*Official* Australia in decline thread

[Cactus]

and he served his ban Case closed

lets hope he doesn't resort to blaming his mum for anything else..........but your above statement still oesn't clear him from being a cheat. it's like going to jail and coming back out. it doesn't all of a sudden mean your a completely changed person.

 

[hourn]

i reckon our future in terms of young guys (under about the age of 24/25) is unbeliavable.

But in terms of short term planning, we don't really have many guys who are ready to step up at this stage in time.

the talent pool in Australia from ages 25-29 isn't all that deep so we may have a bit of a down period, but i reckon we will find ourselves back in the success if enough of those younger guys (such as Clarke, Cosgrove, Rofe, Tait, Cleary, Brant, Clingellefer, Crosthwaite, Ferguson, Casson, Watson, Hauritz and quite a few others) capatalize on the talent that they have.

in the 25-29 age group there are some good players (such as Katich, Ponting and Bracken who have played international cricket pretty regularly along with very established FC crickets such as Hodge, Noffke, Inness, Husseys x 2, North and Love (is he under 30??) however there isn't much depth in tha age group.......

 

[Richard]

Noffke and Hauritz are both rubbish IMO.
There are also some very much unproven players in the listing.

 

[Bapu Rao Swami]

My opinion on Australia!

I quite frankly think as a 'dominating team' Australia has already peaked. Anything they achieve now is only a bonus. If you look at Wisden rankings, or the way they played and listen to views from professionals, it is said that the Aussie team of late 99,2000 and 2001 was amongst the strongest of all time. While its clear they've almost perfected ODI games and are statistically and non staistically the best ODI side of all time (mind you I said this prior to the TVS cup also)..however as a test team and on the whole I think they've clearly peaked. Secondly I read Pontings interview a few days back and he clearly says that he expects his men to play good dominante cricket for a few more months or even a yr, not anymore (not that I'm saying they'll be rank 6 after that).

Australians fans might even counter attack my thread by bringing up the fact that Ponting has taken it one step further than Waugh (by winning their first ever ODI tourney in Lanka).

The strongest West Indian side was that of 81...they were also strong in 79. But thru out the 80 and early 90's, WIs dominated test cricket even though they had crossed their peak - all those victories were more of a bonus or an extra topping to add to their impeccable record.

Same goes for this Australian side, I think they've already peaked, won two world cups, beaten the rank 2 side of 2001 (SA) 6-1 in tests. Of course Australians will tell you they need to win in India and SL also but that between themselves (Indians, Lankans and Australians)..As a netural I feel so.

All in all - I feel this Australian side will lose some games and win a majority, while ppl keep saying their going downhill..I think they've already GONE downhill and come up again....why simply because they have a whole new lot of rookies in their team from Williams, Bracken, Clarke, Symonds, Hussey Bros, Haddin etc. The era of Bichel, Mcgrath and co has taken the backseat.

 

[Richard]

Re: My opinion on Australia!

beaten the rank 2 side of 2001 (SA) 6-1 in tests.

South Africa played badly enough those series without the result being exaggerated. :!(
It was 5-1.:P

 

[Bapu Rao Swami]

I'm apologise for making that mistake. BTW in such a long post of mine, was that the only thing you could pinpoint...just curious..

 

[Richard]

Nay problem - I'm just like that, nothing personal.
I thoroughy agree with what you say for the most part. I never thought the 2000-2001 Australians were as good as some believed and I've never for a second believed that the one-day team is as good as everyone accepts. But certainly, they have possibly been worked-out and I hope Sri Lanka take the chance to give them a battering.

 

[Bapu Rao Swami]

Well the Australian ODI team of 2003 is no doubt the best ODI team of all time, you name it they play well on all sorts of pitches.

.That apart statistically also they're ranked 1..

Moving on to tests, if you work accorvding to stats then one could argue tha the test team of 2000 also was he strongest of all time (Waugh's untouchables)... Lloyd recorded 43 wins of 72 games, Border 43 off 92 but Steve Waugh took only 53 gaes to record 43 wins...however however I'm aware that stats don't tell the whole story, in1 some cases not even half. That apart the Windies only lost 3 testmatches in some 18 yrs( and those 3 were very contreversial tests) so its fair to acknowledge Lloyd XI were the strongest up ahead of Bradman's Invincibles and Waugh's untouchables...but then also Windies did not play SL and SA during their time and these two teams today are a strong force in test cricket.


bottom line - I think its absolutely fair to say that Pontings men of 2003 were the strongest ODI side of all time, while Lloyds men were in tests along with a few others.

 

[Swervy]

Well the Australian ODI team of 2003 is no doubt the best ODI team of all time, you name it they play well on all sorts of pitches.

.That apart statistically also they're ranked 1..

Moving on to tests, if you work accorvding to stats then one could argue tha the test team of 2000 also was he strongest of all time (Waugh's untouchables)... Lloyd recorded 43 wins of 72 games, Border 43 off 92 but Steve Waugh took only 53 gaes to record 43 wins...however however I'm aware that stats don't tell the whole story, in1 some cases not even half. That apart the Windies only lost 3 testmatches in some 18 yrs( and those 3 were very contreversial tests) so its fair to acknowledge Lloyd XI were the strongest up ahead of Bradman's Invincibles and Waugh's untouchables...but then also Windies did not play SL and SA during their time and these two teams today are a strong force in test cricket.


bottom line - I think its absolutely fair to say that Pontings men of 2003 were the strongest ODI side of all time, while Lloyds men were in tests along with a few others.

yeah some good points made there...but just a couple of things:

I would say WI's glory days were from the 1976 series in England to maybe the very start of 1993....after that the decline truely started (although they werent as strong as they had been for a couple of years before hand,Australia could have been considered equals in the early 90's). West Indies actually lost 17 tests in that time (not 3)..and for a spell (which did include some Packer affected games) the west Indies actually didnt do that well.....here is the sequence from April 78 to January 82..so almost 4 years:

DDDDLDDDWWLDDWDDDDDWDDWWDDLD...thats 6 wins 2 losses and 19 draws...and in there was a series loss vs India,and New Zealand,and a drawn series vs a so so Australian team.

Now I agree that they were talent wise the best team in the world by far,but during that time they were beatable..of course they then improved and hammered everyone.

yeah Australia at the moment maybe wobbling a bit,but again they are streets ahead of the opposition. I expect the gap to close over the next year or so (no team can dominate for as long as Australia have done without the odd glitch),but Australia have such a good foundation that it will only take one or two new players to come along and succeed and they will be right back where they were say 2 years ago (in the same way the WI's roared back,as Marshall started to dominate the scene,and then other talent like Ambrose and Bishop sprung up from nowhere).

so yeah..a bit of down time for the Aussies, but can you really see anyone really taking over through talent at the moment.No tst team is really improving at the moment, so if someone does take over it is more to do with a slight decline in Australias fortunes.

 

[marc71178]

Until these young talents have shown they can actually do it in International Cricket, it's all ifs and maybes.

There's no guarantee that any player will succeed...

 

[Warne is god]

I don't like to say it but i think the test team is on the way down, Steve Waugh is a BIG gap to fill, your all overseas you don't realise what he did and what he meant.

 

[Gaijin-san]

That's true. Overseas Australia have to find someone to do a job close enough to Mr Waugh. He averaged about 8 runs more than his career average overseas if I remember correctly.

 

[Swervy]

hey i am an Aussie..I have seen plenty of Waugh to know what kind of gap that has left in the team....but this doesnt mean Australia are going to slump dramatically.

Go back to the WI's in the eighties...Clive Lloyd was captain, and one of the worlds best batsmen...he retired in 1985....Gus Logie took over his place...that was a big hole left in the side. Holding was losing his effectivness,Garner was about 33 years old.

But WI's coped,eventually new bowlers emerged (Ambrose,Bishop) and even though no-one really filled the gap for Lloyds batting, the West Indies still won.

Australia have the talent coming through....things may even up throughout world cricket, but that might be a good thing for Australia more competitivness might gee them up a bit.

 

[Richard]

yeah some good points made there...but just a couple of things:

I would say WI's glory days were from the 1976 series in England to maybe the very start of 1993....after that the decline truely started (although they werent as strong as they had been for a couple of years before hand,Australia could have been considered equals in the early 90's). West Indies actually lost 17 tests in that time (not 3)..and for a spell (which did include some Packer affected games) the west Indies actually didnt do that well.....here is the sequence from April 78 to January 82..so almost 4 years:

DDDDLDDDWWLDDWDDDDDWDDWWDDLD...thats 6 wins 2 losses and 19 draws...and in there was a series loss vs India,and New Zealand,and a drawn series vs a so so Australian team.

Now I agree that they were talent wise the best team in the world by far,but during that time they were beatable..of course they then improved and hammered everyone.

yeah Australia at the moment maybe wobbling a bit,but again they are streets ahead of the opposition. I expect the gap to close over the next year or so (no team can dominate for as long as Australia have done without the odd glitch),but Australia have such a good foundation that it will only take one or two new players to come along and succeed and they will be right back where they were say 2 years ago (in the same way the WI's roared back,as Marshall started to dominate the scene,and then other talent like Ambrose and Bishop sprung up from nowhere).

so yeah..a bit of down time for the Aussies, but can you really see anyone really taking over through talent at the moment.No tst team is really improving at the moment, so if someone does take over it is more to do with a slight decline in Australias fortunes.

IIRR (not absolutely certain about this, sure Liam or Neil will correct me if IDRW) West Indies lost 2 series between 1975\76 (the 5-1 hammering by Greg Chappell's team) and 1994\95 (the loss to Taylor's Australians that may never have happened but for Courteney Browne dropping Stephen Waugh). One was in New Zealand, where the Umpiring was decidedly dodgy (the infamous Holding incident where he "demolished the stumps [with his feet] with an elegance only he could have mustered" was a result of this poor decision-making) and in India, who have always been notoriously strong at home.
Who cares about losing the odd Test-match with a series record like that?

 

[Richard]

Well the Australian ODI team of 2003 is no doubt the best ODI team of all time, you name it they play well on all sorts of pitches.

.That apart statistically also they're ranked 1..

Moving on to tests, if you work accorvding to stats then one could argue tha the test team of 2000 also was he strongest of all time (Waugh's untouchables)... Lloyd recorded 43 wins of 72 games, Border 43 off 92 but Steve Waugh took only 53 gaes to record 43 wins...however however I'm aware that stats don't tell the whole story, in1 some cases not even half. That apart the Windies only lost 3 testmatches in some 18 yrs( and those 3 were very contreversial tests) so its fair to acknowledge Lloyd XI were the strongest up ahead of Bradman's Invincibles and Waugh's untouchables...but then also Windies did not play SL and SA during their time and these two teams today are a strong force in test cricket.


bottom line - I think its absolutely fair to say that Pontings men of 2003 were the strongest ODI side of all time, while Lloyds men were in tests along with a few others.

IMO the South African team of 1999 was far better than the Australian team ATM - I don't, frankly, give a damn about the win ratio. All I care about is the fact that as far as I'm concerned Australia have quite a few massively overrated, flattered-by-stats players in their ODI ranks - Harvey, Hayden, Symonds, Martyn, Clarke, Hogg, Lee. OK, they also have some very, very good players (Bevan, McGrath, Gillespie, Ponting, Gilchrist [just]). But the South African team of 1999 was a phenomenon. And still they managed to lose to an Australian team IMO better than that of today (M Waugh, Gilchrist, Ponting, S Waugh, Lehmann, Bevan, Moody, Warne, Reiffel, Fleming, McGrath).
Regardless of wins and losses, I feel South Africa had the best side ever then. Because, purely, of my interpretation of the ability of the players.

 

[Swervy]

IIRR (not absolutely certain about this, sure Liam or Neil will correct me if IDRW) West Indies lost 2 series between 1975\76 (the 5-1 hammering by Greg Chappell's team) and 1994\95 (the loss to Taylor's Australians that may never have happened but for Courteney Browne dropping Stephen Waugh). One was in New Zealand, where the Umpiring was decidedly dodgy (the infamous Holding incident where he "demolished the stumps [with his feet] with an elegance only he could have mustered" was a result of this poor decision-making) and in India, who have always been notoriously strong at home.
Who cares about losing the odd Test-match with a series record like that?

ok...my point is that even the top teams can have transitional phases without losing the number one ranking.

But as a point of interest just compare the performances of the West Indies 1976 to the start of 1995, to that of Australia from the end of 94 to now:

WI's; 36 series W 25 D 9 L 2
Australia: 31 series W 24 D 3 L 4

so yeah WI lost only 2 compared to Austs 4, but Australia won 24 of 31 compared to 25 of 36...so overall pretty even.

For the same periods:

WI's played 147 W 70 L 23 D 54
Australia played 106 W 68 L 22 D 16

Proportionally WI's won more but lost more...again overall pretty even

WI's averaged 34.2 runs per wicket batting (3.19rpo)
Australia averaged 39 runs per wicket batting (3.35rpo)

so Australia have it on that, but yeah batting conditions maybe better now

WI's averaged 27.9 runs per wicket taken (2.86rpo conceded)
Australia averaged 27.3 runs per wicket taken (2.97rpo)

so considering the better batting conditions,Australia still have a better bowling average than the WI's.

Now I dont want to start a who was better debate, but i think it is fair to say that really the performances are all pretty even.

having watched the WI's at there best and also Australia at there best I would say that I think Australia might just have the edge on the WI's.

We know that maybe Australia have a weakness vs very good spin bowling and at good at playing pace attacks. WI's didnt have a decent spinner during that period, so that negates that weakness. The WI's had problems vs good spin bowlers (see India, or pakistan(all out 50 odd once i belieive)),well Australia have one of the greats of all time in Warne..i think those WI's would have struggled vs Warne.

anyway, that wasnt what my intention was..i only wanted to point out that Australia may not be at there strongest but they certainly could get stronger again. Quite often in the 80's, people spoke of the WI's maybe losing their powers,but they bounced back.

 

[Richard]

West Indies were dismissed for 46 in Faisalabad in 1986, if that's what you're talking about. I've never actually looked at the scorecard but I presume Mr. Abdul Qadir had something to do with it.
I wasn't referring to the series record with any particular referance to relative Australia of today - just saying that's the relevant fact, not how many games were lost. We can never be certain about stuff like that - even teams who've played each other, I'll still argue that the loser is the better side sometimes, it's just down to the individual, there's no objective proof.
If Australia manage to "bounce back", full credit to them. I nonetheless hope they don't. :P
Anyway, so far they've, what? Conceded the biggest winning 4th-innings total. Wow, I never set much stall by flashy stuff like this. Similar to how a hat-trick in 3-96 off 20 is nowhere near as good as 3 wickets at regular intervals in 3-50 off 20. And drawn a series at home, having looked unconvincing throughout. Wow, one they were missing several leading players, two some players had to be exposed some time (Gilchrist, Martyn, Gillespie) and some had to have their substandardness exaggerated (MacGill, Lee, Bracken, Williams). I would have expected them to struggle in Sri Lanka with a full-strength team, too - let's wait until... well... the next South Africa series... before judging whether they're going down.
I mean, just look at this:
SL away - already discussed, I'd expect a full-strength team to struggle.
SL home - SL on tour are never exactly the toughest of prospects, now, are they?
Ind away - read SL away.
WI home - read SL home.
Don't know what's next - NZ away? If so, maybe that'll be something of a test, too.

 

[Swervy]

CG Greenidge lbw b Imran Khan 12
DL Haynes lbw b Imran Khan 0
RB Richardson c Rameez Raja b Abdul Qadir 14
HA Gomes b Abdul Qadir 2
*IVA Richards c Rameez Raja b Abdul Qadir 0
+PJL Dujon lbw b Imran Khan 0
RA Harper c sub (Shoaib Mohammad) b Abdul Qadir 2
MD Marshall c & b Abdul Qadir 10
AH Gray b Abdul Qadir 5
CA Walsh b Imran Khan 0
BP Patterson not out 6
Extras (lb 2) 2
Total (all out, 25.3 overs) 53

Qadir 6-16 off 9.3overs

 

[Richard]

Thought so.

 

[age_master]

Regardless of wins and losses, I feel South Africa had the best side ever then. Because, purely, of my interpretation of the ability of the players.

i have to disagree, my under 10 club side was far superior to that south african side, sure we didn't win every game, but wins and losses dont matter at all, thats just my interpretation of the ability of the players:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: