Australia - are they simply too good?

[Salamuddin]

Originally Posted by howardj

Yes we're too good. However, it's not all down to cricket ability. For mine, even putting aside their cricketing ability, West Indies, Pakistan, India and England totally lack stomach for the fight. Moreover, there's no desperation to want to get better.

I remember Australia, after their Ashes defeat in 2005, there was incredible purpose - an honest, total post mortem and, coming out of that, there was real resolve to address their weaknesses that had been laid bare in England. By contrast, there's very little of that same purpose, that same desperation to address your deficiencies, among other international sides.

In short, they don't even give themselves a chance by showing up prepared and resolute.

Yeah I agree......It's Australia's sheer willpower and motivation that makes them stand out from their peers.
I don't see that same determination in any other nation.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Anil

...but when teams are as good as the windies of the 80s and the early 90s and these aussies, we don't really see the other teams come up to that level, do we? my question is why can't they? i haven't seen any clear-cut answer...we saw the windies decline and your opinion is that the aussies will decline as well...might happen but i don't see it happening soon anyway...

Because such levels are near enough the realistic pinnacle of what can be achieved.

To expect more than 1 team to reach this at the same time is unlikely to say the least.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Richard

The way I see it they are going to get worse... that's just the way it goes. It does exasperate me when you get tournaments like this WC where they just bulldoze near enough everything, but that's the game I suppose.

West Indies 1976-1986 were no different really. Though of course Global coverage and general awareness was much, much lesser in those days.

Cricket is a cyclical game. People can only be as good as Australia have been for almost all the last 16 years for a finite time. That time may be about to come to an end for Australia, it may not. There's certainly more of a chance of it in the immediate future than there has been for most of the last 16 years.

Obviously they will get worse. As you said, cricket is cyclical - each team goes through a phase of establishing its lineup, experimenting and finding the best possibly combination. Then it goes through a phase of reaping the benefits - trying out that combination against the other teams who may still be in experimental phases, while occasionally making minor changes based on performances at domestic at international level.

But, the question is - just how much worse will Australia get? And for how long? Personally, I don't think they'll decline enough to be knocked out of say, the top 3, for a very long time unless the other teams improve. While the cyclical nature of cricket may see a team like New Zealand range from 8th to 3rd - I think Australia may just find themselves ranging between ridiculously dominant and 3rd. For the very structure that Australian cricket is built on is what is makes Australian cricket so great - not a freak bunch of superbly talented players. People like Warne, McGrath, Ponting and Gilchrist do indeed fit into the latter group, however they have simply been the difference between Australia dominating and Australia just being a good team. Players like this come along quite randomly and you can't rely on them - all countries will have great, naturally talented players in them at one stage or another - but it's the development and success of players like Damien Martyn, Jason Gillespie, Darren Lehmann, Justin Langer, Michael Kasprowicz etc etc that really sets Australia apart from other countries at the moment. For you see - these players aren't "flukes" - they weren't lucky guesses, or plucked out of obscurity based on rare talent. They were just good players at first class level as a result and a product of Australia's exceptional development system at junior levels and strong, competitive first class structure. There are few flaws in the system - if you're a good player, you simply progress through all the grades right down from your local club to playing for your country. Bias is minimal, and any players with talent are generally spotted early and developed from a fairly young age. And even if not, they still manage to pop up in first class cricket and develop there. Now, just from doing a fair bit of reading, the only country that comes anywhere close to reaching Australia's professionalism in junior cricket and first class domestic structure is New Zealand - which would explain their continually good performances at international level despite having a very small player pool.

Whether you like it or not, Australia are going to keep producing the Damien Martyns and Jason Gillespies of the world by the hatful - in fact, there have been quite a few come and go recently that simply haven't got a look in who would have done just a good a job - the Hussey case backing this up perfectly. Guys like Martin Love, Brad Hodge, Andy Bichel and Simon Katich got limited opportunities but showed essentially the same. Unless other countries can find an answer to players of this calibre by improving their own lower levels structure, Australia will continue to have a very good side even at its lowest points. Losing Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist etc is always going to send a side into decline, however I feel the decline will be fairly minimal in the grand scheme of things.

[pasag]

Afridi imo.

[Prince EWS]

Waited six hours to post it too!

[cover drive man]

I'd like to see the competion get better a lot of teams have the potential to beat Australia.

[Triple Crown]

Australia has an advantage because its one of the few countries where Football is not king. Several sports all have a fairly even footing.

For example, in England, all the best athletes want to play football because the pay is so much better.

But in Australia, a top class cricketer will make as much or more money than an AFL player, Rugby League/Union player or A-League footballer.

India is another example of a country where cricket is king but its fair to say that India seems to always underperform anyway.

In NZ, everyone wants to play Rugby, its the national sport.

In the west indies football is as popular as cricket. You can be like Dwight Yorke & co and earn millions, WI cricketers earn peanuts in comparison.

But cricket is also ingrained into Australia's psyche. There's a saying that the 2nd most important person in Aust after the Prime Minister is the Australian Cricket Captain. And its very true. Australia's captains are like Monarchs. They don't chop & change them. They say in charge for years and years at a time. It creates and maintains stability upon which the sport prospers. Every kid at some point wants to play cricket for Australia.

But quite simply, the talent spotting & development of Oz cricketers is 2nd to none. The best coaches, the best facilities, very high standard club and 1st class cricket comps, and on top of that, they don't get the talent pool excessively raided by footy codes like other countries.

[The_Bunny]

Originally Posted by Triple Crown

Australia has an advantage because its one of the few countries where Football is not king. Several sports all have a fairly even footing.

For example, in England, all the best athletes want to play football because the pay is so much better.

But in Australia, a top class cricketer will make as much or more money than an AFL player, Rugby League/Union player or A-League footballer.

India is another example of a country where cricket is king but its fair to say that India seems to always underperform anyway.

In NZ, everyone wants to play Rugby, its the national sport.

In the west indies football is as popular as cricket. You can be like Dwight Yorke & co and earn millions, WI cricketers earn peanuts in comparison.

But cricket is also ingrained into Australia's psyche. There's a saying that the 2nd most important person in Aust after the Prime Minister is the Australian Cricket Captain. And its very true. Australia's captains are like Monarchs. They don't chop & change them. They say in charge for years and years at a time. It creates and maintains stability upon which the sport prospers. Every kid at some point wants to play cricket for Australia.

But quite simply, the talent spotting & development of Oz cricketers is 2nd to none. The best coaches, the best facilities, very high standard club and 1st class cricket comps, and on top of that, they don't get the talent pool excessively raided by footy codes like other countries.

A Cricket player may make more money but AFL is still far more popular with young people.....

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by The_Bunny

A Cricket player may make more money but AFL is still far more popular with young people.....

Really? Do you mean in terms of interest or participation? I'd have thought cricket would've edged Aussie Rules in terms of interest at least because it's a truly national sport, whereas AFL isn't the dominant football code in 2 of the 3 biggest states (in terms of population).

[Ikki]

Yes, we are too good. It's simple, but hey.

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

Really? Do you mean in terms of interest or participation? I'd have thought cricket would've edged Aussie Rules in terms of interest at least because it's a truly national sport, whereas AFL isn't the dominant football code in 2 of the 3 biggest states (in terms of population).

Well, its footy (either AFL or league) in winter and cricket in summer, so most kids don't choose until near the end of school tbh. Cricket has the advantage of being the only real national sport here, besides soccer which is growing but still small. In Victoria at least, AFL is king and most people care more about their footy team than the cricket. But as soon as the footy is done for the year, cricket is king.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Matt79

Well, its footy (either AFL or league) in winter and cricket in summer, so most kids don't choose until near the end of school tbh. Cricket has the advantage of being the only real national sport here, besides soccer which is growing but still small. In Victoria at least, AFL is king and most people care more about their footy team than the cricket. But as soon as the footy is done for the year, cricket is king.

That's more-or-less what I meant. People in Vic may care more about their footy team, but I'd guess a fair % still take an interest in cricket & you could probably say the same thing about League fans in NSW. I'd just have thought more people took an interest in cricket across Oz than any of the football codes.

[Triple Crown]

At the moment cricket seems to be the only sport that truly unifies Australians however the Socceroos have really shaken things up recently, and they seem to have replaced the Wallabies as the nation's most popular national footy team.

But Aussies love cricket, and I reckon most Aussies can love the cricket AND their favourite footy team, rather than have to choose between them.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Obviously they will get worse. As you said, cricket is cyclical - each team goes through a phase of establishing its lineup, experimenting and finding the best possibly combination. Then it goes through a phase of reaping the benefits - trying out that combination against the other teams who may still be in experimental phases, while occasionally making minor changes based on performances at domestic at international level.

But, the question is - just how much worse will Australia get? And for how long? Personally, I don't think they'll decline enough to be knocked out of say, the top 3, for a very long time unless the other teams improve. While the cyclical nature of cricket may see a team like New Zealand range from 8th to 3rd - I think Australia may just find themselves ranging between ridiculously dominant and 3rd. For the very structure that Australian cricket is built on is what is makes Australian cricket so great - not a freak bunch of superbly talented players. People like Warne, McGrath, Ponting and Gilchrist do indeed fit into the latter group, however they have simply been the difference between Australia dominating and Australia just being a good team. Players like this come along quite randomly and you can't rely on them - all countries will have great, naturally talented players in them at one stage or another - but it's the development and success of players like Damien Martyn, Jason Gillespie, Darren Lehmann, Justin Langer, Michael Kasprowicz etc etc that really sets Australia apart from other countries at the moment. For you see - these players aren't "flukes" - they weren't lucky guesses, or plucked out of obscurity based on rare talent. They were just good players at first class level as a result and a product of Australia's exceptional development system at junior levels and strong, competitive first class structure. There are few flaws in the system - if you're a good player, you simply progress through all the grades right down from your local club to playing for your country. Bias is minimal, and any players with talent are generally spotted early and developed from a fairly young age. And even if not, they still manage to pop up in first class cricket and develop there. Now, just from doing a fair bit of reading, the only country that comes anywhere close to reaching Australia's professionalism in junior cricket and first class domestic structure is New Zealand - which would explain their continually good performances at international level despite having a very small player pool.

Whether you like it or not, Australia are going to keep producing the Damien Martyns and Jason Gillespies of the world by the hatful - in fact, there have been quite a few come and go recently that simply haven't got a look in who would have done just a good a job - the Hussey case backing this up perfectly. Guys like Martin Love, Brad Hodge, Andy Bichel and Simon Katich got limited opportunities but showed essentially the same. Unless other countries can find an answer to players of this calibre by improving their own lower levels structure, Australia will continue to have a very good side even at its lowest points. Losing Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist etc is always going to send a side into decline, however I feel the decline will be fairly minimal in the grand scheme of things.

I don't disagree with a word of that (except possible the implication that Martyn was a top-of-the-middle-of-the-road player - I'd not be amazed if he'd had no Test career to speak of should he have been born 3 years earlier. That's not a certainty, mind - he could perfectly possibly have done).

Never reckon Bichel would have been much of an international bowler, either. And I wait to see about Johnson, Tait et al.

But indeed - just look back in Test history and see when Australia weren't 1st or 2nd? About the only time when you could say such a thing 100% conclusively was the 1984-1988\89 period, when the side was considerably weakened by rebel-tours. The only other times might have been the mid-1950s and early 1970s, but even then it's wholly debatable.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by pasag

Afridi imo.

and yes, I agree.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Triple Crown

India is another example of a country where cricket is king but its fair to say that India seems to always underperform anyway.

No, it's just India's population is unreprisentative of the amount of people who actually play.

As Manan is so fond of pointing-out.