Australia Fails Again!!

[marc71178]

Aus performed pathetically in VB series,and as for Kenya Tour, they eventually shared the trophy, so what's the point about it?

In Kenya, they dominated and ended up eing rained off - there was no way they were not going to win that Trophy, and they were so pathetic in the VB series that they only beat SA 3 times out of 4, and finished as the only team with a positive NRR. What a shocking performance that was.

 

[devdas]

Originally posted by marc71178

Aus performed pathetically in VB series,and as for Kenya Tour, they eventually shared the trophy, so what's the point about it?

In Kenya, they dominated and ended up eing rained off - there was no way they were not going to win that Trophy, and they were so pathetic in the VB series that they only beat SA 3 times out of 4, and finished as the only team with a positive NRR. What a shocking performance that was.

I have already said that Aus would have won the Kenya tour, so why are u just stuck up with that.In VB series, Aus lost to NZ three times, if their performance had been fine, the Waugh's and the allrounders wouldn't have been dropped from the team!

 

[devdas]

Originally posted by anilramavarma
Australia has the potential to go all the way even without the Waughs. If they run into an inspired team in the knockout phase(Pak, SL or India), they just might get knocked out. However, that could happen even with the Waughs around

Yeah but i feel with Waugh the chances of getting into such a situation will be less
, Steven is a big match player and always raises his game in crunch situation.In the previous WC, Steven Waugh played really well when all the others had failed.I still think he can contribute alot.

 

[Anil]

Yeah but i feel with Waugh the chances of getting into such a situation will be less, Steven is a big match player and always raises his game in crunch situation.In the previous WC, Steven Waugh played really well when all the others had failed.I still think he can contribute alot.

The situation I am mentioning may not be within Waugh's or anyone's control. I am not belittling the Waughs, but really talented teams like the above mentioned, when they hit a purple patch one day, just sweeps all before them, Waugh or no Waugh. For example, a total of 269 for 7 was gettable, but could you imagine that Sehwag and Ganguly would make such a mockery of that target? I am not saying it will happen, but it could. Teams like India on their off days can also lose to Zimbabwe, because of which inconsistency, they cannot be hailed as favourites for the WC while Aus defintely can.

 

[full_length]

Their paltry score against Sri Lanka in an important match reinforces my belief that the Aussies are worse against spin than the Indians are against pace.

They give their opponents a chance before the match starts. It's just that SA, England and many other teams can't exploit it because

1) They don't have spinners who can bowl aggressively and actually turn the ball consistently. (Aussies play Saqlain well because the Pakistani offspinner sadly started bowling more doosras than the offbreak! So once that's negotiated, batsmen don't have a problem with him.)

2) Their home pitches will somewhat blunt any bowlers that come close to doing the above.

It's however not true that they have suddenly gone down in consistancy or talent/experience etc. If Australia cannot get over the Waughs, no other team can get over a player's retirement !!
Some point at how Akhtar ran through them some time back but that, I think can only be considered an aberration till it happens a few more times. I mean Ricky Ponting pulls Akhtar and ofcourse other pacemen, off the front foot! Their other batsmen are also pretty good against pace, and bounce. But the weakness against good quality spin has been visible for too long. In this regard, I think they had a pretty good tour of Lanka!!

In sum total, I agree with some commentators that Australia's unquestioned domination over many teams has a lot to do their opposition not playing them well enough.

Maybe they should also make some spinner friendly tracks for their domestic season ?

[Edited on 29/9/2002 by full_length]

 

[marc71178]

In VB series, Aus lost to NZ three times, if their performance had been fine, the Waugh's and the allrounders wouldn't have been dropped from the team!

You said their performance was "pathetic" in the VB, yet I pointed out that had it been played under the usual separating of teams rule, they would have topped the table (and more than likely won the final)

If that's what you call pathetic, I'd like to see you describe the performance of the Netherlands in the Champions Trophy!

 

[devdas]

[

You said their performance was "pathetic" in the VB, yet I pointed out that had it been played under the usual separating of teams rule, they would have topped the table (and more than likely won the final)


If that's what you call pathetic, I'd like to see you describe the performance of the Netherlands in the Champions Trophy!

Aussies set a high standard, losing to NZ in three matches in a row was described by the Aussie Pundits as something unusual, urgent changes were demanded and few guys got sacked, whether u like it or not, their performance was far from a decent one, as for them winning the fianl had they qualified, its all assumption.As for Dutch performance, they are a minor side and they did WELL within their potential!

I never said that Aussie will never be able to replace a retired Waugh as suggested by Full-Length.First of all Waugh isn't retired, he's still available, secondarily, i think in WC Aussie needs his experiance, as there is no alternative to experiance.

 

[Anil]

I think the VB series was evenly matched. If the Aussies crashed against NZ, they in turn dominated SA and SA in their turn dominated NZ. They were in fact done in by their own new rule. They had stacked the tournament schedule so that NZ ans SA had packed schedule and a lot of travel while the hosts took it as easy as possible. For that reason, I was glad that they fell into a hole which they themselves had dug. If that rule was not in place and they had entered the final, they would have more likely than not continued their domination of SA as the Aussies are great finishers.

 

[devdas]

The Aussies dominated against SA primarily coz of mental block. McGrath & Warne have critisize SA for giving up the match(against Aus) even b/f it has begun.Aus should have defeated NZ, but they were simply outplayed by the kiwi bowlers.And if Aus were unlucky to have not made it to the final then they were extrememly lucky to have drawn a test series against NZ.

 

[onemangang]

Read This!

Jury out on axing of Waugh twins, says newspaper
Reuters
Sydney, September 30

Australia missed Steve and Mark Waugh in their seven-wicket Champions Trophy semi-final defeat by Sri Lanka in Colombo on Friday, The Daily Telegraph newspaper said on Monday.

It was a situation where the 37-year-old twins, who have been axed from the one-day side, would have flourished, the Sydney newspaper said.

Steve remains test captain and Mark is also in the team for the three-test series against Pakistan which starts in Colombo on Thursday.

As the twins cling to their hopes of returning to the one-day side for Australia's World Cup defence in South Africa early next year, The Daily Telegraph says the Waughs should remain in contention.

"In their biggest test since Ricky Ponting replaced Steve Waugh as captain, the Australians struggled to deal with the pressure of playing in front of 25,000 fanatical locals at the Premadasa Stadium," the newspaper said.


LACKED COMPOSURE

"The Australians lacked composure with the bat and posted just 162 runs. It was the type of situation the Waughs have flourished in over the years but one the Australian team on Friday clearly did not like.

"With just a home series (of one-dayers against England and Sri Lanka) to play before February's World Cup, Australia are no closer to vindicating the national selectors's decision to axe the Waughs, particularly Steve, last summer."

Australia failed to reach the finals of the 2001-02 one-day series at home against South Africa and New Zealand and promptly named Ponting as the new captain of the limited-overs team and sent him to lead the side in South Africa without the Waughs.

Ponting's side won the series against South Africa 5-1 before losing at home to Pakistan 2-1.

"Admittedly it won't be until after February's World Cup that a final verdict can be reached on the Waughs," the newspaper said. "While their hopes of a recall are remote, both feel they still deserve to be in the team."

Steve Waugh was quoted in Melbourne's Herald Sun newspaper on Monday as saying: "There's a realistic chance that I will play in the World Cup."

Steve has made 325 one-day appearances, 106 of them as captain including the World Cup final against Pakistan at Lord's in 1999.

Former Pakistan captain Wasim Akram (343) and ex-India captain Mohammad Azharuddin (334) are the only players with more one-day international caps than Steve.

Mark is Australia's leading scorer in limited-overs internationals with 8,500 runs in 244 matches.

 

[marc71178]

And if Aus were unlucky to have not made it to the final then they were extrememly lucky to have drawn a test series against NZ.

Now that opens a can of worms up!

 

[Anil]

That series was extremely well-fought surprisingly because NZ were expected to lose comprehensively. However, the statement that Australia were lucky to draw that series is inaccurate.

In the first test, NZ came within 10 runs of victory, but it was because of an aggressive and sporting declaration by Waugh and so, the draw was a fair result. The second test was a washout. The 3rd test had NZ put in their strongest showing with a 500+ score in the first innings. Australia again went for a virtually impossible 440 in the 2nd innings and finished at 381 for 7. They could easily have settled for a dull draw, but the chase showed their positive and aggressive attitude.

The Australians had scores of 486 for 9 dec, 84 for 2 dec, 558 for 8 dec, 351 & 381 for 7. This kind of showing is not what you call lucky. A high quality series, yes, but Australia deserved the draw just as much as NZ did.

 

[full_length]

It's usually not very hard to figure out whether someone was lucky to win a series or not. It's usually not.

On the VB:

Again, as it turned out, Aussies didn't make it to the VB final . <--- period

As for NZ using the rules in that manner.. morality is a tricky, soapy thing.. you'd want your team to win a match. You'd want it even more to win a series. Why would you ask for a tougher opponent when you can ensure an easier one- that too when you have control over the match?

What is a team morally obligated to do- win the match with the best margin they can, or try and win the series? Fleming's side got themselves to a position from which they could take advantage of the points table. All credit to them that they got into the finals.

Further on morality, I'd consider it wrong if someone claimed a catch he didnt make. I would still like batsmen to walk, but can perfectly well understand why they don't. In this case, it appears that Fleming would have been wrong in not doing what he did.. so it goes for each individual.

BTW, do you remember Bevan playing very deliberate backfoot defensive shots of rank long hops against West Indies in the last World Cup so they could try and prevent New Zealand from qualifying? (or rather get in Windies ahead of NZ so they'd carry forward 2 points to the Super Six). Sometimes life does come a full circle pretty quickly

I'm sure Aussies would have had some funny things to say (Vaughan style) if that incident hadn't happened. Since it did, they simply admitted that Fleming was within his rights to do what he did.

[Edited on 1/10/2002 by full_length]

 

[marc71178]

If I remember rightly, wouldn't NZ had have been knocked out if they passed the bonus point threshold?

I wasn't actually against the manner in which Aus were knocked out, only the assertion that they were pathetic in that Tournament.

 

[Neil Pickup]

IIRC NZ were already through but lost, heavily, to SA to give the Africans a bonus point to knock out the Aussies as SA were seen as an easier proposition in the final.

SA still won though..

 

[marc71178]

http://www-uk.cricket.org/link_to_d...02/OD_TOURNEYS/VBS/VBS_JAN-FEB2002_TABLE.html

I think that shows that NZ would have gone out if they'd reached the bonus point limit?

 

[Neil Pickup]

The deal was that if all three teams finished level, then the head-to-heads wouldnn't matter and it would go on NRR (sending NZ home), so by giving SA their 18th point, the best Aus could do was to tie 17-17 with NZ therefore using the H2H rule.

 

[Anil]

Let's blame a silly rule rather than the teams that chose to exercise it. They were well within their rights to do so.

 

[devdas]

Originally posted by anilramavarma


The Australians had scores of 486 for 9 dec, 84 for 2 dec, 558 for 8 dec, 351 & 381 for 7. This kind of showing is not what you call lucky. A high quality series, yes, but Australia deserved the draw just as much as NZ did.

Aus was lucky because of poor umpiring decisions which went against NZ, NZ would have won the 3rd match had the umpiring been better

"Read This!

Jury out on axing of Waugh twins, says newspaper
Reuters
Sydney, September 30

Australia missed Steve and Mark Waugh in their seven-wicket Champions Trophy semi-final defeat by Sri Lanka in Colombo on Friday, The Daily Telegraph newspaper said on Monday."


Thats what i have been saying, Waugh might well be brought back into the Aussie side for the WC!

 

[Neil Pickup]

The Telegraph is totally untrustworthy. Can't read into it at all.