• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Australia - are they simply too good?

James

Cricket Web Owner
There's been a lot of discussion around Australia's performance over the past 10 years and how they are simply so far in front of the nearest competition.

Do you:

a) Want to see them get worse by losing players to retirement, injury, etc
b) See the competition get better

I'm of the opinion that Australia being as good as they are is good for cricket. Why do some people think it's bad for cricket? It should surely force the competition to try and improve their game to match the Australian's; not result in comments wanting Australia to fall back into the pack.

Thoughts?
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
While seeing Australia below 1 is desirable for an Englishman like myself, it would obviously be best if this came about through a strengthening of the competition. I don't want to see their crown taken by default, I want to see it earned.
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
b) obviously. I want to watch the best quality of cricket possible, and that will be produced by the highest quality of teams possible.

I don't see them getting worse to a degree that other teams will be able to overtake them any time soon anyway - the Aussie system of recent years does seem to produce more players that are likely to be successful at the highest level than any other countries, and while they will decline in absolute terms with Warne and McGrath et al finishing, they will most likely continue to be clearly ahead of other teams.

The other teams will decline as their champs finish, and I don't think they have the systems to produce top-notch players as consistently as Australia. Both Pollock and Kallis are closer to the end of their careers than the start for SA, Tendulkar and Kumble are near the end of their careers for India, Lara has finished for the Windies, Jayasuriya is finishing for SL, and Vaas and Murali will likely finish within the next few years, so Australia is not unique in losing their long term champs...
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
So tempting. I actually typed up a post today, then decided not to post it in case Australia lost the final (in which case it'd cop lots of criticism despite it not really being intended as a "My team is better than your team" type post..). So I saved it up, deciding to post it if they did indeed win. This thread is really asking for it though. :p
 

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
the aussies are too good for everyone else...that's just the way it is irrespective of what happens in saturday's final...there's nothing bad with a team playing consistent outstanding cricket, it really shows other teams and fans the world over what they can achieve with talent, determination and will to win but one aspect to that is that whatever they have seen, no other team has come close to emulating far less surpassing the aussies...it's definitely not a lack of infrastructure or resources or even talent pool in many cases, so what is the difference? is it the mindset or attitude? what is it that has separated the aussies from the rest of the cricketing world in the past 10 years and continues to do so?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
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 immidiate future than there has been for most of the last 16 years.
 

Beleg

International Regular
Australia are good but not too good for everyone else. Specially in the ODI's.
 

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
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 immidiate future than there has been for most of the last 16 years.
...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...
 

nightprowler10

Global Moderator
Australia are good but not too good for everyone else. Specially in the ODI's.
Agree with that view tbh. They're not robots as some make them seem. Other teams just don't seem to bring their A-game when they play Australia, though I can see myself copping some heat for saying that.

EDIT: Reading that over it may seem like I'm taking away from the Aussies. I'm not. I still think Oz are best team in the world by a huge margin, but other teams just haven't played up to par against them.
 
Last edited:

howardj

International Coach
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.
 

Salamuddin

International Debutant
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

Cricket Web Staff Member
...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

Global Moderator
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.
 
Last edited:

Top