The season that wasnt....a tail of woe

[Furball]

Its doubly harsh because unusually we lost the Ashes due to both awful batting and bowling, did we bat worse or bowl worse???? Batted badly on day 1 a lot, but then bowled abysmally in the 4th and 5th tests, just zero penetration, Poms looked like precision experts with their execution and planning, we seemed to just run up and hope for the best, how do we fix that?? coaching or captaincy or new bowlers?

Up until the Ashes, Australia's bowling in Tests was actually pretty good in the 18 months between South Africa away and the start of the Ashes. Very rarely did the bowling get utterly smashed for 400+ totals which put the batsmen under pressure. Sure, some of the Ashes bowling was horrible, but the bowling unit, whilst it needs tweaking, should still have enough credit in the bank to be persisted with. For the bowlers, the Ashes should be seen as a one off blip for now.

Conversely, the batting has been woeful for 2 years now. Every single Australian Test defeat from Lord's 2009 onwards has featured a spectacular batting implosion, as well as a couple of Tests Australia won (Perth v West Indies, Sydney v Pakistan.)

 

[Spark]

Perth vs the Windies was just utterly inexplicable. There was no reason that should have happened, at all.

The thing with our batting from 08-10 when every now and then we would just have irritating collapses every so often is that with Hussey out of form, we had no one in the middle order who is a "banking" sort of player - the Watson or Katich type player who would usually at least make a start and would hence halt a collapse. Ponting has always been vulnerable early on, even more so in his decline, Clarke has always been similar and we know about North.

 

[pup11]

Up until the Ashes, Australia's bowling in Tests was actually pretty good in the 18 months between South Africa away and the start of the Ashes. Very rarely did the bowling get utterly smashed for 400 totals which put the batsmen under pressure. Sure, some of the Ashes bowling was horrible, but the bowling unit, whilst it needs tweaking, should still have enough credit in the bank to be persisted with. For the bowlers, the Ashes should be seen as a one off blip for now.

Conversely, the batting has been woeful for 2 years now. Every single Australian Test defeat from Lord's 2009 onwards has featured a spectacular batting implosion, as well as a couple of Tests Australia won (Perth v West Indies, Sydney v Pakistan.)

The main reason for that is that during that period we had a steady bowling attack and we weren't bringing in a new guys into our bowling attack for every game like we did during the Ashes.

Siddle, Johnson, Hilfenhaus, Bollinger and Hauritz formed the core of our bowling and everyone of those guys was doing their job pretty well, then we had our mini-tour of India where like most bowling attack our's too struggled.

For the selectors that was enough to hit the panic button and as result we saw some of the most ridiculous selections in Australian cricket history taking place in a series as important as the Ashes so it was no wonder to see us struggle, but tbt the way we batted no bowling attack could have saved us.

 

[Spark]

But perhaps the way we bowled, no batting lineup could've saved us. After all 1/517 came off our only truly imposing score of the summer.

 

[pup11]

But perhaps the way we bowled, no batting lineup could've saved us. After all 1/517 came off our only truly imposing score of the summer.

Yeah... sure mate whichever way you wanna look at it, we bowled them out for 260 in the 1st innings and were in reply 130-5 and had it not been Hussey our batting would have failed there as well, but getting out thrice in the first few sessions of day 1 of a test really doesn't leave much hope for a bowling attack.

 

[Spark]

Indeed so but at the end of the day it was a catastrophic and utterly unacceptable failure in every single department. Picking which failed the more is an exercise in despair.

 

[Furball]

But perhaps the way we bowled, no batting lineup could've saved us. After all 1/517 came off our only truly imposing score of the summer.

Yet you won the Perth Test by dismissing England twice for under 200.

1st innings at Brisbane aside, Australia only twice passed 300 all series - 304 in the 2nd innings at Adelaide, and 309 in the 2nd innings at Perth. Sure, some of the bowling was absolutely horrid, but scores of 481, 107/1, 245, 304, 268, 309, 98, 258, 280 and 281 are pathetic. And with the exception of Brisbane, all those scores came with Australia batting first.

 

[Spark]

Yet you won the Perth Test by dismissing England twice for under 200.

1st innings at Brisbane aside, Australia only twice passed 300 all series - 304 in the 2nd innings at Adelaide, and 309 in the 2nd innings at Perth. Sure, some of the bowling was absolutely horrid, but scores of 481, 107/1, 245, 304, 268, 309, 98, 258, 280 and 281 are pathetic. And with the exception of Brisbane, all those scores came with Australia batting first.

Indeed so but at the end of the day it was a catastrophic and utterly unacceptable failure in every single department. Picking which failed the more is an exercise in despair.

.

 

[Furball]

Yeah, but my point is that for Australia's bowling to fail as badly as it did was unusual, whereas the batting has been underperforming and collapsing regularly for a good 2 years now.

 

[Spark]

TBH though most of us thought that would be solved by replacing Hussey and North.

No one and I mean no one expected Ponting and Clarke to average in the 20s. That was utterly unexpected from any point of view.

 

[Nate]

No one and I mean no one expected Ponting and Clarke to average in the 20s. That was utterly unexpected from any point of view.

 

[Spark]

Find me the post then. Especially after Ponting had had arguably his best India tour and Clarke had hit the shield ton.

 

[Nate]

Find me the post then. Especially after Ponting had had arguably his best India tour and Clarke had hit the shield ton.

I thought it was a well established fact that I wanted Clarke dropped and Ponting to move down the order. Alas, to the search function I go...

 

[Spark]

Difference between that and saying they won't get a run between them, which is basically what happened.

 

[Nate]

Difference between that and saying they won't get a run between them, which is basically what happened.

Really? Surely it is very much implied.

 

[Nate]

I've posted it everywhere throughout the Ashes Sub-Forum. We even argued about his place in the team then Spark.

EDIT: Haha, my favourite. Reading through the older threads, I genuinely believe there are four or five Cricket Web posters who would be better selectors than our current lot, deadset.

 

[Noble One]

I've posted it everywhere throughout the Ashes Sub-Forum. We even argued about his place in the team then Spark.

EDIT: Haha, my favourite. Reading through the older threads, I genuinely believe there are four or five Cricket Web posters who would be better selectors than our current lot, deadset.

Saying that, there are another four or five posters I would never want near a selector position. Some frightening squads and names are thrown up from time to time.

 

[howardj]

Some very valid points these but you gotta understand that the suits running CA are driven by money and all those decisions too were purely are purely financial ones.

CA though obviously are forgetting that if the standard of cricket falls in Australia then the viewer interest too would drop which would result in losses, but I guess they are just making hay while the sun shines.

Exactly mate.

A strong Australian cricket team is always your best insurance against revenue decline. A weak Australian team, means less interest in the game and less revenue (apparently ratings declined as the Ashes series went on (as we were getting a belting)). That's the unique thing with cricket - people follow it through the prism of the nation's team rather than through the prism of a club (as in AFL) or a State. That's why it's vital that CA makes decisions in the best interests of keeping team Australia strong rather than just purely financial decisions.

 

[howardj]

Proof Our Worst Ever Team is a Turn Off

Weak team means weak interest.

 

[Spark]

Really? Surely it is very much implied.

Hmm, OK then. Will following any betting advice you give from now on then