*Official* Australia in decline thread

[marc71178]

I say it's unlikely because he's too old for this "2 or 3 seasons" to make him a viable option.

In fact I dare say that if he hadn't signed for Lancashire this summer you'd not even be mentioning him as an option.

 

[aussie]

In fact I dare say that if he hadn't signed for Lancashire this summer you'd not even be mentioning him as an option.

well yea your probably right because i wouldn't have had anything to go on...

 

[marc71178]

No, because he's been playing county cricket for other sides, but because it's not your side, you don't notice it.

 

[aussie]

no no dont try to throw me off a biased now if Symo had made runs this season for nay other county side i would have surely still brought up this idea.

 

[marc71178]

No, you wouldn't have done.

Last year he averaged over 70 but you didn't mention him.

 

[aussie]

No, you wouldn't have done.

Last year he averaged over 70 but you didn't mention him.

i wasn't even a CW member last year dawg

 

[Monty]

what about fergusson

 

[luckyeddie]

i wasn't even a CW member last year dawg

You still didn't mention him, Fido.

(am I getting the hang of this Al Capone talk?)

 

[symonds]

how long will australias dominance last

I am wondering how much longer everyone hear thinks austalia will maintain at the top of the ladder so to speak. I personaly think it will be a matter or replacing warne an mc grath (easier said then done).

I dont realy see anyone being able to consistantly beat them in one day cricket when mcgrath is gorne i think there batting is just far to good to match anyone, an i dont think mc grath will be missed to much in the one day game.

However i think that the test team will be efected with the loss of what could only be mc grath in the near future warne may well play on untill 2009, I think langer an hayden may only be around for a few more year to along with gilchrist. But i think gilly can decied when he want out cause there is no one in world cricket let alone australia that will come close to him.

for argument sake this is austalias side
1.hayden
2.langer
3.ponting
4.hodge
5.hussey
6.symonds
7.gilchrist
8.warne
9.lee
10.bracken
11.mcgrath
lets just say there plain crashes burn to ashes an they all die i dont think that there next 11 would be to trouble by the step up here is that side

1.P jaques
2.M north
3.m clarke
4.M cosgrove
5.D hussey
6.S watson
7.K hartley
8.M johnson
9.J Gillespie
10.S macgill
11.S tait

 

[Burpey]

I'm sure Katich would get a run if the plane crashed

Not a bad 2nd XI, but that side wouldn't maintain the top spot for all that long.

 

[GotSpin]

Another 5000000 years, why bother. Its just like asking about Australia's younger talent

 

[Prince EWS]

I am wondering how much longer everyone hear thinks austalia will maintain at the top of the ladder so to speak. I personaly think it will be a matter or replacing warne an mc grath (easier said then done).

I dont realy see anyone being able to consistantly beat them in one day cricket when mcgrath is gorne i think there batting is just far to good to match anyone, an i dont think mc grath will be missed to much in the one day game.

However i think that the test team will be efected with the loss of what could only be mc grath in the near future warne may well play on untill 2009, I think langer an hayden may only be around for a few more year to along with gilchrist. But i think gilly can decied when he want out cause there is no one in world cricket let alone australia that will come close to him.

for argument sake this is austalias side
1.hayden
2.langer
3.ponting
4.hodge
5.hussey
6.symonds
7.gilchrist
8.warne
9.lee
10.bracken
11.mcgrath
lets just say there plain crashes burn to ashes an they all die i dont think that there next 11 would be to trouble by the step up here is that side

1.P jaques
2.M north
3.m clarke
4.M cosgrove
5.D hussey
6.S watson
7.K hartley
8.M johnson
9.J Gillespie
10.S macgill
11.S tait

Symonds over Watson?

I think not!

 

[Slats4ever]

dunno. the second rate side would be definately top 3 in the world for sure, but it wouldn't dominate. the bowling line up would struggle in india, and the power of the english batting line up was shown in the ashes and mcgill would really have to step up if we were going to come even close to england.

I'd probably expect England to become world number 1 if the second team was put forward, and India to win in India, but they'd still remain number 3

 

[marc71178]

dunno. the second rate side would be definately top 3 in the world for sure,

Based on what?

 

[Prince EWS]

The "second team" looks pretty awful to me. I'd pick a MUCH different side, but the one you posted would be lucky to beat the Windies.

 

[Slats4ever]

Based on what?

umm my opinion... is there something I should be basing it on?
I think the above statement is asking hypothetically how you think they'd go if the plane crashed...

 

[Jono]

Pakistan would also comfortably beat that 2nd XI in my opinion along with India, SA and England, if we're talking right now (not what those players could potentially become). There's no way Mitch Johnson and Tait are at test level yet, and MacGill and a 2005 Gillespie leading the attack wouldn't be enough. Plus that batting order isn't anything special. I think England, India, South Africa and Pakistan would comfortably beat them in Australia and at home.

Pretty ordinary team, a better one (with Katich the obvious inclusion) could be made.

 

[Deja moo]

IMO, Indias second string side would beat them comfortably at home. Playing them in Australia might be tougher for them.

 

[luckyeddie]

A couple of days ago, I had cause to look up the details of that B&H tournament from 10 years ago - when Australia played Australia 'A' in the final.

Interesting to see who the top 6 were for Convicts 'A' :

Gleg Brewett*
Matty Hayden
Damien Martyn
Michael Bevan
Justin Langer
Ricky Ponting

Food for thought when I look at that 'second team' listed in this thread.


*Japanese cricketer

 

[ohtani's jacket]

I am wondering how much longer everyone hear thinks austalia will maintain at the top of the ladder so to speak.

Australia only lose under the most extraordinary of circumstances. Occasionally a team like India in 2001 and England in 2005 will play out of their skin and beat them, but I can't see them losing back-to-back series any time soon. Not that I'd call this a dominant Australian team -- we've seen lately what life without Warne and McGrath will be like -- but I'm not picking a sudden or dramatic collapse, just plenty more draws.