Australia's Dominance Is Because............

[Shawn Badyk]

Australia are without a shadow of a doubt far ahead of every other nation in both Test and ODI. But the main reason that Australia are so far ahead is because of their seam bowlers. The opening pair of Glenn McGrath and Jason Gillespie are a tandemn that condemn their opponents to defeat almost 100% of the time. Glenn McGrath and Jason Gillespie bowl a consistent line and length that is no wider than 1-2 feet outside of off stump and no shorter than 6 feet from the batting crease and no fuller than 3 feet from the batting crease and this line and length prevents the batsman from getting on the front foot and driving the ball, or getting on the back foot and playing behind point or through mid wicket, and forces the batsman to try to make room and this causes them to nick a ball and lose their wicket. This is why Australia has no problem in taking 20 wickets within 4 days of a Test match. Test cricket is about pressure, and Australia apply an amount of pressure no other nation apply. To be successful a team needs to seam bowlers who bowl in tandemn that bowl the line and length mentioned above and they need to bowl this line and length over long spells to frustrate the batsman into playing shots that cannot be played on such deliveries. No other bowling attack in the world has an opening pair who are as consistent and accurate as Glenn McGrath and Jason Gillespie meaning they do not apply as much pressure which prevents them from taking 20 wickets as quickly as Australia can. Test cricket is primarily about taking 20 wickets within 5 days, and Australia do that within 4 days and even within 3 days.

 

[luckyeddie]

I could give you the reason why they are the best in one word - balance.

You can have a great seam attack but there are times that spin is king - even for the Aussies. Furthermore, without runs on the board you are still vulnerable.

It's true that you have to take 20 wickets (normally) to win a game, but without good batting, a decent keeper, good captaincy, great fielding etc etc you will fail to dominate.

Oh - and sometimes a bit of arrogance doesn't go amiss either (although when it spills over into overconfidence or ****iness, you end up in the record books for the wrong reasons - look at how well their bowling attack performed in the last test match in the West Indies)

 

[age_master]

yeah we definatley have the best balance at the moment, have a look at the side

Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Martyn/love
S Waugh
Lehmann
Glichrist
Bichel/warne/macgill
Lee
Gillespie
McGrath



Hayden, Ponting and Gilchrist average over 50, Langer is working his way up there, Waugh is just under and Love and Lehmann both bat well as well

McGrath and Gillespie lead the bowling attack, both take wickets regularly and keep the runs down on most occasions, the are followed by the worlds Fastest white bowler (arguably the worlds fastest) and one of bichel, warne or Macgill, warne being the worlds best leggie.

i believe that Gilchrist, McGrath and Ponting are the keys to the side atm

Gilchrist - as a keeper keeps pretty much as well as anyone else in the world and as a batsman, well his record speaks for itsself, average nearly 60 and strike rate over 80, (SR vs England is over 90), he bats down the order and can tear attacks apart with little effort

McGrath - Best pace bowler in the world (except marc who reakons pollock is but we wont get into that again) - consistant line and length, nags away at batsmen constantly, takes wickets and keeps the runs down.

Ponting - Form bat in the world atm, hes got his average over 50 from 42 in like 1 year, bats aggressivley (SR nearly 60) and is maturing still as a batsman

 

[Shawn Badyk]

Spin bowling

To win in the subcontinent you need to have a good spin bowling attack and be able to play spin bowling. But when Australia last toured India, Shane Warne got hammered and was poor and did not trouble the Indian batsman at all, neither did Colin Miller. In fact Australia lost 2 Test matches in India. England only lost 1 Test match in India. The Australian batsman were completely destroyed by Harbajan Singh, they couldn't play him at all, therefore your theories about Australia being balanced and therefore dominant is invalid, because yes Australia has balance but this is not what makes them dominant. Australia's performance in India would prove you wrong and show that Australia is not balanced like you claim they are. Ponting was miserable in India, he was ouplayed and outclassed by Harbajan Singh, therefore again your theories are invalid.

 

[luckyeddie]

Just one small point about Gilchrist - I'm a great admirer of him as a batsman, but he's not a top-class keeper. He just doesn't make enough 'difficult' catches or stumpings.

Wicket-keeping in world cricket at the moment is probably at the lowest ebb I have ever seen it.

If Taibu was 6 inches taller, he could be fantastic. Gilchrist's certainly no worse than Stewart or Jacobs and better than many.

Read looks to me the nearest we have in England to picking up the Jack Russell mantle - but even Russell was no Bob Taylor. Bob was an absolute legend.

 

[Shawn Badyk]

My Judgements

Mate, I live in Australia and I see all the young cricketers in the Pura Cup and I am able to make a judgement on them. I also watch every England match on Optus Sports, and the debutants that us English have are far more talented than Australia's youngsters. By the way I am English. In fact I love England more than life itself, I wear the England ODI kit everyday.

Anyway, I need to get some sleep as I stayed up all night watching the England vs South Africa ODI and got no sleep.

I will be back in a couple of hours.

 

[age_master]

i think that you will find that when a bowler first comes onto the scene they are always more dangerous than later on, once batsmen have seen them a little.

also the only valid comparison that you can make between countries is when they play each other - please remind me of the score in the last ashes series, and the one before that, it must have slipped my mind.....

ohh and i think considering the raw numbers of tests that Australia has won over the last few years, you must consider them to be a balanced side, you cant win that many games if you are not a well balanced side - the fact that most of the players also play in the extreamley successful ODI side further proves this balance.

ohh and also i think you will find that the most sucessful combination for australia bowling in test cricket over the last 7 or 8 years would be McGrath and Warne...

 

[masterblaster]

Australia are the best, due to their professionalism, intensity, aggression and work ethic.

They are a bunch of very skilled and naturally talented cricketers, but so are other teams players.

But Australia always has the edge due to their preperation before games, vigorous training and their great attention to detail.

If other teams could adopt the same sort of approach to Cricket Australia has, then who knows?"

 

[Shawn Badyk]

Toughness

Mental toughness is 60% of cricket and Australia excel in this field while England are miserable in this field. However, England's young players are far tougher mentally than English players of the 1990's and will produce a lot. After England win our Test series over South Africa, our main goal will be to win our next Test series in South Africa and we can do that with our team I know we can and that will make us number 2.

 

[Kiwi]

90% of cricket is in the head. 1% talant. 9% work.

Thats the way most coaches tell people anyway.

 

[marc71178]

McGrath - Best pace bowler in the world (except marc who reakons pollock is but we wont get into that again)

Not just me...

 

[marc71178]

ohh and also i think you will find that the most sucessful combination for australia bowling in test cricket over the last 7 or 8 years would be McGrath and Warne...

And how long have those 2 got left?

 

[Bazza]

Without doubt all sport is 90% in the head. Work doesn't count because it is from the head you have an appetite to work hard and improve and make yourself better.

British swimming is on the up at the moment because we brought in an Aussie NPD who showed us what it takes to win. 100% means 100% not 99%.

I once read something he wrote (don't know where he got it from) which said to be an Olympic champion you have to be not just the best prepared athlete in the world in your event, not just the best prepared athlete in the world in your sport, but the best prepared athlete in the world in any event in any sport.

For me this just typifies what I would call the Aussie attitude - they give themselves every chance of winning because they are mentally tough from the moment they start - it is drilled into them from a young age. You can't change someone's attitude once they get to 29-30. It has to be done when they are 16-21 (and/or before).

Unfortunately British sport is full of quitters and whingers who aren't willing to stick their head down, grit their teeth, and sweat blood to get to where they want to be. They think it will just happen while they are on cruise control. Just fall into place.

That is why Australia are the best in the world, not just at cricket or swimming, but many sports.

 

[chris.hinton]

Shaun

How can you be living over there (Just Joking) do you play grade cricket and have you played club cricket in England

If so what is the difference in standard?/

Ok it going off topic

 

[marc71178]

It would be interesting to find that out actually

 

[anzac]

ahh the Aussie cricket team........mentally they have just about everyone beat b4 the toss!

granted they are the best, but as I have said previously I do not think they are 'balanced' nor are they unbeatable in a series.

IMO their bowling attack / lineup is their achillies heel, it's just that it is soo bloody hard to get into a position to expose their weakness as they are the best at what they do. I think their bowling attack was more 'balanced' when Fleming was in the lineup - more variety.

The primarily go into a match with only 4 recognised bowlers, & I think they lack a real 5th bowler in their team, especially one that gives them a viable variation to their seam & spin attack such as a tight swing bowler. This becomes apparent when their attack is depleted (as in the last Ashes Test), or when they are required to bowl extensively on the 4th & 5th days (as against India & SA on the Away Tours).

I also think their greatest attacking weapon on the field is their batting run rate - they score at an ODI rate aiming for 300 + runs per day. This gives them plenty of runs to play with and attack with their bowlers for extended periods of time. Currently very few teams can resist this relentless onslaught - hence the number of 3 - 4 day results they achieve. I am certain that their bowlers would not have enjoyed the same levels of success to date if they were not able to employ this tactic / option.

I think that when their current bowling attack retires they may well need to modify their team makeup if they wish to continue their current dominance, as their future bowling attack is unlikely to have as many world class performers at the same time.

So long as they continue with their current batting success then their bowlers will not need to be world class in order to achieve a victory - it just may be more of a 5 day match than the current abreviated versions they play.

 

[Langeveldt]

Having been to Aus, I reckon its the climate and oppertunities that everyone there seems to have to play competitive sport from an early age...

 

[Rik]

The right climate...the right set up...and an almost insane glut of talent for one generation.

 

[hourn]

the thing about the Aussie test team, is there is no weakness.

Even the lack of an all roudner is made up by the penetrativeness and the fact our batting is so good.

If some of our batsmen could bowl a bit better it would be a bonus, but it's not to be.

Aside from that, I'd rather come in with that team, than bring in an all rounder who won't contribute much with the bat, and only be a fifth bowler.

 

[marc71178]

the thing about the Aussie test team, is there is no weakness.

Except in a lack of effective back-up.