Rank the Aussie achievements

[Slifer]

In my lifetime of watching cricket for better or for worst, Australia has been far and away the best team. In my lifetime (early 80s til now) theyve achieved some pretty unparalleled stuff. My question then is where do we rank some of these achievements. I'm particularly interested in the opinions of Australians. Here aren't achievements that stand out for me in no particular order:

1. Winning 16 tests in a row (twice)
2. Winning away to India in 2004
3. Winning WC in 1987
4. Beating the WI away in 1995
5. White washing England in 2006 after losing the ashes
6. Consecutive ODI wins...21
7. Something else??

For me, two under rated Aussie achievements have to be white washing SL away in 2004 and white washing South Africa away in 2006.

 

[Dan]

I'd add the three WC wins in a row in 1999, 2003 and 2007 to that list, plus whatever the consecutive number of WC game wins was.

 

[TheJediBrah]

3 World Cup wins in a row, 2 of them that they went through unbeaten would be top of the list.

Also winning every Ashes series for 2 decades

 

[Slifer]

3 World Cup wins in a row, 2 of them that they went through unbeaten would be top of the list.

Also winning every Ashes series for 2 decades

You know I actually thought about the consecutive WC wins. And I originally was going to include them. So yeah, add in the 3 WC wins. How do Aussies rank all these achievements

 

[stephen]

It's hard to rank them because they were largely all a part of the same movement.

The away win against the WI in 1995 really kicked it off. In my mind the achievements of that team in both LO and test cricket between 1995 and 2007 all bled into each other.

The 1999 world cup win was a bit of a highlight though because half a dozen sides were genuinely capable of winning that cup. It was the capstone on the greatest and most competitive era of ODI cricket in history.

But the test achievements in particular are hard to distinguish from each other because they're all so special. Conquering the final frontier in 2004 was just as satisfying as crushing the poms in 06/07.

I guess Johnson's ashes and the 2015 world cup were quite special as well since in both cases we didn't have that ridiculous golden age team.

 

[honestbharani]

I think the series win in 2004 was amazing stuff by the Aussies coz they had to play a totally different style of cricket to get it done. I don't think I have seen that kind of gumption again from them till 2017 series in India but the 2004 side just had more quality and the 2017 Indian side was also in better form.

That 3-0 win in SL after I think conceding first innings leads every game was something else too. Had God mode Warne but really the role of someone like Kasper is extremely under rated. Murali was done in by the lack of back up from his side while Warne reaped the rewards for playing with good bowlers who could stick to a plan. Same with the Aussie batting too. In many ways the 2004 India win was an extension of their good work in SL. The other achievements were awesome too, but these stand out simply because I think these were the hardest they had to work for.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think the series win in 2004 was amazing stuff by the Aussies coz they had to play a totally different style of cricket to get it done. I don't think I have seen that kind of gumption again from them till 2017 series in India but the 2004 side just had more quality and the 2017 Indian side was also in better form.

That 3-0 win in SL after I think conceding first innings leads every game was something else too. Had God mode Warne but really the role of someone like Kasper is extremely under rated. Murali was done in by the lack of back up from his side while Warne reaped the rewards for playing with good bowlers who could stick to a plan. Same with the Aussie batting too. In many ways the 2004 India win was an extension of their good work in SL. The other achievements were awesome too, but these stand out simply because I think these were the hardest they had to work for.

Excellent metric to judge by.

It's true the 2007 World Cup in particular felt like it was not even slightly challenging.

 

[Burgey]

WI 95 was the hardest thing they had worked for. Miles harder than the India series.

 

[TheJediBrah]

WI 95 was the hardest thing they had worked for. Miles harder than the India series.

I wasn't around for '95 but I do recall the '04 India and it didn't seem like a huge challenge. More so it was treated that way because they hadn't won there recently but they won the actual cricket relatively comfortably.

 

[h_hurricane]

All of these are great achievements. Just to throw something before my lifetime, Bradman's invincibles finishing the 1948 series without losing a match on the tour.

 

[Kirkut]

WI 95 was the hardest thing they had worked for. Miles harder than the India series.

I would agree, but if Australia had won in India in the 1990s then that may have been ranked above the 95 win in WI. The 1990s Indian pitches were hardest for non Asian teams due to very low bounce, after 2000 the pitches were spin friendly but with decent bounce and today the pitches are a joke for spinners.

 

[Burgey]

Nah, tbh before 2001 I can honestly say no one here really rated winning in India as a priority. Even in the lead up to the 98 series, there was no mention of the fact Aus hadn't won there since 1970 (not that they toured there very often). That great 2001 series really gave birth to the rivalry and the desire for that squad to win over there.

Aus didn't tour for ten years after 69-70, and when they did it was a non-WSC outfit. Then we had a tour around 83 or 84 followed by that great Tied Test series in 1986, and it was another ten years before we went here for a one off test, followed by the series a year or so later when Tendulkar took on Warne so brilliantly. Weird the touring schedule was so sporadic in that period, but at least we get regular test series home and away now.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I had no idea that Aus had toured India so infrequently. Puts "not winning there in 30 years" into perspective a bit.

 

[Burgey]

Tbf it's probably a good thing we didn't tour there that often given the sides we had between 83 and 88. I think if Aus was going to go there and do decently it wouldhave needed to be a late Border era side - one with Taylor, Slater, Boon and both Waughs with May and Warne the likely spinners - possibly Mo Matthews as the all rounder. I only say that because Border was an awesome player of spin - if he splits the Waughs at number five it's a much better middle order than the guys who immediately followed him anywhere, let alone in those conditions.

 

[honestbharani]

WI 95 was the hardest thing they had worked for. Miles harder than the India series.

I have not watched that series except odd YouTube clips. So can only comment on the series I saw. I do know it was a big deal based on how it was reported in India in the newspapers back then.

 

[honestbharani]

Tbf it's probably a good thing we didn't tour there that often given the sides we had between 83 and 88. I think if Aus was going to go there and do decently it wouldhave needed to be a late Border era side - one with Taylor, Slater, Boon and both Waughs with May and Warne the likely spinners - possibly Mo Matthews as the all rounder. I only say that because Border was an awesome player of spin - if he splits the Waughs at number five it's a much better middle order than the guys who immediately followed him anywhere, let alone in those conditions.

Our batting line up in the mid 90s was awesome against spin. But I think that Aussie batting line up would have done well against whatever was our spin trio circa 93-96. Definitely expect Boon and Slater would have succeeded with their styles. Steve Waugh pre 95 may have struggled though.

 

[Line and Length]

All of these are great achievements. Just to throw something before my lifetime, Bradman's invincibles finishing the 1948 series without losing a match on the tour.

"Bradman's War" by Malcolm Knox is an eyeopener.

 

[vcs]

Nah, tbh before 2001 I can honestly say no one here really rated winning in India as a priority. Even in the lead up to the 98 series, there was no mention of the fact Aus hadn't won there since 1970 (not that they toured there very often). That great 2001 series really gave birth to the rivalry and the desire for that squad to win over there.

Aus didn't tour for ten years after 69-70, and when they did it was a non-WSC outfit. Then we had a tour around 83 or 84 followed by that great Tied Test series in 1986, and it was another ten years before we went here for a one off test, followed by the series a year or so later when Tendulkar took on Warne so brilliantly. Weird the touring schedule was so sporadic in that period, but at least we get regular test series home and away now.

Yeah. BCCI had a weird hardon for Sharjah and other assorted tri-series in that decade. In hindsight, we were robbed of seeing a lot more of prime Tendulkar playing more Test cricket against Ambose, Walsh, Donald, Pollock, McGrath, Warne, Wasim, Waqar etc. We'd likely have got whupped by most of those teams that decade though, with Tendulkar playing a lone hand. We faced England in just three Test series throughout the '90s. I think we played WI only twice, one of them being a complete damp squib in around '97. We played a lot of ODI tri-series involving Pakistan but no Tests besides '99, I don't know if there were political issues. Weird.

 

[Line and Length]

Any Ashes win in England is an achievement as is any win against WI in their prime. Ranking them is too hard.

 

[Burgey]

The 89 Ashes series was awesome because it was pretty unexpected by most. Sure the ban on the rebel players were over which gave us Clem back but it was a surprise when all of Waugh, Taylor, Boon, Jones and Healy just clicked at once and Lawson and Alderman bowled like it was 1981 again all of a sudden. Which they needed to given McDermott lost all form and wasn’t picked, and Reid was injured as always

Was such a vindication of everything AB and Simmo had done