*Official* Australia in decline thread

[Eclipse]

Um... yeah. Are you putting down Brett Lee or pointing out his talents? Because you sort of jump around a bit.

It's easy to see what my opinion of him is.

I think he is a wasted talent and the fact he could be souch a good player really annoys me.

 

[Richard]

Oh really?

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

How many times do I have to say it, I wonder - just because a load of people say it, doesn't make it right!
Mass misconceptions, too, are more common than you may realise. They happen a lot in cricket, people simply ignoring basic facts.

 

[Richard]

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.

Quite the contrary - the alarmingly fast run-rates are far more common in England than Australia, due to a combination of under-sized grounds, poorer bowling and bad rule-making.
And with regard to the current climate of one-day sloggathons - it is not that the run-rate has decreased the importance of economy-rate, but the other way around - lesser ability bowlers have caused scoring-rates to rise. Bowlers who have played in both eras have, if anything, improved their economy-rates. If batsmen were simply more aggressive, the economy-rates of Pollock, Warne, McGrath, Vaas, Murali etc. would rise. Instead, they have fallen. It is simply that the likes of Donald, Ambrose etc. have been replaced by bowlers who cannot maintain such accuracy as their predecessors.

 

[marc71178]

How many times do I have to say it, I wonder - just because a load of people say it, doesn't make it right!

And because it happens?

 

[a massive zebra]

Quite the contrary - the alarmingly fast run-rates are far more common in England than Australia, due to a combination of under-sized grounds, poorer bowling and bad rule-making.
And with regard to the current climate of one-day sloggathons - it is not that the run-rate has decreased the importance of economy-rate, but the other way around - lesser ability bowlers have caused scoring-rates to rise. Bowlers who have played in both eras have, if anything, improved their economy-rates. If batsmen were simply more aggressive, the economy-rates of Pollock, Warne, McGrath, Vaas, Murali etc. would rise. Instead, they have fallen. It is simply that the likes of Donald, Ambrose etc. have been replaced by bowlers who cannot maintain such accuracy as their predecessors.

Glen McGrath

Test Match economy rate in the 20th Century: 2.62
Test Match economy rate in the 21st Century: 2.32

Shane Warne

Test Match economy rate in the 20th Century: 2.39
Test Match economy rate in the 21st Century: 2.99

Shaun Pollock

Test Match economy rate in the 20th Century: 2.33
Test Match economy rate in the 21st Century: 2.33

Muttiah Muralitharan

Test Match economy rate in the 20th Century: 2.48
Test Match economy rate in the 21st Century: 2.22

Chaminda Vaas

Test Match economy rate in the 20th Century: 2.58
Test Match economy rate in the 21st Century: 2.68

You seem to have a point. The economy rates of top players have not changed much, but the newer bowlers have struggled to keep the runs down.

 

[Richard]

And because it happens?

Circular motion again...
You believe it happens, I don't. There is no "it does" or "it doesn't".
Whether new batsmen struggle to score at a high pace as established batsmen would not have can only be guessed, because the two do not happen simualtaneosly, either one happens or the other does.

 

[marc71178]

Whether new batsmen struggle to score at a high pace as established batsmen would not have can only be guessed

So it's always coincidence then - you have 2 men who are set and scoring at a reasonable rate.

A wicket happens, and even though the same bowlers are bowling, the run rate drops.

And you say it's guesswork that the established men would've slowed against the exact same bowlers they've just been hitting around?

 

[Tom Halsey]

I agree with Marc here - I don't see how it is only guesswork really, as it happens all the time. Unless, that is, if the new batsman is Lance Klusener...

 

[Nate]

keeping the run-rate down helps... but you are not going to stop them from tonking if theyve got wickets in hand.

 

[Linda]

Heres a nice little quote from Ponting in his World Cup Diary...

"..even though one-day cricket is about restricting the opposition's scoring, the best way to do that is by taking wickets.."

 

[Richard]

keeping the run-rate down helps... but you are not going to stop them from tonking if theyve got wickets in hand.

You are - by bowling where the ball cannot be tonked.

 

[Richard]

So it's always coincidence then - you have 2 men who are set and scoring at a reasonable rate.

A wicket happens, and even though the same bowlers are bowling, the run rate drops.

And you say it's guesswork that the established men would've slowed against the exact same bowlers they've just been hitting around?

Haven't you ever noticed how wickets often galvanise bowlers, and they up the ante in terms of accuracy?
I've noticed it time and again. Often it has an effect on the scoring-rate of a batsman who's been in for some time when someone who's been in with him is dismissed, the bowler becomes more economical.

 

[marc71178]

Haven't you ever noticed how wickets often galvanise bowlers, and they up the ante in terms of accuracy?

Accuracy which then slows the run rate?

Sorry, but isn't that exactly the point in question?

I've noticed it time and again. Often it has an effect on the scoring-rate of a batsman who's been in for some time when someone who's been in with him is dismissed, the bowler becomes more economical.

Yes, and again that is exactly what people have been saying and you claiming not to happen, yet you now seem to agree?

 

[The Argonaut]

Good to see Richard arguing with everyone again.

I think that Australia will go through a bit of a trough in the next couple of years. It may only mean that they come back to the field and not lose the no. 1 ranking. There is still daylight between 1 and 2. Losing Waugh is huge. It means that Katich is at 6. When the Aussies lost a few bowlers last summer we all saw what happened. Bracken wasn't up to it and Williams was not much better. Add to this the retirements of Warne, McGrath, Lehmann etc in the not too distant future then the other sides will be able to compete.

The argument that South Africa had the strongest side in 1999 has flaws. I don't doubt that if you look at individual stats that they were very strong but did they perform as a team when it counted. No they choked in 2 key matches in the World Cup and Australia took the spoils. The sum of the Aussie parts was greater.

Adam Dale was a solid performer but not as great as some would suggest here. He was a good tight bowler at the start but could not bowl at the death.

The comment that the Australian one day side has guys with elevated stats is also a strange one. I think Hayden, Gilchrist, Harvey, Symonds, Lee were mentioned. I can only agree with Harvey here. I have never rated him. The others are quality one day players. I believe their stats to be genuine. Sure Symonds has been good for only a year or so now but he has earned his stripes. Lee has been a great one day bowler for a number of years now as he has consistently taken wickets when required. He may not have a good economy rate but he's not in the side to keep it tight. he is performing his role.

The last point I will comment on is the taking wickets lowers the run rate. I belive this to be true on most occasions. Sometimes a guy will come in and blast away but not too often. Most times they will take an over or two to get used to the bounce and speed of the pitch. The good batsmen will be able to get singles to rotate the strike to the batsman who is already set. Sure the bowler lifts a peg once taking a wicket but this only adds to teh argument that wickets generally cause a lowering of the run rate.

 

[Slow Love™]

Haven't you ever noticed how wickets often galvanise bowlers, and they up the ante in terms of accuracy?
I've noticed it time and again. Often it has an effect on the scoring-rate of a batsman who's been in for some time when someone who's been in with him is dismissed, the bowler becomes more economical.

You've argued yourself into a logistical corner here, from which there's no turning back. You've completely acknowledged the point that those debating with you have argued (and which, obviously, you've denied, up to this point)- that the taking of a wicket frequently lowers the scoring rate. You've directly confirmed that it's the taking of a wicket that results in this, as you've noticed "time and time again".

Out of curiosity, is it your schtick to choose a random contrarian viewpoint and defend it as long as possible for a bit of a laugh (and there's nothing wrong with that, it can be fun), or do you actually believe these ludicrous arguments you make?

 

[Richard]

Accuracy which then slows the run rate?

Sorry, but isn't that exactly the point in question?

Yes, and again that is exactly what people have been saying and you claiming not to happen, yet you now seem to agree?

The point I have been arguing against is that removing set batsmen in itself slows the run-rate. Ie you could dismiss a batsman and bring a new bowler on and the run-rate would still come down, even if that bowler sprays the ball all over the place.
If a bowler simply starts bowling more accurately without a batsman being dismissed this will slow the rate.
If taking wickets was completely pointless no-one would bother taking catches or appealing for lbws in one-day games. But you don't need to worry about taking them anywhere near as much if you can bowl in restrictive areas.

 

[marc71178]

Keep digging, you'll be at the centre of the Earth soon.

 

[Richard]

Nah, it's too hot down there.

 

[chris.hinton]

The Aussies are Awesome but Some of there best players are retired (Waugh Bros, Slater) or on the way down ( Langer, McGrath, Warne) whilst some are still doing ok (Gilchrist,Hayden) the need to bllod the next batch ( Tait,Clarke)

I wished England Had Macgill

 

[Andre]

The Aussies are Awesome but Some of there best players are retired (Waugh Bros, Slater) or on the way down ( Langer, McGrath, Warne) whilst some are still doing ok (Gilchrist,Hayden) the need to bllod the next batch ( Tait,Clarke)

I wished England Had Macgill

Slater retired a month ago. He was dropped 3 years ago - irrelevant bringing him into it.

The Waugh brothers retirements haven't seen a decline in the side - infact, Lehmann for Mark and Katich for Steve is at least equal, if not better, considering the twiglight of the Waugh's careers (that said, Steve continued to warrant his spot through strong performances).

Langer scored 160 in his second most recent Test match, McGrath just got man of the match in the most recent one while Warne has been dominant since his return from the ban - not sure what you are talking about there.

Gilchrist and Hayden, like Warne, McGrath and Langer, are proven performers and will continue to do well until their time is up, whic at this rate isn't any time soon.

As for Tait and Clarke, neither of them are quite ready for Test cricket or warrant selection - all nice and rosy that they are young, but if an older player is more deserving they have a right to be selected - as they quite rightly are. Potential doesn't win matches; performances do.