Teams' ability to "step-up" when it matters

[Burgey]

Having watched virtually all of Australia's cricket for the past few years (including the 05 Ashes series), it seems to me that the factor which sets them apart from other sides is their ability, when it really matters, to take their game to a better level than their opponents.

The exception to this rule was, of course, the 2005 Ashes series, but it seems that series actually proved a catalyst for the Aussies to become more ruthless than they had previously been under Pointing's captaincy.

Since that series Australia has barely drawn let alone lost a Test match and went throught the World Cup undefeated, having lost two ODI series of less import in the lead up. Last night's T20 match against Sri Lanka again emphasised the point. They had to win this game to progress and produced a bowling and fielding performance streets ahead of what they'd done earlier in the series.

What's the secret? A big part is obviously ability - they have a pretty damn good crop of players, and they have the infrastructure in place to get the best from them. Another is experiece - they are battle -hardened and know how to win. But the fact remains that players come into this side and are quickly inculcated with the ability to win, especially when it counts most. Guys like M Clarke, S Clark, Hodge, Hussey, Watson and Johnson have all shown the ability to contribute meaningfully early in their international careers, even in tight contests.

This ability to win tight games is, imo, as much mental as it is physical, if not more so. I'd like the thoughts of everyone on where they see all international teams in relation to this aspect, and why they think certain sides respond to pressure as they do.

Over to you.

 

[Turbinator]

We'll see on Saturday .

 

[Burgey]

Yeah we will. But the point relates to the way they lift themselves for big games more than to any one contest in particular.

 

[Days of Grace]

Maybe it is more a case of the other teams psyching themselves out before they even got on the field. Australia are there for the taking in this tournament.

It seems, for the past four years or so, that Australia is more likely to lose to a minnow, because the minnow goes into the game thinking they will just have a go and see what happens. The major sides go into the game thinking they have a chance of winning and get all nervous and worked up and in the end just bottle it. Play the ball, not the man, boys.

 

[cpr]

Agree with Burgey, Australia are the most efficient when it comes to stepping up when needs. Also there downfall a bit, because they dont step up all the time, and often underestimate their opposition. Its hard to step up your game when your set in a 'this is a comfortable win' mindset. Think the ashes in 05 are proof that they underestimate opponents, and that gives the opposition a lift, making it hard for them to step it up. However, when they go into a game knowing 'we've got a fight here, there going to come at us, and do well, its just upto us to do better', very few can stop them

 

[shortpitched713]

Sure Australia probably has the the most mentally tough players out of those that play Test cricket. But the fact of the matter is that such a mental aspect is a huge portion of the overall cricketing package that is one player. I mean, its really hard to doubt that Australia's cricketers are also better than their peers in virtually every discipline of the game, so it doesn't surprise me at all that they might carry a mental edge, one that may have been taken into account along with all other factors when selections for Australian players were made.

 

[Dissector]

I think the mental toughness of the Australians is exaggerated, really. They win mainly because they are much better better on paper than any other side. They are mentally tough enough to translate that into victories but that is not the main reason for their success. In the last 7 years how many teams have been good enough on paper to challenge the Australian team?

On the few occasions where they have been challenged they have folded sometimes. The classic example is the Calcutta test. They were hit by some amazing batting but they really should have held out for an easy draw in their final innings.

 

[pup11]

I think more than anything else its the unity of the Australian side that makes them such a lethal team, as Gilly said yesterday in his post-match interview that when the chips are down all the boys rally around close to each other and try to help each other out.
Thats what cricket is all about, its a team sport and Australia is a damn good team, they are mentally strong and they play damn good cricket backs to the wall situations.

 

[Goughy]

The Aussies are very, very strong when it matters.

From a Test POV (which is generally what I only look at) they are capable of being beaten. They have lost 10 Tests in the 2000s but it is certainly not easy.

Consider the fact that they have played 26 completed series in the 2000s and never once lost the 1st game of the series

That is unbelievable and completely against random probability.

The first Test is SO key to a series and the Aussies never fail in that key area. Sure it it possible to beat them if you do not win the 1st Test (eg Ashes 2005) but it makes it 1000 times more difficult.

And if anyone wants further proof on the genius of McGrath, consider he averages over 5 wickets at an average of under 19 in the first game of a series (he has played 39 of them). Thats not soft wickets in unimportant games, that is hard wickets to stamp Aussie authority on series with all to play for.

The Aussies turn the pressure on early and that is their true greatness.

 

[Richard]

TBH, I think stepping-up when it matters is a bit overrated. There's no such thing as a game of international cricket that "doesn't matter", even a dead Test - heck, even a Twenty20 International - is very much something you want to do your best in.

 

[The Sean]

I'd have to disagree there mate, I think stepping up when it matters is one of the key criteria in determining the greatness of a player. You're right that you always want to do well in a game of international cricket, I won't disagree with that, but the ability to step up and stamp your mark on the outcome of a Test, a series or a tournament when it's all to play for is priceless.

Would Ian Botham's miracles in '81 be as revered today had they come in the 5th and 6th Tests with the Ashes already lost? Would VVS Laxman's 281 be considered quite as much of a masterpiece had it come in the 3rd Test with Australia already 2-0 up and the Series decided? I'm almost certain they wouldn't.

 

[Ikki]

Good post, I agree Burgey. Australia is a great side but it's not rare to see them pushed to the absolute limit by teams. You seem them chasing totals the opposition would have thought 100% safe on and win or to bowl out opposition when they've made poor starts.

 

[Richard]

I'd have to disagree there mate, I think stepping up when it matters is one of the key criteria in determining the greatness of a player. You're right that you always want to do well in a game of international cricket, I won't disagree with that, but the ability to step up and stamp your mark on the outcome of a Test, a series or a tournament when it's all to play for is priceless.

Would Ian Botham's miracles in '81 be as revered today had they come in the 5th and 6th Tests with the Ashes already lost? Would VVS Laxman's 281 be considered quite as much of a masterpiece had it come in the 3rd Test with Australia already 2-0 up and the Series decided? I'm almost certain they wouldn't.

Obviously not. The thing is, though, every "live" Test matters as much as the next IMO. If you happen to put in your performance to turn the Third Test and get it to 2-1 instead of 3-0, that's no more worthy to me than the performance that puts you 1-0 up after the First Test. "When it matters" can almost only ever be judged in hindsight.

 

[SJS]

I'd have to disagree there mate, I think stepping up when it matters is one of the key criteria in determining the greatness of a player. You're right that you always want to do well in a game of international cricket, I won't disagree with that, but the ability to step up and stamp your mark on the outcome of a Test, a series or a tournament when it's all to play for is priceless.

Would Ian Botham's miracles in '81 be as revered today had they come in the 5th and 6th Tests with the Ashes already lost? Would VVS Laxman's 281 be considered quite as much of a masterpiece had it come in the 3rd Test with Australia already 2-0 up and the Series decided? I'm almost certain they wouldn't.

Yes you have a very good point there.

 

[sideshowtim]

We'll see on Saturday .

Win or lose on Saturday, the point will still stand.

Australia have an odd knack of winning when they need to though, and they certainly do it more than any other team. That's what defines a champion team for mine. Standing up when it really counts. And there are so, so many times we've done it in the past.

 

[Richard]

Australia have an odd knack of winning when they need to though, and they certainly do it more than any other team.

Yes... Australia win a lot... we noticed.

 

[sideshowtim]

TBH, I think stepping-up when it matters is a bit overrated. There's no such thing as a game of international cricket that "doesn't matter", even a dead Test - heck, even a Twenty20 International - is very much something you want to do your best in.

Of course. But surely you can tell the difference between say, a dead rubber in a ODI series and a do-or-die one?

How many sides, needing to qualify for the semi-finals, would come out and play as clinically as the Australians did against Sri Lanka? We seem to handle the do or die situations much better than other teams.

 

[Richard]

But also other, not-so-do-or-die, situations better. Australia win most things - this happens to include crunch-games.

As I say - dead games in big tournaments are a bit different to do-or-die games - but Australia are good at winning both, and the reason they're good at winning one has much to do with the reason they're good at the other.

 

[sideshowtim]

But in history there are teams who are good at other times, but not so good at handling the do-or-die stuff. South Africa is a recent example.

 

[Richard]

South Africa haven't been as good as Australia for most of the other times though, otherwise they'd have been ranked (deservedly) above them.

Mostly, if South Africa were convincingly beating someone, Australia were thrashing them raw.