South Africa are the only ones who could challenge Australia

[Laurrz]

id say we could get in a tangle in the subcontinent...not sure on guys like Hussey and Symonds in the batting...thank god we got Pup wedged between them though

in the bowling.. you im not sure how the quicks would go...

last time we had McGrath, Gillespie, Kasprowicz... absolute perfect fast bowling attack for the subcontinent...

 

[bond21]

I never said i doubt if we could win, i said i want a challenge by an opposition team.

We beat Sri Lanka by an innings and 40 runs or something, how ridiculous is that?

In our first innings they only got 4 wickets and we declared for over 500.

I would love to see Dale Steyn bowling full pace at our batsmen, with Ntini and Nel aswell.

 

[bond21]

Hussey averages over 80 in test matches, hes got the 2nd highest average after 17 tests in history after Bradman.

And thats like saying noone wants to see Federer win every match he plays. But I would rather watch a 5 day thriller with a good opposition than a shooting gallery that was as good as finished after 3 days.

And I want Shane Bond to bowl to us, which he will in the Chappell Hadlee trophy unless hes still injured, because hes one of the best bowlers in the world and would be more of a challenge than Fernando's cafeteria bowling.

 

[silentstriker]

Do Australians really want their team to be dominant? I mean i am Australian but I couldn't care less if we get beaten occasionally, in fact I'd thoroughly enjoy it. Anyway, I wonder if we played this year in India if we would beat them? That is an interesting question.

I don't know - but I'd give the Aussies a better than even chance to do so. Unless of course we prepare turning tracks and go in with 2 spinners, in which case I'd back India to win or draw.

 

[silentstriker]

As professional players, it is their responsibility to try to win every game they play. However, in terms of the game, it is absolutely horrible for entertainment and long term prospect of the sport. The problem with Federer and Woods is that they are the best individuals, and they cross national boundaries so someone in UK can still be rooting for Woods. Here, the vast majority of cricket fans from outside Austrlia can only watch on in futility as their team gets demolished before the first day is over. And that's not the only thing - Woods and Federer don't win every tournament they play. Woods has lost more majors than he has won - so you know there is a good chance he will lose and other people have a shot.

No one has a shot when playing Australia, just like Bangladesh don't have a shot when they play anyone else. Exactly the same thing - there is nothing they can do about it but it absolutely hurts cricket long term. When people don't see competition - they tune out. Hell, I don't think there has been a more die-hard Test cricket fan than me, and even I am starting to tune out when Australia or Bangladesh take the field. Why do you think Ashes 2005 was such a big jolt to everyone in the world - including Australia? Fans want to see both sides compete and go for the win, and not one side fighting an already-lost battle to save the Test after two sessions of cricket.

 

[Richard]

^Absolutely.

 

[pasag]

I hate these kind of posts that make it seem like Australia is at fault for ruining world cricket. It's not, it's all the other sides that haven't been able to match Australia and grow and rise to the challenge. I'd look at their incompetencies first and argue it is they, in fact, who are ruining it, not Australia.

Come back to me when all other countries put up world class domestic infrastructures and programs and get rid of the insane corruptness of their boards. If Australia keep winning everything then, I'll give your point some credit. But you can't complain when Australia do everything right and then succeed.

 

[Richard]

No-one's blaming anyone in Australia - no-one's saying it's Australia who've done something wrong. Manan put it perfectly well:

As professional players, it is their responsibility to try to win every game they play.

We are simply commenting on the fact that Australia doing things better than other teams has made cricket, in the last 6 years or so, less watchable than it otherwise might have been. We're not saying they shouldn't have done this or anything.

Often, a statement of unfortunate fact can seem like a criticism. It's really, really not.

 

[sideshowtim]

I hate these kind of posts that make it seem like Australia is at fault for ruining world cricket. It's not, it's all the other sides that haven't been able to match Australia and grow and rise to the challenge. I'd look at their incompetencies first and argue it is they, in fact, who are ruining it, not Australia.

Come back to me when all other countries put up world class domestic infrastructures and programs and get rid of the insane corruptness of their boards. If Australia keep winning everything then, I'll give your point some credit. But you can't complain when Australia do everything right and then succeed.

Brilliant post mate, completely agree. It's kinda dumb how people see Australia as this big, bad, monster for ruining cricket. They haven't ruined cricket. If cricket has been ruined, it's been ruined by other countries not being up to our standards. And as you say, in many cases it's because of corrupt cricket boards etc...

People should see Australia as a benchmark and attempt to work to where we are, rather than lambast us for our success and whatnot...I firmly believe what we've set up is good for world cricket in that it's a prototype for other nations to work towards.

 

[Richard]

Let's hope so indeed. In the meantime, however, the reality is that there'll be a mismatch.

 

[silentstriker]

I hate these kind of posts that make it seem like Australia is at fault for ruining world cricket. It's not, it's all the other sides that haven't been able to match Australia and grow and rise to the challenge. I'd look at their incompetencies first and argue it is they, in fact, who are ruining it, not Australia.

Come back to me when all other countries put up world class domestic infrastructures and programs and get rid of the insane corruptness of their boards. If Australia keep winning everything then, I'll give your point some credit. But you can't complain when Australia do everything right and then succeed.

Three things:

1. They are this big monster thats ruining cricket.
2. If I was Cricket Australia, I would not do anything differently.
3. It is the other countries who are at fault for not investing their money the right way.

This is not mutually exclusive. Australia this far ahead is bad for cricket. But its certainly not their fault and it is their professional responsibility to put out the best team possible and do everything they can to remain dominant. I don't see why only one has to be true.

 

[pasag]

Three things:

1. They are this big monster thats ruining cricket.

1. 
   
   That's where I think you're totally wrong, the monster is not Australia, but the incompetencies of all other sides. When you say 'Australia this far ahead is bad for cricket.', no I would phrase that 'Other sides this far behind is bad for cricket'. I know you've included a heap of disclaimers in your post but I can't help but feel you still hold Australia responsible for this and not other sides. Like in the Official Thread a few days back you were upset at Australia for being good, why weren't you upset at Sri Lanka for being crap?
   
   If Tiger Woods trained like an animal and won every single tournament whilst all other players sat around drinking beer all day, would I have the tenacity to blame Tiger Woods for the state of golf? Look you can pick apart the example, but that is what I feel you and some in the media recently have been doing.

 

[silentstriker]

I know you've included a heap of disclaimers in your post but I can't help but feel you still hold Australia responsible for this and not other sides.

Well, they are responsible for being that good and investing in all the right places. However, they did what they should have done, and the other corrupt boards didn't so CA is reaping the benefits while the others are not.

Like in the Official Thread a few days back you were upset at Australia winning, why weren't you upset at Sri Lanka for losing?

That would be like being upset at my little sister for losing to Mohammad Ali in a heavyweight championship.

If Tiger Woods trained like an animal and won every single tournament whilst all other players sat around drinking beer all day, would I have the tenacity to blame Tiger Woods for the state of golf?

He'd be equally responsible for making golf uncompetitive. That doesn't mean he did anything wrong - and hopefully it would make other players get off their bums and work harder. Unfortunately, that isn't happening in cricket (which is the fault of the other boards, not CA).

 

[silentstriker]

And in fact that is what happened with Woods - and he is personally responsible for raising the fitness levels of those on the tour.

 

[Ikki]

Sorry SS, by saying Australia are equally responsible you are in essense implying a duty for Australia to keep Cricket competitive. There is no duty of such sort.

 

[silentstriker]

Sorry SS, by saying Australia are equally responsible you are in essense implying a duty for Australia to keep Cricket competitive. There is no duty of such sort.

Um? What? Didn't I specifically say they have the duty to be as good as they can?

Well, they are responsible for being that good and investing in all the right places. However, they did what they should have done.

As professional players, it is their responsibility to try to win every game they play.

If I was Cricket Australia, I would not do anything differently.

But its certainly not their fault and it is their professional responsibility to put out the best team possible and do everything they can to remain dominant.

Do you want me to say it one more time? They are doing all the right things and they should continue to do them because it is their job to be the best they can be.


I'll say it again if you want.

 

[pasag]

Well, they are responsible for being that good and investing in all the right places. However, they did what they should have done, and the other corrupt boards didn't so CA is reaping the benefits while the others are not. As teams, they are not in the same class.

---

That would be like being upset at my little sister for losing to Mohammad Ali in a heavyweight championship.

---

He'd be equally responsible for making golf uncompetitive. That doesn't mean he did anything wrong - and hopefully it would make other players get off their bums and work harder. Unfortunately, that isn't happening in cricket (which is the fault of the boards, not CA).

Exactly, which brings me back to my original post - If 'they are responsible for being that good and investing in all the right places,' then other sides are equally if not more so, irresponsible for not being that good and not investing in the right places. And then as you rightfully say 'which is the fault of the boards, not CA' so then I'd continue to ask why people make it about Australia and not the others for winning so much.

Look, to expand on my point and I don't mean to open a can of worms here but if things were different and India had 11 Tendulkar-quality like players in their national side and many more waiting in the ranks on top of a brilliant system with heaps of natural talent with billions of dollars and they won match after match, and other sides did everything right as well but couldn't compete, then yeah, I'd agree if people thought they were ruining cricket.

However, other sides can do everything Australia has done, there is little stopping them. Australia's population is smaller and they don't have the money that others do but they manage to stay dominant. Now until other sides start getting their act together and follow Australia's lead, you'll get no sympathy from me about Australia supposedly ruining cricket.

 

[Ikki]

Um? What? Didn't I specifically say they have the duty to be as good as they can?

That is a separate duty, that is to themselves.

But when you say they are 'responsible' for the gap in cricket today, it implies a duty between Australia and other nations, of which there is none.

 

[silentstriker]

Exactly, which brings me back to my original post - If 'they are responsible for being that good and investing in all the right places,' then other sides are equally if not more so, irresponsible for not being that good and not investing in the right places.

I agree. You thought I disagreed here?

And then as you rightfully say 'which is the fault of the boards, not CA' so then I'd continue to ask why people make it about Australia and not the others for winning so much.

Because Aussies are the exception, and without them, the international game would be more competitive. I would say that Yankees are ruining baseball because they have such an advantage in terms of payroll (assuming they actually won due to the payroll). But you can't blame Steinbrenner because he is operating within the rules to put out the best team he possibly can to satisfy his fans. That's not his fault. Either the MLB should do something or the other teams have to find a way to spend more. That doesn't mean they are any less responsible (or, that everyone else is any less irresponsible).

Look, to expand on my point and I don't mean to open a can of worms here but if things were different and India had 11 Tendulkar-quality like players in their national side and many more waiting in the ranks on top of a brilliant system with heaps of natural talent with billions of dollars and they won match after match, and other sides did everything right as well but couldn't compete, then yeah, I'd agree if people thought they were ruining cricket.

Yes, it would be the same thing in terms of outcomes.

However, other sides can do everything Australia has done, there is little stopping them. Australia's population is smaller and they don't have the money that others do but they manage to stay dominant. Now until other sides start getting their act together and follow Australia's lead, you'll get no sympathy from me about Australia supposedly ruining cricket.

Well, no other country except India has more money - but thats not the point anyway. And the fault lies with other countries for not catching up, that's obvious. But until they catch up, Australian games are bad for the sport. If you prefer, I'll say it this way: All the boards except Australia are ruining cricket for failing to invest and nurture their talent the way Australain board has done. To me it's the same thing, and I didn't mean it any other way.

With that said, it comes down to (at a practical level):

Games involving Australia = mostly bad.
Games not involving Australia = mostly competitive.

 

[silentstriker]

That is a separate duty, that is to themselves.

But when you say they are 'responsible' for the gap in cricket today, it implies a duty between Australia and other nations, of which there is none.

No, it does not. Scaly does not have a duty to the other contestants on Countdown to be competitive with them - he can blow them out because he is good enough to do so. But the viewers can also turn it off because it may not be fun watching the same bloke destroy people (assuming they didn't have a cap like they do).

In the NFL, the Patriots do not have a responsibility to the other teams to lose games. That's absurd. I am neither implying nor saying such a thing.