Is Australia back to the dark days of the mid 80s?

[Arrow]

This ashes series defeat was our worst since the 88/89 series against the windies in oz, when they beat us 3-1 but no innings defeats. This time we were basically destroyed, 3 innings defeats is the kind of stuff we used to do the the crap teams in our prime.

Our alleged best bowler johnson fires about once a series when the ball decides to swing but usually hes hopeless. The rest are hacks. Clark was a genuine top quality bowler who was somehow shafted for no apparent reason. Our selectors are good at that.

Our batsmen play like its a 20/20 and cant last more than 100 balls. Our best batsman is only a few years from retirement and out of form.

Im wondering if the current state of aussie cricket is as bad as it was in the mid 80s when AB took over and slowly led us out of the darkness.

Who will lead us now? Clark? AB was made of stone and a great player, Clark is too worried about his hair style and his gf. What a joke. We are in big trouble imo.

I think what always seperated us from the rest was our bowlers. It didnt matter if we got out for 200 because we could bowl them out for 150.

 

[Prince EWS]

In short, no.

 

[Arrow]

Why though?

 

[smash84]

This ashes series defeat was our worst since the 88/89 series against the windies in oz, when they beat us 3-1 but no innings defeats. This time we were basically destroyed, 3 innings defeats is the kind of stuff we used to do the the crap teams in our prime.

Our alleged best bowler johnson fires about once a series when the ball decides to swing but usually hes hopeless. The rest are hacks. Clark was a genuine top quality bowler who was somehow shafted for no apparent reason. Our selectors are good at that.

Our batsmen play like its a 20/20 and cant last more than 100 balls. Our best batsman is only a few years from retirement and out of form.

Im wondering if the current state of aussie cricket is as bad as it was in the mid 80s when AB took over and slowly led us out of the darkness.

Who will lead us now? Clark? AB was made of stone and a great player, Clark is too worried about his hair style and his gf. What a joke. We are in big trouble imo.

I think what always seperated us from the rest was our bowlers. It didnt matter if we got out for 200 because we could bowl them out for 150.

I think it is not as bad these days primarily because the batting is still better than what the aussies had in the mid 80s. It is about unearthing good bowling talent which, given australia's domestic ctructure, will be thrown up in time. It is not easy replacing bowlers like McGrath and Warne so it will take a bit of time but the batting is not so bad and the other teams are quite ****. So there is lots of hope for Aussies

 

[Teja.]

Jeez, You lost a series to a better team. The extent of the loss could have been reduced, perhaps if a few selectional decisions were taken rightly, but the loss was invertible. You don't have an ATG side anymore and losses will happen once in a while like they have been happening for every other team for the past decade. Live with it.

 

[robelinda]

Australia probably performed beyond expectations in 88/89. We actually didnt do all that bad considering our team. Several guys stood up against the mighty WI bowlers, and a few heroes were born. Steve Waugh finally showed some real guts, and was bouncing Viv like crazy, Merv Hughes really came of age with ball and once with the bat, Boon was solid, Dean Jones eventually got a game and got 216. We werent expected to to win anything, but came out really hardened and proceeded to hammer England into submission a few months later despite being called the weakest Aussie team to tour England. Very few of our buys in this recent Ashes have shown 20% the guts of the 88/89 team. Healy for one was not backing down one bit at the MCG facing a ball breaking barrage from Patterson.

 

[vcs]

3 innings defeats in one home series is a bit much though. I don't know about the 80's teams, but as someone pointed out in another thread, even Bangladesh would be disappointed with that.

 

[smash84]

Australia probably performed beyond expectations in 88/89. We actually didnt do all that bad considering our team. Several guys stood up against the mighty WI bowlers, and a few heroes were born. Steve Waugh finally showed some real guts, and was bouncing Viv like crazy, Merv Hughes really came of age with ball and once with the bat, Boon was solid, Dean Jones eventually got a game and got 216. We werent expected to to win anything, but came out really hardened and proceeded to hammer England into submission a few months later despite being called the weakest Aussie team to tour England. Very few of our buys in this recent Ashes have shown 20% the guts of the 88/89 team. Healy for one was not backing down one bit at the MCG facing a ball breaking barrage from Patterson.

That is what I usually love and hate about the usual aussie sides. They are the most grittiest bunch if cricketers ever.............this current side is not that gritty though............I think only Haddin and Hussey can be called tough cricketers in this side........no one like Steve Waugh or the likes of Langer around now

 

[0RI0N]

Aus need decent TW0 specialist openers...and soon.
Like Watson as a player, but he ain't a Test opener.
P Hughes...idk

 

[Ikki]

TBF, when you look at the team I don't see why it can't be #1.

Watson
Katich
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey
Khawaja
Haddin
Johnson
Siddle
Harris
Bollinger

We've got 4 pacers of good quality (2nd best averages in the last couple years I read) a good keeper/batsman and several batsman capable of (or are) averaging 50+. It shouldn't be as bad as it was in the Ashes.

 

[Ikki]

Aus need decent TW0 specialist openers...and soon.
Like Watson as a player, but he ain't a Test opener.
P Hughes...idk

Watson averages 50 as an opener. Although he regularly fails to capitalise on his starts.

Which would be better? 50, 50, 50, 50 or 100, 0, 100, 0 ?

 

[0RI0N]

Ikki, a 150+ every other series wouldn't be bad.
See Hayden, Langer: specialist openers scoring big... often.
Oh and 2 hundreds over 4 fifties anyday.

 

[BoyBrumby]

There are some parallels. Think both situations ultimately caused by the previous golden generations' star men mostly retiring within a couple of years of each other.

Back then the cupboard looked quite bare in terms of talent (ESPN Classic have shown quite a lot of the 86/87 series before & during the Ashes and I was struck by how ordinary the Oz team looked, with a few noteable exceptions) but ultimately the chaps in charge made the right calls and formed the nucleus of what became the best side in the world and, without hyperbole, arguably ever.

Now tho the selectors and coaches seem to be going out of their way to make the wrong calls. I believe the talent is there (seamers especially) but some hard choices need to be made and I don't think the men in charge have the gumption to do it.

 

[Furball]

Watson averages 50 as an opener. Although he regularly fails to capitalise on his starts.

Which would be better? 50, 50, 50, 50 or 100, 0, 100, 0 ?

100, 0. First innings runs are far more important to win games.

 

[Bun]

TBF, when you look at the team I don't see why it can't be #1.

Watson
Katich
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey
Khawaja
Haddin

TBF, when you look at the team I don't see why it can't be #1.

Watson
Katich
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey
Khawaja
Haddin
Johnson
Siddle
Harris
Bollinger

We've got 4 pacers of good quality (2nd best averages in the last couple years I read) a good keeper/batsman and several batsman capable of (or are) averaging 50+. It shouldn't be as bad as it was in the Ashes.

Ponting is declining sharply and by account of some may have even played his last test.

You don't possess World class fast bowlers to negate absence of a quality spinner especially while touring.

Australia fell from no.1 to no.5 in a matter of just two years. So it is not just an Ashes defeat either. Most of the bowlers have good figures because they dominated underperforming sides like Pakistan, WI NZ etc.

Australia can kiss goodbye to any hopes of no.1 till they can find a decent spinner. End of.

 

[Prince EWS]

100, 0. First innings runs are far more important to win games.

Haha, I don't think he quite meant it like that. Pretend they are all first innings scores if you must.

 

[marc71178]

So unlike Ikki to read past what actually goes on and just look at the stats.

 

[Ikki]

100, 0. First innings runs are far more important to win games.

My point wasn't about 1st innings runs mate. I mean, what do you take, 2 50s or 100 and a duck? It's the same average but what do you think helps more?

I think Watson is fine as an opener, but some may feel we are missing something without him capitalising on starts so often.

 

[Ikki]

Australia fell from no.1 to no.5 in a matter of just two years. So it is not just an Ashes defeat either. Most of the bowlers have good figures because they dominated underperforming sides like Pakistan, WI NZ etc.

Australia can kiss goodbye to any hopes of no.1 till they can find a decent spinner. End of.

They also did well against SA and England (2009 Ashes).

I disagree; the talent is there but the mental aspect is totally missing. There seems to be no cohesion and we look sloppy in the field as well. Test cricket is a weird sport; it's a really long game but one that can be decided if you do not perform in several key moments.

The last series was one of the worst we've ever had...but I don't think it represents how good even these bunch of players can be.

 

[Jono]

6 losses out of 8 tests does though.