved a fight and were willing to dig deeper to acheive their aims. Australia didnt always win because they were better but because they were less fragile (certain players on both sides excepted)

As I said, the streotypical attitude and mental strength that has been a long term advantage for Australia seems to have gone. That intimidation and mongral no longer exists like it did. Old players jumping on new players may be nothing new and may be a case of "better in my day" but they seem to see the current generation as culturally different to theirs.

Where the looks come in is that the illusion of mental strength isnt even there anymore so it is exposed so much quicker.

 

[Ruckus]

For ****s sake, do people read the thread? There is more than 1 way to intimidate. It isnt just how you look. Toughness- mental is one of them. As is ruthlessness. As is the ability to never say die and fight until your last. What looks can do is give the preconceived notion of the above and others. Players like Bradman intimidated by his determination and ruthless accumulation of runs. People only half joked that he was not human.

Similar strength of mind exhibited by Bradman is something I believe the Australians have held over the English for as long as I have followed cricket and, talking to others that have played, it stretched further back than that. Australians were tougher, didnt wilt, loved a fight and were willing to dig deeper to acheive their aims. Australia didnt always win because they were better but because they were less fragile (certain players on both sides excepted)

As I said, the streotypical attitude and mental strength that has been a long term advantage for Australia seems to have gone. That intimidation and mongral no longer exists like it did. Old players jumping on new players may be nothing new and may be a case of "better in my day" but they seem to see the current generation as culturally different to theirs.

Where the looks come in is that the illusion of mental strength isnt even there anymore so it is exposed so much quicker.

Well tbh, at least half of the opening post was centred on looks. The point about mental toughness definately is more plausible in theory, but I still doubt there is much of a difference. Certain players in the side at the moment are probably somewhat 'uncharacteristic' of what an Australian cricket player is usually described as. Johnson, for example, is pretty mentally weak and often loses confidence in the same way Anderson would. However, on the whole most players, even in this current team, are quite resilient mentally. Of the younger players, Watson, Haddin, Harris, Siddle, Bollinger, Smith and Hughes are good fighters. Clarke, Johnson and Hilfenhaus probably less so.

I think the apparent 'loss of resilience' in the team is just a result of certain key players being out of form at one time or another - e.g. Ponting, Hussey etc. Just because they are out of form though doesn't mean they aren't trying to put up a fight.

 

[Jono]

Goughy you directly brought looks into it.

Of course no one is going to disagree on you with attitude and confidence etc.

But if a player has freckles and wears glasses, they can still be awesome players.

 

[social]

Not so much to do with the play or success but to do with what the players look like and their attitude. Growing up, Australian cricketers looked and acted like men against boys. Physically intimidating and possessing of fabled mental toughness, they looked a different breed to the boyish Englishmen.

What happened in Australia? Genuine question, has there been a pussification of the nation?

This generation seems very different in both look and outlook to the previous couple. It doesn’t appear to be just about ability.

Waugh had the, oft described, 'gunslinger eyes', Boon and Border wouldn't back down from a tidal wave, Merv Hughes scared batsmen so much that they ignored the fact he bowled at 75 mph, Langer looked like a man ready to go over the top to bayonet the Hun, Hayden was built like the Hulk, Warne had the career building arrogance that overwhelmed weaker opponents, McGrath shot pigs for fun, and Dean Jones was willing to watch himself waste away to an early death in the pursuit of runs. I could go on.

Now there are fragile fast bowlers that retire or flounce (Tait and Johnson), Clarke looks like a 12 yr old boy or an anorexic lesbian, Watson is scared of ghosts, Bollinger has his own image issues, Hughes looks like a trainee school teacher and the straw that broke the donkeys back was watching Smith come out to bat today.

He looked like Billy Bunter without the glasses. Possibly the least intimidating thing I’ve seen on a cricket field in quite a while.

Certainly the players are not as good as before but they have lost their edge especially when playing against guys like Tremlett who Brumby correctly describes as looking like a big, intimidating unit.

I’m not having a go at Australia as I have long admired their attitude, determination and how that is all packaged together. Now it seems the only reason to share a drink with them would be to see their glamorous other halves.

Are there greater changes at work in Australian life and *sniggers* culture to have made such a change in attitude, aggression and, dare I say it, manliness? What happened?

My comments are as an outsider looking in and I am genuinely interested if forces are at play or whether this isn't what it may appear.

Australia still leads the world in many areas and on a per capita basis, there is little doubt that between ourselves and our friends over the ditch, we are still by far, the greatest sporting nations on earth

However, in all honesty, with regards to the cricket team, I reckon it comes down to two things - leadership (or should I say, "lack thereof) and the natural cycle of sporting excellence

In relation to the former, I've long been of the opinion (which I've shared with you guys ad nauseam) that Australian cricket is rotting from the head down and now the chickens are coming firmly home to roost.

You simply cannot **** things up as consistently as these jokers have (whether it be selection, man management, sacrificing performance in the chase for filthy lucre, etc) without it coming back to bite you on the arse

I also dont think that Ponting is doing his job as a leader on the field as I would bet my bottom dollar that a Steve Waugh, Allan Border or Mark Taylor would have made a significant contribution in either Adelaide or at Perth today that would've pulled us out of a hole

However, the main thing is that the players arent that good atm and anyone that disputes it is really being blind to the obvious

That will change as certain guys gain more experience and the underachievers are discarded but the new breed's job will be harder unless fundamental changes take place within the team's and CA hierarchy

 

[sledger]

Goughy you directly brought looks into it.

Of course no one is going to disagree on you with attitude and confidence etc.

But if a player has freckles and wears glasses, they can still be awesome players.

You speak of these things as if they are mutually exclusive to one another, when in reality looks, attitude and confidence are all quite closely knit imo. I'm not suggesting that anyone's looks have any impact whatsoever in terms of their pure ability to master a certain skill set, but it may have a considerable influence on how one might apply oneself to a particular task etc... Though not strictly related to cricket, it's probably no coincidence that the people in the world who get the most successful or well paid jobs are those who are well turned out and have a certain presence. Presence is not something you can practice as such for mine, it's something you develop through your own confidence, which in turn is impacted upon massively by your image, how you perceive yourself and how you are perceived by others. As I say, it's not likely to have any impact whatsoever on your own ability per se (and I don't think Goughy was ever actually suggesting it was btw), but how you come across to others can drastically influence your success, and that can be said in any context, not just a sporting one.

 

[Jarquis]

Opinions on Ian Bell? Blonde hair, freckles, well spoken, only ever used to score runs when the going was easy. bit of a wet flannel and a softcock etc etc.
Over the last year or so though he's posted up some really impressive numbers... people see him any differently yet?
Personally think the making of him was being dropped in the West Indies

 

[G.I.Joe]

Haha, is this the 'muscular cricket' theory all over again?

There appear to be traces of the 'aura theory' too. Its the 'muscular + aura theory'.
Or if you will, the 'mascara theory'.[/Dr Tobias Funke, analrapist]

 

[vcs]

I think it's a pretty textbook case of confusing cause and effect.

 

[tooextracool]

Opinions on Ian Bell? Blonde hair, freckles, well spoken, only ever used to score runs when the going was easy. bit of a wet flannel and a softcock etc etc.
Over the last year or so though he's posted up some really impressive numbers... people see him any differently yet?
Personally think the making of him was being dropped in the West Indies

No because the idea that Bell is a 'softcock' has always been something of a fallacy and a make believe story. He played some impressive knocks under pressure in Pakistan and Sri Lanka early in his career.

Has my opinion on Bell changed? No, not until he starts racking up centuries. Not proven yet IMO. And it wont change if he scores a pretty 70 odd in this inning at Perth.

 

[Burgey]

Looks, attitude and presence play a huge role in success.

I have watched England teams with an unhealthy proportion of nice looking boys present zero intimidation to the 'scary' West Indians and the 'tough looking' Aussies. Looks cannot be downplayed. Even if it doesnt effect your own game (though some mongrel goes a long way) it impacts how others deal with you and play against you.

Mate, Anderson, Cook and Broad are a Mardi Gras organiser's dream. They'd be put on the first float to head up the parade were they available.

 

[Burgey]

Opinions on Ian Bell? Blonde hair, freckles, well spoken, only ever used to score runs when the going was easy. bit of a wet flannel and a softcock etc etc.
Over the last year or so though he's posted up some really impressive numbers... people see him any differently yet?
Personally think the making of him was being dropped in the West Indies

Oh ****, how did I forget Bell?

Has the "scared altar boy" look all to himself.

Plays a lovely cover drive though.

 

[Tom 1972]

Great fast bowlers hate batsmen. Every one of 'em.

I'm sorry but small quicks like Waqar and Marshall WERE scary. You just had to see the white line fever in their eyes.