Ponting's Australia - how good?

[Steulen]

Here here, if (massively hypothetical) the aussie batting line up were to bat against its own bowlers, i think we would see how relatively weak the batting actually is.

So what you are basically saying is that Australia's success is predominantly due to their bowlers? Australia has six specialist batsmen and a wicketkeeper who all average 45 or more in Test cricket. What's more, they socre their runs at >4 an over. In recent years, they have done this against each and everyone, including bowlers who average in the low 20's (Akhtar, Pollock, Muralitharan). Just look at how England and Australia did when visiting Sri Lanka, and you'll see how good the Aussie line-up is compared to an average batting order like England's.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Here here, if (massively hypothetical) the aussie batting line up were to bat against its own bowlers, i think we would see how relatively weak the batting actually is.

I think that's true of most great sides though. With the exception of the Invincibles who were more batting oriented, bowling wins matches and therefore the most dominant sides are those with the strongest bowling lineups. The batting just has to be good enough to give the bowlers something to work with, and Australia does that as well as the Windies in the 80s or anyone else.

 

[twctopcat]

So what you are basically saying is that Australia's success is predominantly due to their bowlers? Australia has six specialist batsmen and a wicketkeeper who all average 45 or more in Test cricket. What's more, they socre their runs at >4 an over. In recent years, they have done this against each and everyone, including bowlers who average in the low 20's (Akhtar, Pollock, Muralitharan). Just look at how England and Australia did when visiting Sri Lanka, and you'll see how good the Aussie line-up is compared to an average batting order like England's.

But apart from those 3(Murali etc) your aren't left with much. Against bowlers of the quality of their own they wouldn't be nearly so successful.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

But apart from those 3(Murali etc) your aren't left with much. Against bowlers of the quality of their own they wouldn't be nearly so successful.

Well, Harmison/Hoggard/Flintoff/Jones is looking like a fair pace attack at the moment. We'll see how they go against them.

The one thing about this Australian side is that whenever people offer a challenge that they supposedly cannot go through unscathed, they manage it with flying colours. Recent examples are the change in captaincy, the tours of Sri Lanka and India, Shoaib on Australian pitches etc. I wouldn't want to try and predict who the side will be who breaks their home series unbeaten streak of (currently) a dozen years, because chances are next time they go into a series with question marks on them they will dominate again.

 

[Steulen]

But are there times when there are substantially more than 3 really great (in terms of averages, <Akhtar flamewar prevention mode>) bowlers around? The question is whether previous batting orders had a far tougher assignment due to there being far more very good / great bowlers...I am hesitant to accept that was the case.

 

[apartheid smash]

htey are about as affective as my bowels after a vindalloo

 

[twctopcat]

My point is there is never four at a time which is what is needed see aussies with mcgrath,gillespie,warne and kaspo. What i'm saying is if england\sa etc had a bowling attack to compare with that i think we'd see how human the aussies are. However considering warne and mcgrath are two of the best ever this is a long shot.

 

[Scallywag]

Here here, if (massively hypothetical) the aussie batting line up were to bat against its own bowlers, i think we would see how relatively weak the batting actually is.

What a stupid argument, would the WI bowlers of yesterday looked relatively weak if they had to bowl to their own batsmen. Or would Lloyd, Richards and Greenidge been relatively weak had they faced their own bowlers.

Are the teams of today so pathetically weak that any team from the 70's would have belted them, has cricket gone so far backwards in every country
(except Australia).

Are players of today seriously lacking in skills and the professionalism of coaching and team management worse than teams from the 70's.

WI have declined somewhat over the last 15 years but to say that all nations except Australia are just token teams that lack class and the ability to play decent cricket could only mean that cricket as a sport has lacked the ability to develop and improve like every other sport.

All sports have great players from different eras but the sport itself continues to develop and provide improve skill levels and increasing the pool of talent available.

Are the teams of today pathetically weak tryhards that cant even match standards and skills of players from 20 years ago. Is Australia the only country that moved on and developed ways and means of improving cricket leaving other countries to blindly play cricket without learning anything over the last twenty years.

Football, soccer, basketball, hockey, swimming, athletics are all sports that continually get better and better but cricket is a sport that has gone backwards and produces players that cant even match players from 50 years ago. I'm not talking about statistics but the actual skill level of players and the ability of a team to play as a unit. Statistically it is harder for players of today to match players from other eras because there is more competition and a greater degree of professionalism but the skill level should improve. Is cricket really the only sport where players have gone backwards and produce players that cant match players from other eras.


Looks like we need the USA to come in and teach cricket how to improve as a sport because the countries playing now have done nothing over the last 50 odd years to improve.

 

[Jnr.]

And would he travel there on a flying Pig?

I'm sure Scallywag thinks he can fly there himself.

 

[twctopcat]

Difference between the WI side and this Aus side is that the WI did indeed face comparable attacks from the likes of lillee,thompson, the indian spin quartet, botham,willis etc etc. Whereas this australian team has had very little in the way of opposition hence the unequivocal success.

 

[Scallywag]

I'm sure Scallywag thinks he can fly there himself.

 

[Jono]

And would he travel there on a flying Pig?

GOLD! Absolute gold.

 

[Jono]

Here here, if (massively hypothetical) the aussie batting line up were to bat against its own bowlers, i think we would see how relatively weak the batting actually is.

EXACTLY! I've been saying that, also in the case of Australian fringe players.

Put Hayden up against McGrath and Gillespie, and I think we'll be seeing the back of him pretty quickly. I think McGrath would also be more likely to get the better of Gilly, although that is a tough one.

It's weird thinking about how the Aussie bowling line-up would do against its own batting line-up, but at the moment its the only way of distinguishing just how good they are. That's why people rate players like Lara, Tendulkar, Dravid, Kallis and others who have performed against the Australians. It's a lot easier to smash Vaas, Pathan, Ntini, Zaheer or Kyle Mills than it is to play against McGrath and Gillespie.

I'd like to also add that I still obviously rate the Australian batting line-up immensely. Ponting, Martyn, Gilchrist, Langer and others are all quality players, and have performed when their country has needed them. But it would be very interesting to see them up against their own brilliant bowlers.

 

[Scallywag]

Difference between the WI side and this Aus side is that the WI did indeed face comparable attacks from the likes of lillee,thompson, the indian spin quartet, botham,willis etc etc. Whereas this australian team has had very little in the way of opposition hence the unequivocal success.

Thats what I mean, McGrath and Gilespie are better bowlers than Lillee and Thommo (but that takes nothing away from the feats of either bowler) Warne, Kumble and Murali are the very best spinners, Botham and Willis were great in their era but are they as good as Harmison and Flintoff (think about the athletisism and fitness), add Lara, Tendulkar and Akhtar is just as fast as any bowler, Vettori and Bond would excellent if they were playing 20 years ago. Fielding has evolved to the point where each team has 5-6 players in the team that would have been great fielders 20 years ago.

 

[twctopcat]

Thats what I mean, McGrath and Gilespie are better bowlers than Lillee and Thommo (but that takes nothing away from the feats of either bowler) Warne, Kumble and Murali are the very best spinners, Botham and Willis were great in their era but are they as good as Harmison and Flintoff (think about the athletisism and fitness), add Lara, Tendulkar and Akhtar is just as fast as any bowler, Vettori and Bond would excellent if they were playing 20 years ago. Fielding has evolved to the point where each team has 5-6 players in the team that would have been great fielders 20 years ago.

Hmmmm, and you know what they say about assumption being the mother of all **** ups. To say mcgrath and gillespie are better than lillee and thommo is big to say the least. The 20 year argument doesn't work. If Botham, willis etc were around today they would be fitter and hence better. All swings and roundabouts if you ask me.

 

[Scallywag]

. To say mcgrath and gillespie are better than lillee and thommo is big to say the least. The 20 year argument doesn't work. If Botham, willis etc were around today they would be fitter and hence better. All swings and roundabouts if you ask me.

If Botham and Willis were around today, yes they would have to be fitter and better because otherwise they would be very ordinary players otherwise. But how do you think Harmison and Flintoff would go if they could be dropped into the England team 20 years ago exactaly as they are now.

 

[twctopcat]

If Botham and Willis were around today, yes they would have to be fitter and better because otherwise they would be very ordinary players otherwise. But how do you think Harmison and Flintoff would go if they could be dropped into the England team 20 years ago exactaly as they are now.

I don't know really, and neither does anyone else for that matter.

 

[Scallywag]

I don't know really, and neither does anyone else for that matter.

Well I would think because the quality of coaching plus the way players are physically managed there is a greater standard of cricket played.

Botham and Willis would not have come up against teams as well prepared with all the batsmen studying videos of their bowling and bowling machines set up specifically to mimic their style. These are the type of things that Flitoff and Harmison have to contend with.

I think the actual skill level has not dropped but the competition is far greater because there are so many talented players around. Lillee and Thommo bowled to players that had never seen them before and players that would not cut it in todays profession approach to the game.

Good players today cannot stand out like they did 20 years ago because the competition has increased level of skill required to play for a team.

 

[tooextracool]

personally while the aussie batting lineup is extremely good, i think its overrated.
heres what i think the aussie batters would have averages in the 80s.
hayden would be lucky to average anywhere over 30
langer would average 42-43
ponting would average 42-45
martyn would average 48-50
katich would average 40-45
lehmann would average 35 odd
gilchrist would average under 40.

 

[tooextracool]

And Hayden would walk into any side in any era.

then so would rikki clarke......