*Official* Australia in decline thread

[Slow Love™]

if you had followed the discussion, then you would have clearly noticed what I said. I said earlier that Australia are the best team since last 5 years or so and Swervy asked who was the no. 1 team before that and I replied it was SA & SL. Because I remember the ODI performances of SA and they were awesome.

I did follow the discussion. Swervy said that "in tests Australia have been the best for a lot longer than 5 and a bit years". You replied, "Wasn't it South Africa who were the Test Champions until recently ??" (as a gag, I know), and then he said, "i think Australia were and then by some quirk in the system that was in operation then,somehow South Africa took over for a very brief spell..although I am sure that everyone was convinced that Australia were still light years ahead of them in the test game."

Then you called him arrogant and jumped back to Cronje. But he was right, all this happened, and it was post-Cronje. Only a couple of years ago. Which is when the system was changed.

I dont think that's true. They recently won a VB series in Australia where australia didn't even reach the finals, They won a ODI series in SA, wills international cup in dhaka, reached the finals of Titan Cup (Australia didn't) & Hero Cup in India.

Not sure what part of my post you're replying to here, 'cause when I said they didn't win any series against Australia, I specifically mentioned tests. I agree that the standings of the respective one-day sides as to who was number one in that era are debatable though, my choker comments notwithstanding.

BTW, small gripe I know, but in that VB series, we definitely had the better of South Africa. We were knocked out because the Kiwis had the wood on us.

 

[Sanz]

well I didnt mean to be arrogant with that.....were SA better than Australia???? I really didnt think they were....remember playing India isnt the only barometer we use to measure a teams strength

Between 1995-1998 Australia won 50% of ODIs whereas won close to 80% of their matches, Now would you still say that Aus is better. Use whichever system you want SA would still be better and more consistent side.

I thought that it was widely acknowledged that the old style of figuring out who was number one was heavily flawed,especially as SA had just been trounced by Australia and were obviously the inferior team of the two

Since 2000-2001, India has clearly performed better in tests against Australia but can we claim that India are a better side. NO.

 

[Sanz]

Erm no.

Wow ! I am really convinced now.

 

[Sanz]

I did follow the discussion. Swervy said that "in tests Australia have been the best for a lot longer than 5 and a bit years". You replied, "Wasn't it South Africa who were the Test Champions until recently ??" (as a gag, I know), and then he said, "i think Australia were and then by some quirk in the system that was in operation then,somehow South Africa took over for a very brief spell..although I am sure that everyone was convinced that Australia were still light years ahead of them in the test game."

I dont swervy specifically mentioned TESTs, He said this :- "so who was number one 5 and a half years ago....i think australia have been top dog for a decade now" ; and I dont agree with it. I think SA performed much better in ODIs and equally in Tests. They may have failed against Australia but they were far more consistent.

Not sure what part of my post you're replying to here, 'cause when I said they didn't win any series against Australia, I specifically mentioned tests. I agree that the standings of the respective one-day sides as to who was number one in that era are debatable though, my choker comments notwithstanding.

BTW, small gripe I know, but in that VB series, we definitely had the better of South Africa. We were knocked out because the Kiwis had the wood on us.

I already gave an example, I will give it again, it has been 4 years since australia won a test series against India but we can not say that India is a better side than Australia in any form of cricket, can we ?? Btw, I was talking about ODIs, sorryf or the confusion.

 

[Slow Love™]

Since 2000-2001, India has clearly performed better in tests against Australia but can we claim that India are a better side. NO.

So what? That's because their record up to this point against other sides away has been so poor. It has little in common with the battle between South Africa and Australia for top spot - they were indisputably the top two sides at the time, and India aren't (yet, at least) in the top two.

In the context of the battle for the number one ranking, it was clear that just about everybody thought that Australia was the number one side, and the system WAS changed because the ICC found this quirk of the system (that resulted in South Africa being presented with the trophy) was embarrassing. Particularly after we'd just grounded them into the dust. The reason South Africa were given that trophy was ONLY because they'd played series against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe faster than Australia had.

 

[Sanz]

They cracked under pressure, being good under pressure is a good team IMO.

Australia has been cracking under pressure in the ICC trophy doesn't mean that NZ was the best team of year 2000 or India & SL (joint winners) were the best team of 2002 ? One match doesn't decide who is better, it is the consistency in winning. Clearly SA was more consistent (during 1995-1998) than Australia esp in ODIs.

 

[Tom Halsey]

One match doesn't decide who is better, it is the consistency in winning.

Yet you said that Sri Lanka were better than Australia in 1996 all because they beat them in one match...

 

[Slow Love™]

I dont swervy specifically mentioned TESTs, He said this :- "so who was number one 5 and a half years ago....i think australia have been top dog for a decade now" ; and I dont agree with it. I think SA performed much better in ODIs and equally in Tests. They may have failed against Australia but they were far more consistent.

I quoted swervy - he did specifically mention tests. And when you said that SAF were the test champions until recently, it led directly to his recalling of what happened a couple of years ago. I understand that you think the one day side was better, but that has little to do with the test conversation (which you brought up) that you were having.

I already gave an example, I will give it again, it has been 4 years since australia won a test series against India but we can not say that India is a better side than Australia in any form of cricket, can we ?? Btw, I was talking about ODIs, sorryf or the confusion.

See my above post.

 

[Sanz]

So what? That's because their record up to this point against other sides away has been so poor. It has little in common with the battle between South Africa and Australia for top spot - they were indisputably the top two sides at the time, and India aren't (yet, at least) in the top two.

And away record of Australia was good ?? Lost to India (twice), Sri Lanka , Barely won against Pakistan. SA under cronje won a series in India, Pakistan and drew in SL.

Ask any aussie cricketer and he will tell you how tough it is to win a series in the subcontinent, he will tell you it is the toughest task in the cricket, esp winning a series in Australia.

 

[Sanz]

Yet you said that Sri Lanka were better than Australia in 1996 all because they beat them in one match...

No Genius, I am saying it because they were more consistent that Australia. Stop assuming things.

Btw, Did I really say that Sri Lanka were better because they beat them in One match ??

 

[Tom Halsey]

Yes.

You said they were better because they beat them in the WC final - and both managed to play well enough to get there, and SL only beat them in one match.

 

[Sanz]

Yes.

You said they were better because they beat them in the WC final - and both managed to play well enough to get there, and SL only beat them in one match.

Please show me where I said the above ?? AFAIR this is what I have said :-

"There is a country called 'SRI LANKA' which won the world cup in 1996 by beating Australia in the finals."

 

[Slow Love™]

And away record of Australia was good ?? Lost to India (twice), Sri Lanka , Barely won against Pakistan. SA under cronje won a series in India, Pakistan and drew in SL.

You said that even though Australia has problems against India, that India couldn't be ranked the better team, because they're not ranked closely enough. OK, I get this - it's kinda like what the Carlton football club is like to Essendon in the AFL out here in recent times - no matter how successful Essendon are (and how unsuccessful Carlton are), Carlton are like a bogey side for them.

Then you compared this (India vs Australia) to the situation between Australia and SAF when Pollock's South Africans were handed the ICC Test number one spot (ie, just because Australia had defeated South Africa consistently, that didn't mean they were the better team). At least, that's what I thought we were talking about.

If you want to debate the Cronje era, by all means, let's do that, but the Indian comparison has little to do with what happened when Pollock was captain. Or for that matter, when Cronje was captain, because we are still, in that era, talking about the number one and two sides battling it out.

I think that when it comes to who's best out of the top two, if one team consistently (and without losing at all) beats the other, they're number one. I just couldn't acknowledge that, when two sides are ranked fairly closely, that the one that consistently loses (and never wins!) to the other - like South Africa did vs Australia - could be considered the better side. Your mileage may vary though.

 

[maxpower]

Aus' continued success in test have translated into AUS being better in 1day's. The positve batting approach in test allows them to be able to score more freely in 1day's. After SL's WC 96 campaign of slogging in the first 15 overs, all teams use the strategy nicely now, but its the middle overs that AUS is better than anyone, because the focus on rotating strikes and they understand the value of singles better than anyone, Pak is the best in the last 10 overs but AUS is not far behind. A clean sweep in last WC shows AUS's dominance in 1day's aswell.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Please show me where I said the above ?? AFAIR this is what I have said :-

"There is a country called 'SRI LANKA' which won the world cup in 1996 by beating Australia in the finals."

Swervy said the Aussies were the best, but you saud that, which is effectively dusputing that.

And the reason was they beat them in one match.

 

[Swervy]

Right I think Sanz is talking about the period of Cronje being captain being the time SA were the number on eteam in the world..so thats from 01/02/94 to 06/03/2000

In tests, Australia played a total of 64 tests, W 36, L 19, D 14
at home W 23 , L 5, D 5
away W 13 L 12 D 9

In tests SA played 59 tests ..W 29 L 12 D 18
at home W 19 L 6 D 9
away W 10 L 6 D 9

Australia won a higher percentage of the games, SA lost a lower percentage..probably a fair reflection of the styles of play of the two teams.I would say pretty even there so I guess then you have to look at the head to head record during that time.

During that time they played 8 tests against each other, 5 in South Africa and 3 in Australia...Australia won 4, South Africa 2 and 2 drawn games.

So as far as I am concerned, if we are considering who was the better team during this period based on results I would have to go with Australia.

Then to one day games...

In that time Australia played 159 ODI's..won 96 lost 60 tied 2 and 1 NR
At home W 36 L 19 T 0 NR 0
Away/neutral W 60 L 41 T 2 NR 1

South Africa played 138 ODI's..won 95 lost 39 tied 1 NR 3
At home W 45 L 16 T 0 NR 1
Away/neutral W 50 L 23 T 0 NR 3

In games between the two..Australia won 15, South Africa won 15 and one (very famous) tied game.

edge to SA here, but you have to consider the importance of the games

A mere week before the start point of this period 01/02/94, Australia had actually just beaten SA in a best of 3 finals 2-1 coming from 1-0 down

Then in 97/98, the same thing happened..Australia down 1-0 in the tournament finals, but came back to win 2-1

Then you have the Australia vs South Africa game in the Super Sixes of the World Cup in 99..bad bad loss for SA..and then the tied game in the semis that got Australia through to the final....which they won convincingly.

Now overall SA have the edge in ODI's results but Australia won when they really needed to...so I am going to have that as a tie.

For me Australia 1 South Africa 0..Australia win

(I know thats a simplistic view of things, but I think its pretty fair to say that the general feeling during that time was Australia overall were the stronger side)

I know I will get some flak from Sanz over this..but I will stand by it

 

[Son Of Coco]

Australia has been cracking under pressure in the ICC trophy doesn't mean that NZ was the best team of year 2000 or India & SL (joint winners) were the best team of 2002 ? One match doesn't decide who is better, it is the consistency in winning. Clearly SA was more consistent (during 1995-1998) than Australia esp in ODIs.

Have SA ever beaten us in a test series? I understand what you're saying re:consistency etc over a period of time, but it got to the stage where SA could overtake us again this year with a good result, which was blatantly ridiculous given Australia's run of form over the past few years. Not only did we beat them 5-1 in a home and away series, the only team we've lost to for quite some time is India at home. Go figure.

As for the ODI's I can see by the figures above that what you are seeing re: One-dayers is very close to the mark. However, again as Swervy said, we seemed to be able to manage to get them in the big games generally. I realise too that in your post you were talking only about ODI's, but the paragraph above on tests kind of answers for both parts of the original question! haha

 

[Sanz]

Right I think Sanz is talking about the period of Cronje being captain being the time SA were the number on eteam in the world..so thats from 01/02/94 to 06/03/2000

Wrong dates, I said Australia are no.1 team for last 5 years ( which means from 1999) And I specifically mentioned that between the period of 1995-1998 Australia were a much weaker team than post 1999(world cup) or pre 1995.

Now Please go back and bring out the same statistics from 01-01-1995 to 01-01-1999 and tell us the difference. I would say that Australia and SA were at par in TESTs and SA way better in ODIs.

 

[Swervy]

Wrong dates, I said Australia are no.1 team for last 5 years ( which means from 1999) And I specifically mentioned that between the period of 1995-1998 Australia were a much weaker team than post 1999(world cup) or pre 1995.

Now Please go back and bring out the same statistics from 01-01-1995 to 01-01-1999 and tell us the difference. I would say that Australia and SA were at par in TESTs and SA way better in ODIs.

I thought you said during Cronje's reign as captain

 

[Sanz]

SOC - Please look into the performance of Australia & SA during 1995-1998. We are not talking about current aussie or SA team.