What happened to Australia?

[Son Of Coco]

haha, I think it's this generation all over the world isn't it?

When I was in the UK a few years back everyone had Beckham's haircut and there was a fair bit of metrosexual in most young blokes.

South Korea is it to the extreme, tight jeans and a lot of blokes who could easily be girls. They'd spend an equal amount of time in front of the mirror I'd say.

It's the fashion everywhere. Even big blokes like Tremlett aren't overly frightening. And the rest of the English team largely look like they should be extras at Hogwarts, there's nothing intimidating about them. I think it's a bit over-played, we're not losing now because of how we look. We're losing because of how we play. I don't think the two are that closely related.

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by Jono

Yeah I bet Sachin and Dravid looked mean and tough when they first started. Would have had players shaking in their boots.

That Anil Kumble in his scientist glasses too

Honestly, it has possibly played a role in India not been as successful as it could have been and it certainly hurt when they played against WI. You talk to certain Indians and, maybe not now and they may not have been the only ones, they were intimidated by the West Indies and it wasnt just the speed they bowled.

As for Gilchrist, he intimidates. His weather beaten looks give him the appearance like he has had a harder life than most, tougher than you and would not budge an inch.

Whether people agree with me that it makes a difference, noone is addressing the actual question posed which was why do the Australians seem so different in looks, outlook, aggression and toughness?

EDIT- RE: above post. Fair point, fashion is clearly part of it and that does transend national boundaries. But this current generation seems different in outlook and attitute and Im not sure fashion addresses that.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by Goughy

Honestly, it ha spossibly played a role in India not been as successful as it could have been and it certainly hurt when they played against WI. You talk to certain Indians and, maybe not now and they may not have been the only ones, they were intimidated by the West Indies and it wasnt just the speed they bowled.

As for Gilchrist, he intimidates. His weather beaten looks give him the appearance like he has had a harder life than most, tougher than you and would not budge an inch.

Whether people agree with me that it makes a difference, noone is addressing the actual question posed which was why do the Australians seem so different in looks, outlook, aggression and toughness?

Different to who though? The earlier Australians or the other teams?

If it's the earlier Australian teams then I think, as I said, that it's generational. Every Western country has a lot more metrosexual blokes getting around now (in fact, it's only a recent term isn't it?), it makes sense young guys around the cricket team will adopt the current trends in fashion and looks. Don't think it really affects Watson or Clarke's play (the latter is out of form, but he looked the same when he was scoring heaps of runs).

Ponting is failing and he looks pretty weather-beaten

If it's other teams, I don't see a hell of a lot of difference. As I said, the English team isn't full of rugged-looking blokes. S.A's older guys (like Kallis) possibly look a bit tougher.

As for different attitudes, I think that's reflected in how different generations deal with different issues. The old way was to tough it out, now you go to a psychologist and wallow in the abject misery of being a sports star

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

Different to who though? The earlier Australians or the other teams?

If it's the earlier Australian teams then I think, as I said, that it's generational. Every Western country has a lot more metrosexual blokes getting around now (in fact, it's only a recent term isn't it?), it makes sense young guys around the cricket team will adopt the current trends in fashion and looks. Don't think it really affects Watson or Clarke's play (the latter is out of form, but he looked the same when he was scoring heaps of runs).

Ponting is failing and he looks pretty weather-beaten

If it's other teams, I don't see a hell of a lot of difference. As I said, the English team isn't full of rugged-looking blokes. S.A's older guys (like Kallis) possibly look a bit tougher.

It isnt just about looks. The differences I asked about were in attitude and aggression. Believe me, this England team and the past 5 or more years has become increasingly steely, professional, aggressive and less intimidated.

The English did have, for wants of a better word, wet lettuces for a long time that allowed themselves to be beaten down by their tougher opponents. That is not the case now.

Trademark Australian attributes seem to be missing from this team.

[Ruckus]

Exhibit A:

[G.I.Joe]

Originally Posted by Goughy

It isnt just about looks. The differences I asked about were in attitude and aggression. Believe me, this England team and the past 5 or more years has become increasingly steely, professional, aggressive and less intimidated.

The English did have, for wants of a better word, wet lettuces for a long time that allowed themselves to be beaten down by their tougher opponents. That is not the case now.

Trademark Australian attributes seem to be missing from this team.

Are the English winning more because they appear tougher, or are they enjoying the freedom to appear intimidating because they're winning a lot though?

[Goughy]

Fair point with Siddle.

[vcs]

Love that picture of Siddle.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by DeusEx

The attitude is the same as ever imo.

See Michael Clarke's apology for not walking, and Mark Waugh's response

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by G.I.Joe

Are the English winning more because they appear tougher, or are they enjoying the freedom to appear intimidating because they're winning a lot though?

Change in attitude always come first and the English made a priority of setting in place systems to develop it and selecting the 'right' type of player. That has led to some players who would have possibly been picked before left on the outside.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Goughy

Honestly, it has possibly played a role in India not been as successful as it could have been and it certainly hurt when they played against WI. You talk to certain Indians and, maybe not now and they may not have been the only ones, they were intimidated by the West Indies and it wasnt just the speed they bowled.

The new generation of Indian cricketers are the ones trying to act tough (big chested Uthappa, loud mouth Sree, warrior behaviour from Harbhajan etc.)

They've been unsuccessful, whereas Sachin is one of the best batsmen ever, as is Dravid. Kumble has been amazing. Laxman has scared the **** out of the Australians despite being the nicest guy in cricket.

Also, Lara speaks like a girl and looks like a guy that you'd want to hug.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by Goughy

It isnt just about looks. The differences I asked about were in attitude and aggression. Believe me, this England team and the past 5 or more years has become increasingly steely, professional, aggressive and less intimidated.

The English did have, for wants of a better word, wet lettuces for a long time that allowed themselve to be beaten down by their tougher opponents. That is not the case now.

Trademark Australian attributes seem to be missing from this team.

It's easy to be aggressive when you're playing well as a team. The same was said about the Australian team during the early to mid-2000's, when you have the sort of personnel that can carry out a plan then it's much easier to be aggressive. They also had the belief they could win from pretty much anywhere.

I think this England team now is similar, as was the one in 2005. In between they've wavered somewhat. When they were destroyed in 2006 they didn't look particularly aggressive, especially in Adelaide when they scored nearly nothing and were picked off by Warne before losing a game that seemed impossible to lose.

If you have the basis of a good team, and you're playing well, the I think that affects you attitude and you become more aggressive. If you doubt your ability, like the current Australian team must do currently, it's hard to convincingly look aggressive on the field without either looking like a tool, or a fake.

Quite a few of these English players were also here in 2006, and they didn't look quite so steely and aggressive then. Whereas Clarke and Ponting looked assured. The shoe is now on the other foot.

[Ruckus]

This guy also looks intimidating He also happens to speak like a girl.

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by DeusEx

This guy also looks intimidating He also happens to speak like a girl.

For ****s sake, do people read the thread? There is more than 1 way to intimidate. It isnt just how you look. Toughness- mental is one of them. As is ruthlessness. As is the ability to never say die and fight until your last. What looks can do is give the preconceived notion of the above and others. Players like Bradman intimidated by his determination and ruthless accumulation of runs. People only half joked that he was not human.

Similar strength of mind exhibited by Bradman is something I believe the Australians have held over the English for as long as I have followed cricket and, talking to others that have played, it stretched further back than that. Australians were tougher, didnt wilt, loved a fight and were willing to dig deeper to acheive their aims. Australia didnt always win because they were better but because they were less fragile (certain players on both sides excepted)

As I said, the streotypical attitude and mental strength that has been a long term advantage for Australia seems to have gone. That intimidation and mongral no longer exists like it did. Old players jumping on new players may be nothing new and may be a case of "better in my day" but they seem to see the current generation as culturally different to theirs.

Where the looks come in is that the illusion of mental strength isnt even there anymore so it is exposed so much quicker.

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by Goughy

For ****s sake, do people read the thread? There is more than 1 way to intimidate. It isnt just how you look. Toughness- mental is one of them. As is ruthlessness. As is the ability to never say die and fight until your last. What looks can do is give the preconceived notion of the above and others. Players like Bradman intimidated by his determination and ruthless accumulation of runs. People only half joked that he was not human.

Similar strength of mind exhibited by Bradman is something I believe the Australians have held over the English for as long as I have followed cricket and, talking to others that have played, it stretched further back than that. Australians were tougher, didnt wilt, loved a fight and were willing to dig deeper to acheive their aims. Australia didnt always win because they were better but because they were less fragile (certain players on both sides excepted)

As I said, the streotypical attitude and mental strength that has been a long term advantage for Australia seems to have gone. That intimidation and mongral no longer exists like it did. Old players jumping on new players may be nothing new and may be a case of "better in my day" but they seem to see the current generation as culturally different to theirs.

Where the looks come in is that the illusion of mental strength isnt even there anymore so it is exposed so much quicker.

Well tbh, at least half of the opening post was centred on looks. The point about mental toughness definately is more plausible in theory, but I still doubt there is much of a difference. Certain players in the side at the moment are probably somewhat 'uncharacteristic' of what an Australian cricket player is usually described as. Johnson, for example, is pretty mentally weak and often loses confidence in the same way Anderson would. However, on the whole most players, even in this current team, are quite resilient mentally. Of the younger players, Watson, Haddin, Harris, Siddle, Bollinger, Smith and Hughes are good fighters. Clarke, Johnson and Hilfenhaus probably less so.

I think the apparent 'loss of resilience' in the team is just a result of certain key players being out of form at one time or another - e.g. Ponting, Hussey etc. Just because they are out of form though doesn't mean they aren't trying to put up a fight.