Evening. Bit of exploration here - our Australian readers will have a better understanding and I welcome their input, but the common narrative about AB appears to be a cross between the Hussain-Vaughan dynamic (that he 'laid the groundwork' for his successors) and that he enabled the development of the Australian team that would go on to dominate international cricket from 1995 onwards.
What's interesting about Allan Border is that he was captain of Australia for 8-9 years, experienced what could politely be described as 'mixed results' in the early years of his leadership (including a couple of Ashes defeats, some decisive losses to New Zealand etc). The 1989 Ashes appeared to be something of a turning point as an unheralded Australian side grabbed the Ashes back in emphatic style. But that English team was pretty poor and it's hard to imagine any half-decent captain failing to not just win that series but win it with room to spare.
There seemed to be a 'closer, almost' thread in battles with the West Indies, who were ultimately victorious in a competitive 1990-91 series and a scoring shot from going 2-0 down to Australia in 1992-93. The 1993 Ashes was basically 1989 revisited, albeit with a minor moment of triumph for England at the end and we have the disappointment of the 1992 World Cup to factor in having won in 1987. Sorry for not being chronological but the 1990-91 Ashes was essentially 2013 in reverse polarity, way better in effort terms from England than the two home series either way - and closer than the scoreline looked.
What strikes me is the change in the 'brand' of cricket once AB handed over to Mark Taylor. That great Australia team had the advantage of superior personnel, but also developed a far more positive 'play to win' style that was a clear evolution., I suppose my question is....how much credit does AB deserve for the groundwork towards what was achieved later? Does he get the kudos for nurturing and developing players or would they have emerged anyway? Might his slightly negative outlook on the game have even hindered that evolution slightly?
Given the 'game of two halves' nature of his tenure, what's the final assessment?
Thanks in advance.
What's interesting about Allan Border is that he was captain of Australia for 8-9 years, experienced what could politely be described as 'mixed results' in the early years of his leadership (including a couple of Ashes defeats, some decisive losses to New Zealand etc). The 1989 Ashes appeared to be something of a turning point as an unheralded Australian side grabbed the Ashes back in emphatic style. But that English team was pretty poor and it's hard to imagine any half-decent captain failing to not just win that series but win it with room to spare.
There seemed to be a 'closer, almost' thread in battles with the West Indies, who were ultimately victorious in a competitive 1990-91 series and a scoring shot from going 2-0 down to Australia in 1992-93. The 1993 Ashes was basically 1989 revisited, albeit with a minor moment of triumph for England at the end and we have the disappointment of the 1992 World Cup to factor in having won in 1987. Sorry for not being chronological but the 1990-91 Ashes was essentially 2013 in reverse polarity, way better in effort terms from England than the two home series either way - and closer than the scoreline looked.
What strikes me is the change in the 'brand' of cricket once AB handed over to Mark Taylor. That great Australia team had the advantage of superior personnel, but also developed a far more positive 'play to win' style that was a clear evolution., I suppose my question is....how much credit does AB deserve for the groundwork towards what was achieved later? Does he get the kudos for nurturing and developing players or would they have emerged anyway? Might his slightly negative outlook on the game have even hindered that evolution slightly?
Given the 'game of two halves' nature of his tenure, what's the final assessment?
Thanks in advance.
