*Official* Australia in decline thread

[marc71178]

There isn't anywhere near as much difference as you and many others seem to be trying to suggest, if you actually look at the situation.

Oh really?

So how come almost everyone agrees it slows the run rate then - are we all automatically wrong?!

 

[The 3rd Umpire]

Re: My opinion on Australia!

I quite frankly think as a 'dominating team' Australia has already peaked. Anything they achieve now is only a bonus. If you look at Wisden rankings, or the way they played and listen to views from professionals, it is said that the Aussie team of late 99,2000 and 2001 was amongst the strongest of all time. While its clear they've almost perfected ODI games and are statistically and non staistically the best ODI side of all time (mind you I said this prior to the TVS cup also)..however as a test team and on the whole I think they've clearly peaked. Secondly I read Pontings interview a few days back and he clearly says that he expects his men to play good dominante cricket for a few more months or even a yr, not anymore (not that I'm saying they'll be rank 6 after that).

Australians fans might even counter attack my thread by bringing up the fact that Ponting has taken it one step further than Waugh (by winning their first ever ODI tourney in Lanka).

The strongest West Indian side was that of 81...they were also strong in 79. But thru out the 80 and early 90's, WIs dominated test cricket even though they had crossed their peak - all those victories were more of a bonus or an extra topping to add to their impeccable record.

Same goes for this Australian side, I think they've already peaked, won two world cups, beaten the rank 2 side of 2001 (SA) 6-1 in tests. Of course Australians will tell you they need to win in India and SL also but that between themselves (Indians, Lankans and Australians)..As a netural I feel so.

All in all - I feel this Australian side will lose some games and win a majority, while ppl keep saying their going downhill..I think they've already GONE downhill and come up again....why simply because they have a whole new lot of rookies in their team from Williams, Bracken, Clarke, Symonds, Hussey Bros, Haddin etc. The era of Bichel, Mcgrath and co has taken the backseat.

That's a pretty fair assessment, and that's coming from an Aussie. I can't see this team dominating in the same way as the Oz side with the Waugh twins, McGrath and Warne ( although Warnie's back with a vengeance ). Even Gillespie and Lee seem to have lost their effectiveness slightly, now that they don't have a bowler like McGrath holding down one end. McGrath has been severely missed, as much for his cricket brain and ability to remain disciplined within a team plan.

The real question as far as our No.1 ranking is concerned is whether the rest can see this weakness and capitalise, or can the Aussies repeat what the Windies did from their mid 80s heyday to the mid 90s, and just do enough to keep their champions status. The recent series between the severely undermanned Aussies, and India playing at their very best, is an illustration of this. India should have buried Australia, but they didn't as a result of their weak bowling. Sri Lanka could well have been 2-0 up right now, but threw it away, although the Aussies should be commended for their fighting spirit in both series.

ODIs are different to Tests however, and form can very quickly change. If you had assessed Australia's World Cup chances back in 2001/2002, it would have been difficult to see Oz defending their title after missing the World Series finals, with SA and NZ fighting it out. All it takes is a good streak for a couple of years in one dayers to become a decent ODI side.

The only true challenger to Australia's position is South Africa, while India need to play consistently for 5 years before they can be considered. The Sarth Efricans have improved considerably under Graham Smith and a two-legged series right now would be very interesting.

 

[The 3rd Umpire]

On the subject of bowler economy rates in ODIs, they are more or less irrelevant in the current climate of one day sloggathons where 250 isn't necessarily defendable. The fact of the matter is that wickets are far more crucial than containment. Containment alone was fine 5-10 years ago, but recent matches ( both international and domestic ) I have watched ( in Australia admittedly) have shown that wickets must be taken to slow the scoring rate.

The Indians flayed the Oz bowling earlier in the World Series after making solid starts. Containment was no good here, because the Indians had wickets in hand and the batsmen were set. The tables turned dramatically in the latter half of the series when the Indians were subjected to their first bouncy wicket for the tour ( in Perth ) and crumbled against the hostile pace of Lee. Their batsmen didn't recover for the rest of the tour and the Aussies were able to contain the Indians due to taking early wickets. It's the only way in 2004, where bowlers are not much more than cannon fodder.

I don't follow much cricket in England, but maybe containment is more important there. In drier climates it is useless.

 

[bennyr]

10-2-29-0 or 10-0-45-3?

I know which I'd rather see.

Hell, I want them both in my side. You need a combination of bowlers with good strike rates and good economy rates. It affords the captain more flexibility and will tend to make for a more balanced attack.

 

[Linda]

The Indians flayed the Oz bowling earlier in the World Series after making solid starts.

Gee, I hope you mean VB series :P

 

[garage flower]

Oh really?

So how come almost everyone agrees it slows the run rate then - are we all automatically wrong?!

The argument needs to take into account context and the players' ability to think.

Teams with wickets in hand, or more pertinently with a number of capable batsmen waiting in the hut, will be able to take risks to combat accurate bowling, particularly on wickets offering no assistance to bowlers.

Batsmen in ODIs need to make continual assessments of how aggressively to approach their innings based on factors such as required run rate, overs remaining, wickets lost/ability of batsmen to come, quality of opposition bowlers, remaining overs of opposition bowlers, pitch conditions etc.

I would suggest the key factors are RRR (or whatever - in the player's judgement - is a reasonable target to set if batting first), the number of overs remaining and wickets lost/quality of batsmen to come.

Obviously, the ongoing RR/RRR is affected by the accuracy of the bowlers, but world class batsmen will generally be able to keep the rate within manageable limits until the equation between required rate and overs remaining is sufficient to allow them to accelerate and meet the required rate. The only way to stop the batsmen dictating in this way is to affect the equation by taking wickets. Taking wickets will mean the batsmen will want to wait longer before taking risks/hitting out and so will have to manage the required rate for longer. In other words, the bowlers dictate the game by taking wickets. Otherwise, I'd suggest that batsmen will dictate against all but the most accurate of bowling attacks.

 

[marc71178]

Hell, I want them both in my side. You need a combination of bowlers with good strike rates and good economy rates. It affords the captain more flexibility and will tend to make for a more balanced attack.

Good point, I guess it depends on when they come on to bowl.

An opening bowler taking 3 wickets would IMO be more value than one conceding few runs.

 

[pakster]

Who will dethrone australia!?

With the australian team aging, and their reign at the top lasting so long already, it only a matter of time before another team is crowned the Number 1 test side or the Number 1 ODI side.
Who will do it? Who will humiliate the aussies on their own turf, not a battling 1-1 effort ala india, but an absolute whitewash, utter hummiliation. The type of humiliation that would cause the ACU to make statements like 'we now have to rebuild' and cause their media to sharpen their knifes.

So who will do it??

The candidates can b divided into 3 catogories

VERY LIKELY
sa
ind
nz (the dark horses!)

DOUBT IT, BUT U NEVER KNOW!!
pak
eng
wi

HAHAHAHA
zim
ban


My tip is NZ, they are a very disciplined side and have recently shown they are a force to be reckoned with.
India are looking good too!

Whos ur pick??

 

[krkode]

I agree with you to an extent.

India are a great team and certainly have the ability to beat the Aussies once in a while. Same with South Africa. But both these teams have weaknesses that prevent the consistent magnificense so needed to be the world leaders in Cricket.

New Zealand also appear to be a team with weaknesses, no doubt, but if anyone does it any time soon, I believe it'll be the Kiwis.

 

[Sanz]

No One in the future has any chance of dethroning Australia. They have just too much talent and their 'A' team is capable of beating most teams.

 

[Neil Pickup]

No One in the future has any chance of dethroning Australia. They have just too much talent and their 'A' team is capable of beating most teams.

Bit pessimistic!

Don't forget that their youth talent isn't looking desperately rosy.. (Clarke, North, Watson.. then who? Doherty? Casson? White? Williams? Bracken?) and their Under-19s got annihilated by Zimbabwe in the World Cup.

I say England, purely out of national bias. And the fact that we have the finest fast bowler in the World. Almost.

 

[Langeveldt]

I think it will come down to either india or south africa...

 

[Sanz]

Bit pessimistic!

Don't forget that their youth talent isn't looking desperately rosy.. (Clarke, North, Watson.. then who? Doherty? Casson? White? Williams? Bracken?) and their Under-19s got annihilated by Zimbabwe in the World Cup.

I say England, purely out of national bias. And the fact that we have the finest fast bowler in the World. Almost.

Okay I should have said 'No one in the NEAR Future'. I think their present team of Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Martyn, Gilchrist will play for at least another 3-4 years. Their new players Clark, Symonds, Katich are all better than the new talents from India, Pak, SA etc.

I dont think England will be able to dethrone Australia any time soon. Their batting is just too weak. Their fast bowling does look promising but I would wait for couple of more series to make any prediction about them.

 

[a massive zebra]

Arguably India have already dethroned them. Australia have not beaten India this millenium in a Test series and India's batting is awesome.

 

[krkode]

Arguably India have already dethroned them. Australia have not beaten India this millenium in a Test series and India's batting is awesome.

It's a bit unfair to say considering this "millenium" has only been 4 years and the two teams have only played two test series.

Besides, India's win-loss record against Australia hardly merits "dethronment."

I'd agree if you said we've given them a good run for their money. Probably Australia's toughest opponent in recent times?

 

[Langeveldt]

When will they get dethroned??

I give them at least another 7 years at the top...

 

[pakster]

When will they get dethroned??

I give them at least another 7 years at the top...

give them about 6 months, pak r touring aus soon....akhtar and sami will deal with em

 

[Langeveldt]

give them about 6 months, pak r touring aus soon....akhtar and sami will deal with em

Hmm. like the demolition that took place last time Pakistan toured Aus?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Hmm. like the demolition that took place last time Pakistan toured Aus?

You mean the ODI series that Pakistan won 2-1?

 

[a massive zebra]

It's a bit unfair to say considering this "millenium" has only been 4 years and the two teams have only played two test series.

Fair point.

Besides, India's win-loss record against Australia hardly merits "dethronment."

Well its 3-2 to India, not exactly a whitewash, but certainly close to dethronement IMO.

I'd agree if you said we've given them a good run for their money. Probably Australia's toughest opponent in recent times?

Australia have only beaten India twice in seven matches and failed to win a series this millenium so they have been given more than a run for their money.