Enough of this 'Australia aren't good anymore' nonsense!

[Matt79]

Someone (ie. Matt79) is forgetting that Langer retired as well.

Nah, but Langer for me, much as I love the bloke, is in that second tier of reliably very good players who were in place around the greats of the team to allow Australia to be a consistently brillant unit. Greats = Hayden, Ponting, S. Waugh, Gilchrist, Warne, McGrath. Very goods = Langer, Martyn, M. Waugh, Clarke, Gillespie, MacGill, Kasprowicz.

A team of with those "very good" players, but none of the "greats" would be a very good team, but not a stand-out number 1 team.

That said, I was on the point of mentioning Langer three or four times composing that post, but all I would have said was that Langer was ultimately replaced by Jaques, and then Katich and that hopefully, so far with fingers crossed, that's meant that we've been able to cover for that loss reasonably well.

 

[Richard]

DWTA actually. It's a motherhood statement to say that there is always change, but it is certainly not true to say that the change that is occuring is always significant, or always at the level that is going to impact on the team.

Take the given example of the Aus teams of 99 cf. 2007, vs 07 cf. 09. What changed between 99 and 07? Steve Waugh retired, and was more or less replaced by Darren Lehmann, then Michael Clarke. Mark Waugh retired and was replaced more or less by Damien Martyn, and then Mike Hussey. Gillespie and Kasprowicz left and were replaced by Clark. Some big names went out, for sure, but very good replacements, so the level of change was not hugely significant - especially as the exceptional individuals who made the team outstanding remained and continued to be remarkably consistent - eg. Warne, McGrath, Ponting, S.Waugh (for most of that time), and Gilchrist (for most of that time). I know I've probably got some of the precise changes wrong, but that's an accurate listing of who substantively replaced people as long term team members.

Compare that to what's happened in the last twenty four months - we've lost Warne, (and McGill and even Hogg) - to be replaced by no-one yet. We've lost Gilchrist to be replaced by Haddin - that's a pretty good replacement, albeit one that took a little while to find his feet and remains to be proven away. We've lost McGrath, to be replaced by Johnson and we've lost Martyn, replaced by Symonds, with a bit of shuffling of the order. Those are two pretty massive losses to the team - as well as Johnson has started to perform. This has meant that once Clark was injured, and Hayden and Lee have had significant form slumps, the core of what was a great team has been almost entirely gone.

There's nothing special about the baggy green that makes "Australia" the best team in the world - its the players on the pitch, and Ponting aside, this summer, none of the players in the team have been the players that were part of that champion team - and even he's been somewhat down on form from his best.

That's not to say we're doomed to years in the basement, or that we're not still a very good team, capable of mixing it with anyone, but we're clearly not the standout number one team anymore.

Not sure what point you guys are trying to make.

Yeah, teams change a lot. That's true. That doesn't mean that there's no difference between normal changes in a team with a player retiring, injuries, form changes etc and an exodus of your entire bowling attack and a few other key players over the course of a couple of seasons. Australia are in a "transitional phase" right now because there have been half a dozen or more guys in the last two test series who have been brought in with 5 or less tests worth of experience. Siddle, Bollinger, Krezja, Hauritz, Watson, White, McDonald... and if you go back a bit further you've got Casson, Haddin and Jaques. You can throw in uncertainty over the future of Hayden and possibly Symonds and Watson as well. That leaves Katich, Ponting, Hussey, Johnson and Clarke as solid members of the squad right now. That's pretty dramatic, and something Australia hasn't seen in a while.

Above all it just means Australia is kind of hard to judge right now. You can't really say how good Australia's bowling attack is compared to other teams in the world for example when only one guy in it has played a complete test series before.

It's not an "excuse"... there's not really anything to excuse. Australia have lost a test series because they've been outplayed. It's hard to judge the long-term prospects of the team though... because it's a transitional period. Siddle's good spells in the last two tests could be a flash in the pan or it could be the start of a great career. If it's the latter, it's obviously going to look a bit brighter for Australia say next summer than it would if Siddle has a test average of 50+ at that point in time.

It's hard to judge the players because so many of them have barely been playing 5 minutes. The team right now isn't "in transition", it's just "not very good". It might not be not that good for very long, but that's what it is right now. "In transition" is basically a term people use to try and make the excuse that things aren't really that bad, they're just waiting to become good again. Yet the reality is that no-one can say when or even if the good times will roll again. It's pretty much a given that they will at some point though, so you can always say any team not doing well is in transition. This isn't restricted to Australia right now, people do it for all sorts of teams at all sorts of times. I don't buy it though.

Teams are somewhere on a scale between good and bad. "In transition" isn't an option, because as I say, all teams are always in transition to some degree. Teams aren't "in transition" or "not in transition", transition (like good and bad) is a scale to which all teams are on at some point to some varying degree.

Generally, obviously, the less a team is in transition, the better it is, because good players by nature have long stints in a team and poor ones by nature have short ones (sometimes to be replaced by more poor ones who then have the same thing).

 

[susudear]

Nah, but Langer for me, much as I love the bloke, is in that second tier of reliably very good players who were in place around the greats of the team to allow Australia to be a consistently brillant unit. Greats = Hayden, Ponting, S. Waugh, Gilchrist, Warne, McGrath. Very goods = Langer, Martyn, M. Waugh, Clarke, Gillespie, MacGill, Kasprowicz.

A team of with those "very good" players, but none of the "greats" would be a very good team, but not a stand-out number 1 team.

That said, I was on the point of mentioning Langer three or four times composing that post, but all I would have said was that Langer was ultimately replaced by Jaques, and then Katich and that hopefully, so far with fingers crossed, that's meant that we've been able to cover for that loss reasonably well.

No!!!!!

Langer was the third best batsman during the Ponting era (after Hussey, and Ponting himself!!!)

 

[Matt79]

Sorry Precambrian, disagree. I'd have him equal with Martyn myself, so that make he =4th out of 6 specialist batsmen, or sometimes 5 specialists and an allrounder. Given the batting line up, that doesn't mean he was not very good, but he's more easily replaced that Steve Waugh was, or Ricky Ponting will be.

 

[Hoggy31]

**** off.

We'll dominate cricket again in 12 months, Jaques will come in for Hayden - no more 1/18 after 4 balls.. and Clark is our best seamer, if South Africa lost Steyn we'd be 3-0 by now. **** the all-rounder logic, D.Huss needs to be given a go at 6.

3-0 Aus in SA.

 

[Richard]

If Clark doesn't return by the start of the series, SA should win 3-0 in SA. If he does, Aus have a chance of winning the series, but 0-3 is an extreme unlikelihood, just like it was last time.