aussie calibre likely to prove too strong for england

[donwasaverage]

although at the moment they don't have any obvious successors to mcgrath and warne only a fool would bet against them finding or moulding a new generation of first rate bowlers and as far as batting is concerned it says it all that two middle order, middle aged players can come into test cricket and immediately start scoring very heavily against quality attacks. agreed it could be argued that their ageing team is testimony to a lack of young talent but i doubt i'm the only one to think they will turn promising youth into world beaters in a way no other team can consistently manage. for every katich and clarke that goes off the boil there'll be a hodge and hussey in replacement for many reasons not least their climate, space, facilities and enthusiasm.

england on the other hand seems destined to only very occassionally produce a special team/individual capable of taking them on because the sport's popularity is severely compromised by long, dark, cold winters, the dominance of football and a rampant lack of interest or understanding among the bulk of the working class. many will become momentarily jingoistic when we beat the aussies at home but few will care how we do in lahore.

this is why i believe australia will regain the ashes and most likely keep them for as long as before.

on the other hand if we're fully fit and find a decent spinner...

 

[marc71178]

6 months ago I don't think anyone on here would've seriously disagreed.

Then the Ashes happened.

Now I don't know what to think!

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

To win in Australia I really think they're going to need to find a top notch spinner.

The rest of the team is definately good enough.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

To win in Australia I really think they're going to need to find a top notch spinner.

Not really. Most of England's famous wins in Australia (1932-33, 1954-55, 1986-87) have come through fantastic fast bowling. England have more than enough pacemen to snatch wins in Brisbane and Perth, if only their batsmen can hold their nerve amid Warne and McGrath's (likely) last hurrah.

 

[James90]

I'd think that McGrath would stay for the World Cup. If England could win at Brisbane then they'd have a really good chance of taking out the series.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Not really. Most of England's famous wins in Australia (1932-33, 1954-55, 1986-87) have come through fantastic fast bowling. England have more than enough pacemen to snatch wins in Brisbane and Perth, if only their batsmen can hold their nerve amid Warne and McGrath's (likely) last hurrah.

The WACA is now unfortunately a road, hardly any bounce. I understand the new curator is trying to get it back to what it used to be like, but at the moment it accomodates spin a lot more than pace IMO.

 

[Slats4ever]

6 months ago I don't think anyone on here would've seriously disagreed.

Then the Ashes happened.

Now I don't know what to think!

I think that England is definately good enough to go toe to toe with Australia and come out on top when at full strength and things go their way. In my opinion a lot has to do with the confidence of the English team if they are on a roll and everyone in their country, including the press believe in them, then they are a different force.

On Australian soil, I also think that they would give Australia a good run for their money if the little things went their way. The challenge would be tougher, but you surely couldn't write England off.

 

[Pratters]

Regarding bench strength -

The bowling is definitely a concern - like shown in India's tour of Australia to a large degree and other tests where Australia has missed Warne/McGrath due to injuries.

Batting - There is a difference between test cricket of the highest level between two good teams and Australian FC cricket. Every Australian player who plays well in FC cricket wont be a success internationally. So the Australian batting bench strength - which definitely exists - is still not as strong as it is perceived to be IMO.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Regarding bowling bench strength, I don't think it's as weak as it's percieved to be. Sure, no bowlers have come through and set the world on fire. But you look at the starts of most of the best bowlers in the world today, not many blew sides away. None of these bowlers [Bracken, Clark, Lewis, etc] have played more than a handful of tests because of the McGrath, Warne, Gillespie, Kasper & Lee dominance of positions in the International sides.

Everyone needs some experience and a dozen or so test matches to really find their feet and adjust to the pressures of test cricket.

 

[Run like Inzy]

As I said in the post - how long will Australia Dominate - I think England although they played really well won largely because the Australians played below their normal performance. (This was shown by their loss to Bangladesh and also by Englands loss to Pakistan a team Australia demolished last year - essentially consisting of the same players v England) So in my opion Australia on their day are still to strong for England even if England play their best. ofcourse we will have to see what happens this time next year!

 

[honestbharani]

As I said in the post - how long will Australia Dominate - I think England although they played really well won largely because the Australians played below their normal performance. (This was shown by their loss to Bangladesh and also by Englands loss to Pakistan a team Australia demolished last year - essentially consisting of the same players v England) So in my opion Australia on their day are still to strong for England even if England play their best. ofcourse we will have to see what happens this time next year!

I agree with RLI

 

[Scaly piscine]

England in England are a better side than Australia, it wasn't England playing way above themselves and Australia playing absolutely abysmally for 5 Tests, that just does not happen for that length of time with two teams who desperately want to beat each other.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I don't know about better, but definately on par.

 

[Jono]

England in England are a better side than Australia, it wasn't England playing way above themselves and Australia playing absolutely abysmally for 5 Tests, that just does not happen for that length of time with two teams who desperately want to beat each other.

For once I agree with Scaly. If it were a 2 or 3 test series (Maybe 4 but even that's pushing it) I could understand the argument that Australia played below themselves. However over 5 tests (25 days of cricket since they all went the distance (Or did Lords end on day 4? Bah can't remember that for some reason)) the better team will win. England played better cricket (probably the best they can play) and stopped Australia from being at their best. That Australian team is better IMO than the current Australian team by quite a distance. I don't mean on form, because obviously Hayden is now scoring runs and Lee is bowling well, I just mean on paper. Yet England completely outplayed them. Why? Because they are an awesome team at home, and they played to their potential (all their pace bowlers stood up when they needed to be counted).

I think McGrath missing a couple of tests and not being at 100% for the 3rd and 5th had a lot to do with the result, but Australia playing below themselves was not a factor. England made them play below themselves by bowling absolutely brilliantly, and somehow batting extremely well despite their batting line-up looking quite suspect.

 

[BoyBrumby]

For once I agree with Scaly. If it were a 2 or 3 test series (Maybe 4 but even that's pushing it) I could understand the argument that Australia played below themselves. However over 5 tests (25 days of cricket since they all went the distance (Or did Lords end on day 4? Bah can't remember that for some reason)) the better team will win. England played better cricket (probably the best they can play) and stopped Australia from being at their best. That Australian team is better IMO than the current Australian team by quite a distance. I don't mean on form, because obviously Hayden is now scoring runs and Lee is bowling well, I just mean on paper. Yet England completely outplayed them. Why? Because they are an awesome team at home, and they played to their potential (all their pace bowlers stood up when they needed to be counted).

I think McGrath missing a couple of tests and not being at 100% for the 3rd and 5th had a lot to do with the result, but Australia playing below themselves was not a factor. England made them play below themselves by bowling absolutely brilliantly, and somehow batting extremely well despite their batting line-up looking quite suspect.

Our bowlers definitely held their hands up, but I still think the Oz top 7 (Langer &, to lesser extent, Punter excepted) were pretty disappointing. I guess you could say they only played as well as we allowed them to play, but it's a bit chicken & egg for me.

 

[Jono]

Its fair to say though that the top 7 had their weaknesses and minor faults in their game attacked and exposed by the English bowlers unlike other attacks who have not planned so vigorously (or tried and been unsuccessful at doing so) in the past. Hayden and Gilly are the obvious ones. Not so sure about Martyn, he just seemed out of form to me and pretty unlucky with a couple of rough decisions. Katich was also exposed, and whilst he is a good batsman, the fact that a few months before the Ashes he was being touted by some as Australia's best batsman was quite ridiculous. And I do think he's vulnerable when the ball moves off the pitch, despite him being praised for his ability to dig in and graft.

 

[Run like Inzy]

For once I agree with Scaly. If it were a 2 or 3 test series (Maybe 4 but even that's pushing it) I could understand the argument that Australia played below themselves. However over 5 tests (25 days of cricket since they all went the distance (Or did Lords end on day 4? Bah can't remember that for some reason)) the better team will win. England played better cricket (probably the best they can play) and stopped Australia from being at their best. That Australian team is better IMO than the current Australian team by quite a distance. I don't mean on form, because obviously Hayden is now scoring runs and Lee is bowling well, I just mean on paper. Yet England completely outplayed them. Why? Because they are an awesome team at home, and they played to their potential (all their pace bowlers stood up when they needed to be counted).

I think McGrath missing a couple of tests and not being at 100% for the 3rd and 5th had a lot to do with the result, but Australia playing below themselves was not a factor. England made them play below themselves by bowling absolutely brilliantly, and somehow batting extremely well despite their batting line-up looking quite suspect.

Point taken but accept the fact that Australia lost the only 2 tests and they beat England hansomely in the first one (Australia won by 239 runs) - remember - that shows their form went after the first test therby not the whole series also Mcgrath was the one who practically won the first test and he was injured after tripping over that ball and then never came back together with it - gillespie and Kaspr were already down on form and couldnt fill the gap - so Australia didnt play badly over 5 tests. Another way this can be justified is the fact that Australia almost (thanks to Lee and Kaspr) snatched victory from the jaws of defeat in the 2rd test (England won by a mere 2 runs). The 4th test was also close just a 3 wicket for England chasing a modest 129.
My point is Australia didnt play below par in 5 tests they played below par in important passages of play. I generally agree with what your saying about England being great at home but Australia were not stopped from being the best as if thats the case then Bangladesh must be fantastic in English conditions. That game showed us there was something wrong before the Ashes even began. So from that angle in my opinion England did not create Australia's downfall it was merely inevitable. As all great teams have to start crumbling at some point. For Australia it just happened to be against arch rivals England. (Don't get me wrong I m glad England won because it gave the Aussies a wake up call and now world cricket is better off - the next 24 months will be very interesting)

 

[age_master]

I think that England is definately good enough to go toe to toe with Australia and come out on top when at full strength and things go their way. In my opinion a lot has to do with the confidence of the English team if they are on a roll and everyone in their country, including the press believe in them, then they are a different force.

On Australian soil, I also think that they would give Australia a good run for their money if the little things went their way. The challenge would be tougher, but you surely couldn't write England off.

agreed, i would say England would suffer more if injuries came thier way too.

 

[marc71178]

They already did though, last time we toured Australia...

 

[Slats4ever]

which backs up what he's saying....