Pinnacle of this Aussie team

[silentstriker]

In the last ten or twelve years, where Aussies have been the dominant side in World Cricket, what was their most important achievement?

Winning in India after so many decades and losing in 2001? Successive World Cups? Record for the number of games won on the trot? Or just being able to continue to dominate even with changing players?

[Dravid]

Producing the legend known as Glen McGrath

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Dravid

Producing the legend known as Glen McGrath

Australia didn't produce McGrath and his greatness. McGrath produced Australia's greatness.

[Lillian Thomson]

Because the timing of it meant it was the last obstacle, it has to be winning in India.

[FaaipDeOiad]

The pinnacle in terms of performance was after the 16 test streak, IMO. That was a remarkable team and performed brilliantly, but Australia's brutal dominance between 2000 and 2005 could have produced that sort of streak at any point.

The strongest side and the strongest performance for mine was the back to back series against South Africa in 2001/02, when Australia won 5 of the 6 tests. There were a couple of relatively weak points in the side, mainly Mark Waugh and Brett Lee/Andy Bichel, but the side overall was incredibly strong, and that top 7 has never been bettered at any point in test history IMO. South Africa were a very good outfit, but it was a thrashing. There are greater outright achievements than hammering South Africa, like winning in India, but that was the peak of the team IMO.

On the topic of Australia's period on top, one stat that always amazes me is the number of washouts. Since the 1-0 loss to Sri Lanka in 1999, Australia have played 26 test series excluding one-off tests and the one currently in progress. They've won 22 of those series, drawn 2 and lost 2. 12 of those 22 wins have been washouts. Seven 3 test series, four 2 test series and a 5-0 win against the West Indies.

By way of contrast, the West Indies didn't lose a test series between 1980 and 1995, playing 27 series of more than 1 test in that time. They drew 8 of those 27 series and won 19, but only two of the 19 wins were washouts, both 5-0 against England. It really shows how Australia have pushed for results and really dismantled opposition sides more than any other team in history, and how overstated the weakness in dead rubbers is compared to other dominant teams.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

The pinnacle in terms of performance was after the 16 test streak, IMO. That was a remarkable team and performed brilliantly, but Australia's brutal dominance between 2000 and 2005 could have produced that sort of streak at any point.

The strongest side and the strongest performance for mine was the back to back series against South Africa in 2001/02, when Australia won 5 of the 6 tests. There were a couple of relatively weak points in the side, mainly Mark Waugh and Brett Lee/Andy Bichel, but the side overall was incredibly strong, and that top 7 has never been bettered at any point in test history IMO. South Africa were a very good outfit, but it was a thrashing. There are greater outright achievements than hammering South Africa, like winning in India, but that was the peak of the team IMO.

On the topic of Australia's period on top, one stat that always amazes me is the number of washouts. Since the 1-0 loss to Sri Lanka in 1999, Australia have played 26 test series excluding one-off tests and the one currently in progress. They've won 22 of those series, drawn 2 and lost 2. 12 of those 22 wins have been washouts. Seven 3 test series, four 2 test series and a 5-0 win against the West Indies.

By way of contrast, the West Indies didn't lose a test series between 1980 and 1995, playing 27 series of more than 1 test in that time. They drew 8 of those 27 series and won 19, but only two of the 19 wins were washouts, both 5-0 against England. It really shows how Australia have pushed for results and really dismantled opposition sides more than any other team in history, and how overstated the weakness in dead rubbers is compared to other dominant teams.

Hmm, interesting. But some of the new rules (i.e 90 overs minimum) were not in place when WI were dominating, and maybe that made the draws more likely than now? Or was the rule in place back then too?

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Hmm, interesting. But some of the new rules (i.e 90 overs minimum) were not in place when WI were dominating, and maybe that made the draws more likely than now? Or was the rule in place back then too?

IIRC, the 90 overs minimum was put in place because of the West Indies, because they'd often bowl 11-12 overs an hour with their four quicks. Still, there were plenty of overs in the games back then, and when the West Indies were at their best and won they usually did it with a day or two to spare anyway.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

IIRC, the 90 overs minimum was put in place because of the West Indies, because they'd often bowl 11-12 overs an hour with their four quicks. Still, there were plenty of overs in the games back then, and when the West Indies were at their best and won they usually did it with a day or two to spare anyway.

Yea. In terms of talent level, I think WI might be better, but in terms of relative dominance of their eras, I think the Aussie side 2000+ have to be it. Only against India does their record suffer (1 win, 1 loss, 1 draw).

[GIMH]

Supposed "dead rubber syndrome" hasn't really been there since Ponting's been skipper anyway has it?

I always thought of it as mainly an Ashes thing, I mean we were bloody awful bvut never got whitewashed.

[Matt79]

For tests its hard to go past the 16 test streak, which included wins over some otherwise quite good teams and some absolute smashings of some average teams.

For ODIs, you can't go past the 2003 World Cup - prior to that our dominance in ODIs hadn't quite matched our test performances, but to set yourself the goal of going through the entire World Cup not losing a match, and then achieving that goal, is pretty hard to beat.

[Slifer]

Yeah in terms of dominance I would take the Australian team of recent vintage. But I'd say the WI of the 80s was more unbeatable if that makes ne sense. And IMO their greatest achievement was winning 16 in a row.

[archie mac]

Not sure if it quite makes the time frame, but I thought the Aussies dominance started with the defeating of the Windies in the Caribbean. It signified the changing of the guard

[sqwerty]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Australia didn't produce McGrath and his greatness. McGrath produced Australia's greatness.

deep

[Johnners]

Originally Posted by archie mac

Not sure if it quite makes the time frame, but I thought the Aussies dominance started with the defeating of the Windies in the Caribbean. It signified the changing of the guard

I'm assuming you mean the 1995 series???

[sqwerty]

Gillespie 200no