Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
schak: All teams go through troubles with players missing etc. In the one-off Test in India a few years ago, we were missing Shane Warne, Tim May and others and India duly thrashed the pants off us. All of the excuses you use could just as easily be used by the Aussies to explain their losses too:
Loss to SL: Bookmaker's scandal.
Loss to India in 1996: No Mcgrath, Shane Warne just coming back from major finger surgery.
Loss to India last year: Couldn't find decent openers to partner Hayden and Aussie players struggle with off-spin
etc. etc. etc. see how ridiculous the excuses get?
The point is, all teams have personell problems at any stage in a decade and Australia has had just as many as others. So using that as an excuse for a team's poor performance is just ridiculous. And for some reason, people think that all of these problems that befall teams ONLY happen whilst playing Australia because team problems MUST have been an explanation for a loss. It surely couldn't have been that Australia just outplayed them, could it?
As for Australia vs SA, the just completed series against SA at home was the only series where SA were missing any of their best players against Australia. Every other series they've played, they've had they're best team available and I'll dig out the teams if you want proof. Yet they've still lost to Australia, with exception to the first two Test series against each other, when both series were drawn. That tells me they have some sort of problem with playing Australia AND it says something about the quality of Australia's play.
You don't end up at somewhere near the top of the tree over a ten year period (see my post above) and the VERY undisputed top over the last 5 years without being a very good team. Luck will only take you so far. Why do you think the WI were so good for at least 15 years? Because they worked harder at their game than anybody. They sure made it look easy but in the end it was a combination of talent with HARD WORK.
And this is why it's useless to analyse a team's performance on a series-by-series basis. That's why I posted results over the last ten years because it takes into account that ALL teams have their peaks and troughs at any given time and so statistically, you have to be fair and take a step back. And after doing that, Australia comes out on top with SA a close second overall (when you take into account home series results as well).
And as for whether Australia will beat SA or vice versa, well we'll just have to see, won't we?
The tide can't have turned yet because the series hasn't started! 
So I wouldn't put too much creedence into what old Harves has to say.
[Edited on 3/21/02 by Top_Cat]
Loss to SL: Bookmaker's scandal.
Loss to India in 1996: No Mcgrath, Shane Warne just coming back from major finger surgery.
Loss to India last year: Couldn't find decent openers to partner Hayden and Aussie players struggle with off-spin
etc. etc. etc. see how ridiculous the excuses get?
The point is, all teams have personell problems at any stage in a decade and Australia has had just as many as others. So using that as an excuse for a team's poor performance is just ridiculous. And for some reason, people think that all of these problems that befall teams ONLY happen whilst playing Australia because team problems MUST have been an explanation for a loss. It surely couldn't have been that Australia just outplayed them, could it?
As for Australia vs SA, the just completed series against SA at home was the only series where SA were missing any of their best players against Australia. Every other series they've played, they've had they're best team available and I'll dig out the teams if you want proof. Yet they've still lost to Australia, with exception to the first two Test series against each other, when both series were drawn. That tells me they have some sort of problem with playing Australia AND it says something about the quality of Australia's play.
You don't end up at somewhere near the top of the tree over a ten year period (see my post above) and the VERY undisputed top over the last 5 years without being a very good team. Luck will only take you so far. Why do you think the WI were so good for at least 15 years? Because they worked harder at their game than anybody. They sure made it look easy but in the end it was a combination of talent with HARD WORK.
And this is why it's useless to analyse a team's performance on a series-by-series basis. That's why I posted results over the last ten years because it takes into account that ALL teams have their peaks and troughs at any given time and so statistically, you have to be fair and take a step back. And after doing that, Australia comes out on top with SA a close second overall (when you take into account home series results as well).
And as for whether Australia will beat SA or vice versa, well we'll just have to see, won't we?
The tide can't have turned yet because the series hasn't started! Yeah, and Neil Harvey is so out of touch with the modern game, he just can't fathom that players today could possibly be any better than the players he played with. He'll wax lyrical about the guys he played with (regardless of statistics) and then deride someone like Steve Waugh for being 'too conservative' and that shows he's an ignoramous of the highest order. This is the same guy who said Adam Gilchrist was 'just a slogger' and Glenn Mcgrath is 'not a very good bowler. Just straight up and down'.
So I wouldn't put too much creedence into what old Harves has to say.
[Edited on 3/21/02 by Top_Cat]
