That's not what I wrote though.
What I actually wrote was the '19 Aussie team seemed good enough to win that series. We were denied by a freak innings from Stokes but still went on to win the 4th test. Seems they might have celebrated a little too freely after that and makes it more disappointing (from my own pov).
From the mid point of this series it's been all the poms. Simply finding a way to compete has been our biggest problem. This team haven't shown much in the last couple of matches to make anyone think they are good enough to win this series, or that it's very likely. Assuming they do lose (which looks likely if the weather doesn't intervene) the disappointment will be less here, because of that (again, from my pov).
Then again, even allowing for what is clearly your misunderstanding of what I wrote, I disagree that this side/squad is necessarily better than the '19 one. Perhaps "on paper" but games aren't played on paper and I find that arguable in itself.
For example, I'm not seeing any one of these Aus quicks making a composite squad, let alone a starting eleven.
We had a better attack in '19 and also had Lyon for the whole series (a choice between Starc, Siddle, Pattinson for 3rd bowler indicates a far stronger squad). We certainly weren't throwing in a rookies spinner. At any rate I don't remember our preferred bowling line being the "drift onto the pads", or gifting new to the crease batsmen all they singles as the like because we were sh-t scared they would hit boundaries. Not sure our batsmen were plodding along at 10 sr very often either.
We also had Smith in imperious form, a better version of Labuschagne and something of a renaissance from Wade. Probably had a better keeper too.
So I think all of your claims are doubtful and you might be bigging this team up a little too much.
