australia since Ashes 2005 in test cricket

[jemo27]

when do you thing in test cricket has austrlai most looked like lossing a test match, we have hade on draw against South Africa but the most worried I have been is the first test against Bangladesh espeicllay after the first innings each. only Banladesh fauilure in there second innings and Pontings batting saved Australia and a droped catch

what do other people thing is the closed Australia has come to losing a match since the 2005 Ashes series
the World XI was no contest, neither were the West Indies
South Africa drew the first match but needed to make something like 500 in the 4th inns nether looked like it, in the Second test i went to 2 days and they nver looked like winning, McGrath had an one hundred last wiket partnership with M.Hussey
the 3rd test Australia one it when it should have been a draw but for Smith declaring

I just looked up hour test matchs and I now recall the 3rd test agoianst South Africa with langer getting hit in the head but i still fell the 1st test agianst Bangladesh was more worrying for me and in the media as a loss especially whe i looked like we could have to follow on.

which test since the ashes 2005 do poeple feel Australia came closed to Lossing

I would say it is between 3rd test South Africa at Johannesburg or Ist test at Fatullah

 

[Richard]

South Africa would almost certainly have won 3, maybe 4 or even 5, Tests against Australia in 2005\06 but for dropped catches, rain and miracle last-wicket partnerships.

Clearly the closest anyone came was South Africa in said 1-wicket loss.

 

[jemo27]

In Australia, the first test against Bangladesh was the biggest worry then 3rd test againutst SA in SA

the South Africa games in Australia, Australia never looked like lossing, the first test in perth was save by South Africa but australia was in no danger of lossing, the second test Australia won easy, I went to 2 days of the match and the 3rd test would have been a draw if not for Greame Smith declaring on day 5.

the Bangladesh game Australia was totally out played in the first inns of both teams

 

[Laurrz]

South Africa would almost certainly have won 3, maybe 4 or even 5, Tests against Australia in 2005\06 but for dropped catches, rain and miracle last-wicket partnerships.

Clearly the closest anyone came was South Africa in said 1-wicket loss.

they were ahead in a lot of the matches but as usual succumbed to pressure

that 1 wicket match was a thriller...
also the match before ...Aussies (with the help of Warney) managed to get the last wicket when it was quite dark

 

[Son Of Coco]

South Africa would almost certainly have won 3, maybe 4 or even 5, Tests against Australia in 2005\06 but for dropped catches, rain and miracle last-wicket partnerships.

Clearly the closest anyone came was South Africa in said 1-wicket loss.

So, in short, they weren't good enough to win 3, 4 or 5 tests against Australia?

 

[Richard]

Their catching wasn't good enough. Or their taking-of-the-final-wicket.

 

[Richard]

In Australia, the first test against Bangladesh was the biggest worry then 3rd test againutst SA in SA

Nah. 1-wicket victories are about the closest anyone can come to losing without losing.

the South Africa games in Australia, Australia never looked like lossing, the first test in perth was save by South Africa but australia was in no danger of lossing, the second test Australia won easy, I went to 2 days of the match and the 3rd test would have been a draw if not for Greame Smith declaring on day 5.

Australia looked very much like losing in the First and Second Tests, had catches been taken they probably would have, and had it not rained so much at The SCG South Africa would have had a much better chance to force home their extremely powerful position.

 

[PhoenixFire]

They came close in Adelaide 2007 v England, but thrashed us in the end.

 

[Richard]

And once again, one simple take of a catch might very well have changed all that.

 

[silentstriker]

And once again, one simple take of a catch might very well have changed all that.

But it consistently doesn't. Because Aussies don't miss like that. That's like saying, 'well if one batsman got a century, someone got a five wicket haul, or Hussey wasn't so damn good, it would have changed the outcome.' Well yea, but they didn't.

 

[Richard]

It's nothing like it at all. Scoring centuries and taking big hauls takes countless deliveries of excellence. Taking a catch is one thing or the other in one delivery. And it's something there's virtually never any excuse for not doing.

One single dropped catch can completely change a match from what it would have been had it been taken. Everything else in a game of cricket takes massive numbers of deliveries to do and requires multitudes of skills. Taking a catch should be done near enough every time, and it's unforgiveable the number that go down, especially of late.

 

[silentstriker]

It's nothing like it at all. Scoring centuries and taking big hauls takes countless deliveries of excellence. Taking a catch is one thing or the other in one delivery.

Not really. It's not about taking 'a catch'. It's like scoring one run. You have to do it consistently throughout the whole match, just like you have to consistently score runs. If you can't do that - you lose.

One single dropped catch can completely change a match from what it would have been had it been taken.

By definition then, so can one wicket by bowled or LBW. What's the difference?

 

[Richard]

Not really. It's not about taking 'a catch'. It's like scoring one run. You have to do it consistently throughout the whole match, just like you have to consistently score runs. If you can't do that - you lose.

One catch not being taken has way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way more potential to change a match than one run not being scored.

Of course you have to take catches consistently throughout a game. But if you take 7 catches and drop 1, the 1 drop can still completely change the course of a match. If you score 492 runs and miss-out on 21, it's exceptionally unlikely to change the outcome of the match.

By definition then, so can one wicket by bowled or LBW. What's the difference?

The fact that taking a wicket by such isn't a simple "did" or "didn't". You have to pitch the ball in the right place to hit the stumps, beat the bat, and in some cases not pitch it outside leg. To take a catch the ball has to be caught. It has to go into your hands and stay there.

Taking a catch is an impossibly more simple, straightforward thing to do than bowling a batsman out (or indeed getting him to hit the ball in the air to a fielder). Which is why it's so much more galling to see a fielder fail to take every opportunity of a catch than it is to see a bowler not bowl out a batsman every delivery.

 

[silentstriker]

One catch not being taken has way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way more potential to change a match than one run not being scored.

What about one wicket not being taken? Since a catch is a wicket, they would be the same, no?

The fact that taking a wicket by such isn't a simple "did" or "didn't". You have to pitch the ball in the right place to hit the stumps, beat the bat, and in some cases not pitch it outside leg. To take a catch the ball has to be caught. It has to go into your hands and stay there.

No. You have to judge the ball at the right angle, get your body in position, and then catch the ball.

Taking a catch is an impossibly more simple, straightforward thing to do than bowling a batsman out (or indeed getting him to hit the ball in the air to a fielder). Which is why it's so much more galling to see a fielder fail to take every opportunity of a catch than it is to see a bowler not bowl out a batsman every delivery.

What's that got to do with anything? We are talking about the impact on a game. Either catching is just as important and impactful as everything else or it isn't. Its a very important cricketing skill and saying he didn't take a catch is the same as sayinf he didn't get this guy out in another manner.

You're using it as an excuse, such as 'Well, it would have been close except that one catch'. This is the same as saying, "It would have been close except no one got Hussey out." Or "It would have been close, if Australia didn't bowl so well."

 

[Matt79]

Dire that we've come full circle with this 'but for dropped catches' thing Rich - I think this was the first issue I ever replied to you on. As SS points out its a fundamental skill, and if you aren't good enough to do it consistently and do it when it matters, then you are in no way a good enough team to win matches. SA were smashed by a thoroughly better team during that tour, apart from the one draw they earnt.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'm still baffled at the suggestion that South Africa were ever anywhere close to winning the first or second tests in that series. The third certainly, South Africa were in a great position until the rain, and could possibly have won the match, and would almost certainly have drawn it had Smith not pushed for an unlikely win.

South Africa were in the game for a few days in Perth certainly, but they had to chase almost 500 in the 4th innings and the only possible positive outcome they could have managed was a draw. Sure Hodge was dropped early on in his double century, but he was hardly the only contributer in Australia's second innings total of 528. And to blame a dropped catch for a guy making 200 is simply absurd, it's not like they didn't have another 300+ balls with which to get him out.

And Australia were very clearly the better team in the second test, and were never behind at any stage after Hussey's ridiculously good innings.

Also, the first two tests of the South African home series were absolute hammerings. Australia weren't far from winning the first test by an innings, and the best South Africa ever could have managed in the second was a draw, if they hadn't fallen apart to Warne. And, incidentally, your arguments about the rain in Sydney would surely apply there as well. If all 450 overs had been bowled, Australia would have won the second test without breaking a sweat, rather than cutting it close on the 5th evening.

 

[Matt79]

And the final analysis is that if you can't afford to have a single dropped catch or you'll lose, the reality is that you're a much weaker team than your opponents. Its not like Australia never drops catches, but usually it doesn't matter as they'll create another opportunity very soon anyway. All this argument is is a different version of saying "On their day, if everything goes right, they could theoretically beat Australia". That's such a broad statement that its almost certainly true, but the number of big "ifs" in there explain why its very rarely actually happened.

 

[Flem274*]

To beat Australia you're going to have to play well obviously, but even if they play at their best if you're playing to your potential then you're still in it. For example Ponting, Hussey, Clarke etc can be at theirbest but if Bond and Vettori are at their best and Franklin and Mills and Oram are bowling well without being amazing you still have a very big chance of success as they are class players.

The big difference is, IMO, Australia more often than not play to their full potential whereas other teams do not play to their potential as often. How often do you hear that an Aussie is underachieving with his talent? You hear all the time about how the Sinclairs and the Taylors and the McMillans of this world aren't achieving what they, for whatever reason, could achieve. This is the crucial difference.

 

[Richard]

What about one wicket not being taken? Since a catch is a wicket, they would be the same, no?

Taking a catch is a simple thing. Bowling a wicket-taking delivery is not. People fail to do that most deliveries they bowl. People should never, ever fail to take an easy catch.

Even though the impact of "not bowling a 93mph inswinging Yorker to Hussey" might be the same as "dropping Hussey", you don't expect the former; you most certainly do expect a catch to be taken.

No. You have to judge the ball at the right angle, get your body in position, and then catch the ball.

None of which are really remotely difficult most of the time.

What's that got to do with anything? We are talking about the impact on a game. Either catching is just as important and impactful as everything else or it isn't. Its a very important cricketing skill and saying he didn't take a catch is the same as sayinf he didn't get this guy out in another manner.

You're using it as an excuse, such as 'Well, it would have been close except that one catch'. This is the same as saying, "It would have been close except no one got Hussey out." Or "It would have been close, if Australia didn't bowl so well."

Taking a catch is a far, far easier thing to do than bowling a delivery that will get Batsman X out. It really is that simple. A small mistake can impact 20 times (figuratively speaking) more upon a game than can "not getting X out" (speaking in terms of bowlers).

 

[Richard]

Dire that we've come full circle with this 'but for dropped catches' thing Rich - I think this was the first issue I ever replied to you on. As SS points out its a fundamental skill, and if you aren't good enough to do it consistently and do it when it matters, then you are in no way a good enough team to win matches. SA were smashed by a thoroughly better team during that tour, apart from the one draw they earnt.

SA were smashed because they couldn't catch. That was the only respect they were inferior in. The fact that they weren't good enough to do it did indeed mean they weren't a good enough team to win the matches.

But dropping catches made it look like they were inferior in every department, something they most certainly weren't.