Don’t despair, Australian cricket isn’t that bad
Roar Rookie
By simonjzw, 26 Aug 2009 simonjzw is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- Australian Cricket, Cricket, Stuart Clark, The Ashes
With the loss of the Ashes, we’re seeing the usual and expected recriminations and calling for heads to roll. Sells a few papers, but does it offer any substance?
Really, it’s not as if we were flogged in England. Actually the series was quite close.
I hated losing the Ashes and it hurts me to say it but full credit the English players who were able to find career best efforts when it mattered most. But does anyone really think they would beat us at home?
In the end, an inspired spell of fast bowling by Broad in the first innings of the last Test, a gritty performance by Panesar with the bat in the last innings of the first Test, a rock solid opening batsmen for most of the series, a good call of the coin toss in the last Test, and an uneven distribution of poor umpiring decisions all together took their toll.
If any one of those things doesn’t happen for England, we probably retain the Ashes. And maybe win the series.
We’ve all been spoiled by an era of cricketing greatness when we had three players who would make anyone’s greatest Australian XI of all time (Warne, Gilchrist and McGrath) another who would be a strong contender for that team (Hayden) and several other cricketers who were genuinely great players (Waugh, Ponting, Langer, to name a few).
With those players in the team, we were capable of dominating teams away from home.
The current Australian XI is a good team but not a great one, and in world Test cricket, where the home team enjoys a significant advantage, a good team playing away from home needs everything going its way to win.
We didn’t have that and we lost.
So where do we go from here?
With respect to the batting, we failed to record a significant opening partnership throughout the series. I don’t think Watson is the answer (too many small technical flaws to open at that level).
It’s not surprising that Hughes had a form slump, most promising young players do and I recall Ponting being dropped early in his career but let’s stick with him because no other opener in Australia has his potential.
And it’s time to find a replacement for Hussey.
If Watson’s body allows him to bowl maybe he could slot in down the order as an all rounder but otherwise I’d like to see us go for a young guy with talent that we can develop (someone like Klinger).
With respect to the bowling, everyone knows the first priority should be to find a spinner who can really turn the ball. But Hauritz did bowl well, better than I thought he could actually, and deserves to retain his place in the twelve until we find someone who can really threaten the opposition.
Our pace attack stands up well in comparison with any other the world today – we have a good mix of age and experience as well as considerable variety. Johnson could be more consistent and he has a worrying tendency to get too side-armed in his delivery action, but he’s menacing and dangerous when it’s all working for him.
Contrary to popular opinion, I don’t think the captain and selectors made too many mistakes with the bowling attack.
Surely you had to take the same pace bowling attack into the First Test as dominated in South Africa, and we very nearly won the First Test, so why make a change for the second?
Maybe Stuart Clark could have played in the Third Test, but I doubt that would have changed the overall result. And since the four pace bowlers got the required 20 wickets easily in the Fourth Test, I’d have stuck with them for the last Test.
So where does that leave us?
We’re still a good team. And we’ll be a very good team if we can unearth a good spinner and develop Hughes and young middle order batsmen.
But we’re no longer a great team. And whilst we’ll win at home more often than we lose, we won’t be able to dominate other good teams away from home like we have in our recent past.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Cricket articles
- What we do and don’t know about our Baggy Greens (112)
- Success of Twenty20 spells trouble for ODI cricket (106)
- Channel 9 commentators an annoyance this summer (102)
- One Day Cricket is suffering from Middle Child Syndrome (89)
- Cricket Australia must take a stand against racist spectators (89)
- Dave’s Warner-ful switch-hit panned by precious critics (84)
- Khawaja shouldn’t have been Shaun from the Test side (71)
- Mathews heroics almost shakes Clarke’s resolve
- Resurgent Pakistan inspire new generation to play
- Clarke stars as Australia beat Sri Lanka
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (197)
- Hall of Fame for Indian legend Gavaskar
- Sri Lanka to target ‘weak’ Aussie bowlers
- India backing Rohit Sharma to find form
- Resurgent Pakistan inspire new generation to play (0)
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (197)
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (6)
- Pakistan’s win over England a triumph of character (21)
- Steve Waugh is right about cricket’s succession plan (5)
- India vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (180)
- Let’s talk about selection, Test fans (28)
- Explore:
- Australian Cricket, Cricket, Stuart Clark, The Ashes
JR Salazar said | August 26th 2009 @ 3:43am | Report comment
Don’t kid yourself-you lot were horrible that fifth test. You guys are gonna have to make some serious shakeups for the next series. One more thing: James Sutherland’s remarks of backing Ponting up are ludicrous. Someone’s gonna have to take the fall and there will be shake-ups. The world will have ended if there isn’t any changes to knock some sense back into a side whose egos are tattered from a series like this.
Bigad said | August 27th 2009 @ 11:44am | Report comment
Dont’t kid yourself either. England were horrible in the 1st and 4th tests, and only good for one bowling innings int he 3rd.
Lem said | August 26th 2009 @ 9:37am | Report comment
The difference between the two teams was that when it really mattered Australia choked and England didn’t.
sheek said | August 26th 2009 @ 11:30am | Report comment
Two ridiculous responses (so far) to an insipid post anyway.
We should be more worried about the future of test cricket. When guys can make a fortune playing T20, without having to bother with a first class career, you know the long version of the game is in trouble.
stillmissit said | August 26th 2009 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
Sheek I agree –
Simon this is an unAustralian article you should be put up against a wall somewhere. If we are OK in the eyes of the general public then we are going down fast.
The only thing that can make me believe we are serious about this would be the heads of Sutherland, Ponting and Hilditch. We need a real hard Aussie cricket person to stand up, none of this mamsy pamsy feel good stuff.
Beardan said | August 26th 2009 @ 2:51pm | Report comment
This is a well written article that is very accurate. I still would have gone for Clark instead of Siddle first test but you can understand where those 4 knucklehead selectors were coming from. This article is fair and only critical (Watson and Hussey) where criticism was due. Excellent work. I will follow this author.
davido said | August 26th 2009 @ 3:35pm | Report comment
Well thought out article. Have we re-gained the underdog status again that Australians so desire?
sheek said | August 26th 2009 @ 6:23pm | Report comment
Simon,
I can be a “kick down the door instead of knock” kind of guy sometimes. By “insipid” I meant your article didn’t tell us much we already knew.
Yes, the media are off & frothing at the mouth like they usually do, & there’s too much over-reaction in some quarters. On the other hand, there are some long standing problems, especially with the development (not) of spinners. And the selection committee might be too fond of dinner parties!!
But cricket as a whole has some problems to deal with, I believe. Especially the homogenisation of teams at the expense of spinners, & creating pitches (in Australia especially) that no longer are unique from each other. Then there’s the impact of T20, which I think is very serious for world cricket.
Ponting remains the only option as skipper, & Hughes will come back better than ever. We lost the series because we didn’t grasp the key moments. But that’s been said by others already.
Whiteline said | August 26th 2009 @ 9:47pm | Report comment
Sheek
Correct, cricket is in trouble. especially in reference to tests/first class etc. Why the ICC hasn’t struck a deal with the IPL smacks of arrogance and ignorance.
A couple of things need to happen and fast. There needs to be an agreement between these groups along the follow lines
* A window created for IPL where no international cricket is played
* Players must be contracted to a state/county/provence/country in order to be eligible to play in the IPL – this will ensure the integrity of first class and the International program is maintained
Alas, it’s probably 2 years too late for this as the horse has bolted…. who knows where it will end up. I can tell you now that the traditional thinking of wanting to wear the ‘baggy green’ may well be different among the young kids of today playing in the under 11s ……
Viscount Crouchback said | August 27th 2009 @ 2:53am | Report comment
This is an eminently sensible article. Australian cricket remains fundamentally strong. You have the climate, the facilities, the public interest, the tradition of excellence – everything is in your favour.
The hysterical response to a close defeat speaks of a persistent and deep-seated national immaturity.
Colin N said | August 27th 2009 @ 5:25am | Report comment
“If any one of those things doesn’t happen for England, we probably retain the Ashes. And maybe win the series.”
That’s a stupid thing to say. It’s like me saying if England weren’t so bad at Headingly then England would have won 2-0, or if it hadn’t rained at Edgbaston, England would have won there.
You can look at the areas where things went wrong and had the selections been different etc etc. But, who knows if bringing in Hauritz would have improved things, but you can’t say, ‘had these specific things not happened then Australia would have won.’