*Official* Australia in decline thread

[Neil Pickup]

You're getting "team" confused with "collection of eleven players".

 

[marc71178]

You're getting "team" confused with "collection of eleven players".

Exactly my point.

If that team were so brilliant as to be the 2nd best ever, they would have a win-loss ratio of nearer 85-15 or even 90-10.

Not 50-50

 

[Richard]

You're getting "team" confused with "collection of eleven players".

No, I don't think I am.
If you ask me, "cricket team" means "collection of eleven cricket players". Nothing more. Nothing about "team spirit" or any of that.
The teams containing the best players are the best teams; I had exactly the same from a jacques wessels, whom I presume Craig and david will remember, and maybe Arjun and SpaceMonkey too.

 

[Neil Pickup]

If you ask me, "cricket team" means "collection of eleven cricket players". Nothing more. Nothing about "team spirit" or any of that.

You really don't have much of a grasp on reality, do you?

 

[Tom Halsey]

In the 50's they won 18 and lost 17 with 13 draws
In the 60's they won 18 and lost 13 with 17 draws and a tie.

Not the most impressive of records, and certainly not that of a dominant side in that period.

Ireland beat them by 6 wickets in a tour match in 1968, I believe. about 6 test regulars were playing

 

[marc71178]

No, I don't think I am.
If you ask me, "cricket team" means "collection of eleven cricket players".

Which makes your theory seem even more bizarre to me.

If they were such a great collection of players how come they barely won more than they lost?

Even our resident WI fans have never raved about the great 50's and 60's sides.

 

[Richard]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thommo: Australia will grovel

He was averaging abot 78 mph during the summer if you care to remember. And he looked very hittable at times. He used to have a "fastball" ... now it's all cutters. Basically, he's lost his fastball. Remember that deadly bouncer he used to bowl ... from nowhere ... he was a head clocking machine.

He's basically an incredibly accurate cutter and seamer (when the ball is new). He's been overbowled by SA for years.

The cutter is the reason he made it to the top of the world rankings. It's the most important ball a fast bowler can learn IMHO ... especially a tall fast bowler. You need it on good pitches (e.g. test match pitches) in order to keep the pressure on. That's why McG and Poll are the worlds top bowlers ... because they both have a devastating cutter. This is why Pollock is still a very effective bowler.

HOWEVER, he's lost the variety that came with that mid 80's fastball, and devastating bouncer. Why? Because he's been bowled into the ground ... TAKE NOTE ENGLAND

Pollock is a Ferrari with lots of miles on the clock. he can't reach the top speeds anymore, but will still get you from A to B in relative luxury.

Having been edged through third-man for four twice in 3 balls by Ganga in The First Test, Pollock unleashed a delivery timed at 136 kph. Not lightening, but quick enough. For me, he can still do it, but even if he couldn't, as you say, it's pretty tricky to get a better average than his.
I personally don't think Pollock and McGrath use the cutters (which both are definately capable of bowling) to maximum use; on good pitches, they pick-up wickets through poor strokes mainly.
I don't deny that he's been overbowled in Tests but really I don't think he'd have averaged 18 if he hadn't. Anyway, he's bowled less than he could have - remember his fellows have at times included: Donald (even better, IMO, than himself), Kallis, Klusener, Adams, Terbrugge, Ntini, Ngam, Hayward, Nel, and other quality bowlers.

 

[Richard]

Which makes your theory seem even more bizarre to me.

If they were such a great collection of players how come they barely won more than they lost?

Even our resident WI fans have never raved about the great 50's and 60's sides.

People rave about the West Indies sides of the '70s and '80s because they lost 2 series' in nearly 20 years (one due to very poor Umpiring). People rave about the South African side of '69\'70 because they beat Australia 4-0. People rave about the Australian side of '48 because they went through the England tour unbeaten. People rave about the current Australian side mainly because of the 16-wins-on-the-trot incident.
Very rarely do we hear about the Australian sides of '30 and '34, or the West Indies sides of the mid '50s, because neither achieved outstanding results.
Just because they had brilliant players, doesn't mean they performed (or, indeed, played) concurrantly. However I don't think the fact that these players were around at the same time should be detracted from simply because they didn't perform outstandingly in the win:loss ratio. Bad results don't detract from good players, otherwise Andy Flower would be nothing.

 

[Richard]

Ireland beat them by 6 wickets in a tour match in 1968, I believe. about 6 test regulars were playing

That side wasn't quite as good as the side of the mid '50s.
Why marc has brought the '60s into it, if I hadn't experienced this tactic before I would be baffled.
Bringing irrelevant things into discussions that would help his argument if they were relevant is a favourite tack of his.

 

[Richard]

You really don't have much of a grasp on reality, do you?

Yes.
Who was it that got Essex and Notts mixed-up?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Yes.
Who was it that got Essex and Notts mixed-up?

And that helps your argument in what way, exactly?

 

[Richard]

It doesn't help my argument about teams; it helps point-out that I have a perfectly firm grip on reality.

 

[marc71178]

It doesn't help my argument about teams; it helps point-out that I have a perfectly firm grip on reality.

Just because you didn't mix 2 sides up?

The fact Neil did says nothing about you.

 

[luckyeddie]

Yes.
Who was it that got Essex and Notts mixed-up?

Same number of letters - anyone could make that mistake.

Same as 'hold' and 'drop' with respect to catches. I mean, they both mean pretty well the same thing, don't they?:P

 

[Richard]

As far as a batsman's ability is concerned, yes.:saint:

 

[Richard]

Just because you didn't mix 2 sides up?

The fact Neil did says nothing about you.

I never said it did; I was just pointing-out that anyone can lose grip on reality every now and then.
Especially when it's late...
Surely <quack> would know about that?

 

[marc71178]

I never said it did; I was just pointing-out that anyone can lose grip on reality every now and then.

By saying that NEIL got 2 sides confused, how does that show that YOU have a grip on reality?

 

[Richard]

**** sake.
I never said "I have a better grip on reality than Neil". I simply said "this is not something that says I have no grip on reality - but look, anyone can lose a grip on reality sometimes".
Not complicated.

 

[marc71178]

It doesn't help my argument about teams; it helps point-out that I have a perfectly firm grip on reality.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

[Richard]

":rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: "