Lamenting the end of a great cricketing era
Roar Pro By Mr Sports, 9 Dec 2009 Mr Sports is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- Australian Cricket, Cricket, West Indies cricket
As I watched the live scorecard from Adelaide barely moving throughout my work day on Tuesday, an unsettling realisation settled in my stomach: this Australian cricket team is ordinary.
The confluence of greatness that I enjoyed throughout my formative years (I am now 26) has now been irretrievably lost.
I do not mean to say that the Australian team is bad, for it is patently obvious that they are still a very good outfit. My point is that they are no different to South Africa or India or England (well, maybe a little different to England because we don’t steal all our players from South Africa).
On average, Australia is no better or worse than any of those teams.
The Australian team used to win all of its home series and most of the away series. Now we would only barely start as favourite at home to India and might even be underdogs to the Proteas.
The worst part of it all though isn’t simply losing games. It isn’t even letting a piddling little thing like the fourth highest chase in Australian cricket history deter us from chasing a win.
No, the worst part is that there is not a single intimidating player left in the Australian team. There is nobody left with the unmistakable ‘turn a game in a session’ potential.
During the Waugh and early Ponting eras, Australia had nearly half a dozen players who were a legitimate threat to swing a Test match in a single session. Hayden, Gilchrist and the younger Ponting could all do it with the bat, and McGrath and Warne could do it with the ball.
Sure, Ricky Ponting still has the gift, and he may well turn a few Test matches yet in the same way that Lara did for several years and Tendulkar is still (barely) doing.
But on the whole, he seems much like Obi Wan Kenobi standing on the Death Star flight deck: skills diminished and focused only on securing the next generation.
Aside from the fading skills of one master, what else do opposition teams need to worry about?
None of the other batsman are at all scary. There isn’t a single West Indian cricket fan who sees Marcus North or Mike Hussey walk out to bat and who sits up a little straighter in their chair and thinks, “better get this bloke early or we’re in trouble.”
Let me be clear on this point, though. All six of Australia’s top order, and Brad Haddin for that matter, are fine batsman with Test match level ability.
However, none of them have any explosiveness. When Matthew Hayden walked out to bat on day one, everybody in the ground knew it was possible that he would be 140 not out at the tea break, and just winding up. When Shane Watson walks out to bat, Australian cricket fans just hope we get off to a good start.
Sadly, the bowling is in even worse shape.
Certainly Mitchell Johnson does have the ability to run through a team and get a 7 for 40 or something like that. However, since leaving the Republic in February, he has seemed just as likely to get 1 for 70.
As for the rest, Peter Siddle is widely respected for being a ‘tryer’ but it has been a long time since we’ve had to rely on tryers to open the bowling. Everybody else, from Bollinger to Hilfenhaus to McKay and beyond, are just ‘potential.’
During the era of dominance, nobody had to ask why we were picking a bloke.
These days, the selectors and the mainstream media have to justify every selection: “well, this bloke gets a bit of swing” and “this bloke is really tall so he should be able to get some bounce.”
You know why we picked Jason Gillespie? Because he was good and he got wickets. Nothing more was said and nothing more was needed.
It is a sad state of affairs for those of us raised on win after win after win. Regrettably, I bring no solutions to the table. I can share only my discontent and sorrow.
The era of dominance has passed. The Australian team will, for the foreseeable future, be ordinary. Just like everybody else.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Australian Cricket, Cricket, West Indies cricket
December 9th 2009 @ 10:38am
Justin said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:38am | Report comment
I wrote this on another thread. Only looking at players currently fit. I am a big fan of Ferguson but you wont see him for a year…
The selectors have created a situation they are going to find hard to get out of. They have made it clear that certain players are up to it and certain others arent. The problem is they have got the players the wrong way around.
The players they think are up to it –
Watson (as an opener this is). Since when in the history of Tests has an all-rounder been an opening batsmen? As he showed in Adelaide he is a more than useful bowler (swing and pace). Yes he is performing OK with the bat but he would be better for AUS in the middle order. They are exhausting a player who has a horrendous history of injury, its a matter of time before the burden gets too much (in fact I think he may have some sort of stomach strain now). We have an abundance of openers (which I will mention later).
Hussey – a great period of 4-5 years is over, he should have been dumped in England. He is struggling against some average bowling. 70 runs off 200 balls in Adelaide on a terrific batting wicket. The 100 he got in England had more chances than I care to remember, he was bloody lucky and looked all at sea in Brisbane also. Seems to be nicking gentle seamers behind the wicket every other day. Why he is batting at 4 also I will never know. Clarke has been so superior to him over the past 18-24 months its not funny and he is much more fluent. Averaging around 35 for the past 2 years and importantly his strike rate is down by 10 in this period.
Hauritz – Another player who while not playing badly is just not up to it. He has little penetration in Tests when players dont have to go after him. Does he even attempt to spin the ball? Give it a bloody rip Nate, it might turn for you one day. Another great opportunity in Adelaide to make a statement and we got 2-180! He might have got a few in Brisbane but the WI were not ready for a Test match. He has only 3 top 6 wickets so far this series. The guy has NEVER taken 5 wickets in an inning in first class cricket! He averages 45 in FCC!
Now the guys who should be in for the above – we only need to find 2 players as Watson should bat at 6.
For openers there are numerous contenders. Now if someone mentioned to you there was a 20yr who had played 30 first class matches at nearly 60 with a similar strike rate you would have them in the side. If that same player averaged 52 with a sr of 59 in Tests with 2 tons and a fifty, all AWAY from home, would you really drop him?
Yes PJ Hughes should be opening for AUS and should never have been dropped. He should have been reinstated for this series. The selectors may have stuffed him for the next few years as he is seemingly struggling to figure out which way to play. I say play the way you were and slowly but surely work on that short ball. I would have him in the ODI side too, Shaun Marsh is overrated.
If you dont want Hughes then how about Chris Rogers or Phil Jaques, both average over 50 in domestic cricket.
I still think Jason Kraja? is the man to take the spin role. Anyone who takes 12 wickets v India in India must be worth persisting with. He is a huge turner of the ball, unlike Hauritz and has become more economical since he has been dropped. Has 13 wickets so far in SS this year, decent with the bat and excellent in the field. Dropped after not producing on a road in Perth v SA. There are some younger potential spinners in the wing like Holland and Smith but they need another couple of years by the looks of them.
The team has become defensive also, our rr has been down so these changes will give us more runs and more time to bowl the opposition out. With more runs and time attacking bowlers like JK can come into their own.
Unfortunately I am not confident in the selectors doing much about it. How CA gave Hilditch another 2 years beggars belief!
December 9th 2009 @ 12:03pm
vinay verma said | December 9th 2009 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
Good points,Justin. I agree Watson is better suited down the order.And Rogers would be ahead of Hughes on weight of recent runs.
Not convinced about Krezja. You say he is now more economical but he hasn’t taken a five for in shield this year and unless he takes a few bagfuls Hauritz for mine has the inside running. Hauritz is as good in the field and scored a fifty in the Brisbane Test.
Justin the Adelaide pitch was at its best for batting on days one and two. Australia’s opening stand of 174 0n day 2 was at over 4 runs an over. The pitch then went to sleep on days three and four and the ball was not coming on to the bat.It was not a raging turner either as neither Benn or Hauritz got a wicket in the second innings. Siddle at half pace was ineffectual and this handicapped the rest. Bollinger tried hard and was hitting the bat hard. He will get better.They did miss the genuine swing of Hilfenhaus who seems to have Gayle figured out.
Mindset is important,too. In Brisbane Australia were out for the kill and the Windies had no preparation. Perhaps in Adelaide Australia relaxed and the Windies lifted. This happens in sport.You have to be up for the challenge every day of a Test match.All said and done the summer is alive and Australia have to be on their game to win in Perth and then doubly so to overpower a Pakistan side full of good fastmen and capable spinners. Pakistan are weak in the opening batting and that is where they look most vulnerable.
December 9th 2009 @ 12:16pm
Justin said | December 9th 2009 @ 12:16pm | Report comment
Vinay I think Hauritz has the inside running too unfortunately. The thing is he should never have been there and its not that he is bowling badly just that he has never bowled a side to victory in first class cricket, ie never got a 5-for, which is astonishing. I am not sure how much improvement he has in him compared with JK but I know who I would rather face.
Look forward to the Pak series, young Umar Akmal looks like he will provide some real star quality and fireworks with the bat and Mohammed Aamer might just be the best young player in the game. You are right about their openers, hopefully Hilf will be back to take advantage. On our bowling I thought Bollinger was brilliant, he hit the deck hard, got movement, particularly with the old ball and never gave up. He was our best from what I saw.
December 9th 2009 @ 12:56pm
Fisher Price said | December 9th 2009 @ 12:56pm | Report comment
Pakistan: Howling that Younis Khan isn’t coming. What with omnipotent flimsy opening combination a solid number three would aid there cause hugely.
I’m intrigued to see what the pace of Asif and Aamer can do to Ponting (and hence the deck of cards). Punter has struggled against the pace and consistency of Sharma and Roach in recent times, so he’s likely to be challenged.
December 9th 2009 @ 12:52pm
Fisher Price said | December 9th 2009 @ 12:52pm | Report comment
I agree Hauritz is very limited but also think Krejza is ridiculously overrated off the back of a haul which was preceeded by a match-winning Indian assault on the Australian attack. His shield record is nothing to write a post-it note home about.
December 9th 2009 @ 11:32am
Jameswm said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:32am | Report comment
Not wrong – I wish my workplace was so easy to please…
December 9th 2009 @ 11:56am
Greg Russell said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:56am | Report comment
Why is everyone so despondent after Adelaide?
During the tsunami benefit match at the MCG, Steve Waugh, who was coach of the Rest of the World side, made the comment that he honestly believed that Chris Gayle had (has) the talent to be the best cricketer in the world. Four years later and we know that Steve Waugh is correct on a good day, but otherwise Gayle is too inconsistent.
What happened at Adelaide is that Chris Gayle played as the best cricketer in the world on day 4, and that is all that stopped Australia from winning: the next highest WI score was 27, and I don’t think there’s much doubt that Australia would have been able to chase 150-200 to win. There’s no shame in being thwarted by an innings of the quality of Gayle’s.
In fact this summer has followed what has become pretty much a stock-standard pattern: tourists get obliterated in Brisbane, tourists get written off, tourists win the toss in Adelaide, tourists bat well on the perfect batting pitch, Australia gets put under the hammer. Remember Lara’s 200 on the last tour by the WI? Remember Vaughan’s innings on day 1 of the 2002-3 Ashes in Adelaide? Remember Collingwood (a double century) and KP on the last Ashes tour? And so on.
The last Ashes tour is a good case in point: England didn’t have a Gayle when they batted on day 4, while this time Australia didn’t have a Warne. Thus we pulled a win out of the hat in 2006-7, but this time we couldn’t. Pretty simple really.
We still have a decent team, but one of the hallmarks of only being decent rather than good is inconsistency. Throughout the Ashes we were inconsistent (excellent one test, average the next), and that’s how it’s been this summer too. The miracle is that in South Africa we had two excellent tests in a row before an average one, and thus we pulled off an unlikely series victory.
Did someone mention Phil Hughes? He was a major factor in having two excellent tests in a row in South Africa. Yes, he’s still raw, but clearly he has the potential to be very, very special. For all Katich’s virtues, he will never be very, very special. Superficially there is not a lot of difference between making 80 (which seems to be becoming a regular occurrence for Katich) and making 130, but in practice there’s a big difference: it’s that between a useful contribution and being the basis for the whole of a team’s innings.
I am not arguing here for Katich to be dropped. Rather, I’m just pointing out the difference between being great and being an honest toiler. Being honest one would have to admit that so far this series just about every Australian batsman has got two good starts, but there hasn’t yet been one century. That’s all we needed on day 3 in Adelaide, but none was forthcoming, and consequently we couldn’t build the lead of 100 that we needed to be able to press for a win.
India and South Africa may not be as good as Australia 1999-2007, but they are certainly better than the current Australian side. The pity is that there is no series between the two to determine pre-eminence.
December 9th 2009 @ 12:20pm
vinay verma said | December 9th 2009 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
Greg..I was at Adelaide and the pitch on Days one and two was a good cricket wicket..covering of grass.good carry and the ball coming on to the bat..which isa must for quick scoring. On days three and four it was as if someone had squeezed the life out of the 22 yards. The two 30 plus days would not have helped. Gayle showed good temperament on day 4 but he was also forced to by the slowness of the pitch. This was evident by the fact that neither Benn or hauritz claimed a wicket in the second innings. Bounce is crucial for a spinner,more so than for a fast bowler,and this had disappeared.
It was however a good cricket wicket if you were prepared to put in the extra effort and more importantly if you had the bit of class that a McGrath or a Marshall had. Roach was spent after the first innings and has only played a handful of tests. He will have to build his stamina so he can back up in the second innings.
Australia does not have the out and out class to be complacent. They all have to lift if they are to prevail over an improving Windies and next over a vastly underrated Pakistan team. Pakistan’s bowling looks more capable of taking 20 wickets than Australia’s attack. Bond worried Pakistan and it may be time to coax Tait back to the Test fold. He remains Australi’a quickest bowler.I would be doing everything in my power to convince Tait he is ready for Tests.
December 9th 2009 @ 12:20pm
Brett McKay said | December 9th 2009 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
not me Greg: “..how about giving the West Indies some due credit for an incredible turnaround after being belted in Brisbane? I don’t know that I can pinpoint a single session in Adelaide in which I can say Australia dominated….”
I think this highlights that we (the Australian cricketing public) have been so used to ‘great’ that ‘very good’ just doesn’t cut; it’s almost some kind of bizarro-tall poppy syndrome. We’ve just forgotten how bloody good we had it for nigh on 20 years that when the competition among Test nations becomes a lot more even, as it now has, suddenly we have an “ordinary” side.
On one hand we have Test Cricket ‘dying’ apparently, yet the results around the world in the last say, 18 months, suggest that maybe it’s more ‘alive’ than it’s been in years…
December 9th 2009 @ 1:13pm
Fisher Price said | December 9th 2009 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
I don’t think anyone is overly despondent but the fact is Australia were close to losing at home to the current West Indies side. Alarm bells should be ringing (if they weren’t – and we can only assume they were not – after the side’s three recent series losses).
The bowling is regularly impotent and, as for the batting, i sense there’s too much two-out-six-out at play.
Katich coming in later to sure things up would be worth considering. For me, Ponting’s abilities are waning and his relatively early dismissal (often at the hands of a young fast man) has a ripple effect on the rest of the middle order; dropping down the order might increase Ponting and the team’s run tally, and I like the look of Katich-Clarke-Ponting.
Bang on re: Hughes. Take out those two Test wins in SA and Australia’s recent Test record should have been sufficient for selectorial, coaching and captaincy heads to roll.
Who knows with this boys’ club though, eh?
December 9th 2009 @ 4:03pm
drewster said | December 9th 2009 @ 4:03pm | Report comment
Mr Sports, You are lucky I guess not to have been old enough to remember the Summers and overseas tours of the Mid 80′s, When Australian Cricket was probably at it’s lowest point due to the retirements of Great players (much like the last few years) and the “Rebel Tours” to a South Africa still banned from International cricket. We can go back further to the “Packer Years” of the late 70′s, When the official Australian side was just a mere shadow of the talent divided between the two factions. Australian cricket has always bounced back from adversity, However it does take time and as Vinay stated “It would be interesting to review your piece in 5 years time”. This hiccup is nothing compared to those times.
KEEP THE FAITH! ( The selectors will be gone soon!)
December 9th 2009 @ 4:39pm
Mushi said | December 9th 2009 @ 4:39pm | Report comment
I think what this era shows is just how good of a cricketing nation we are and just how well our national games is structured.
Look at the Windies they went from dominant to dog house quicker than tiger woods and yet this Australian team, despite committing many of the same sins as the Windies (building expectation, relaying on the same core 11, not blooding young talent etc etc), remains above average and has a pretty high ceiling.
In relation to the past 10-15 years yes we are ordinary but I think you should sue a different frame of reference when we can still step up and fight for a number 1 ranking.
December 9th 2009 @ 6:11pm
Freud of Football said | December 9th 2009 @ 6:11pm | Report comment
The Windies isn’t one sports made country with a population of 21 million, it’s 12 tiny nations, with a combined population of less than 6 Million, a relatively poor area with not much land mass and not a lot of places for cricket grounds.
That the Windies became what they did in the 70s and 80s and early 90s was simply amazing. Why would you expect them to dominate any longer? How can one possibly compare Australia and the Windies?
December 10th 2009 @ 10:13am
Mushi said | December 10th 2009 @ 10:13am | Report comment
By that determination is India an utterly pathetic and useless cricketing nation that should be denigrated for how poor they are?
Isn’t population one of the characteristics of a nation? Yes as a nation we have a larger population and other natural assets. Part of the advantage that makes us a very good cricketing nation.
We also have much better development systems for juniors, partially afforded by a better economic position and land and partially afforded by better forward planning than the non-existent planning in the Windies.
If we can only compare ourselves to other nations with a predominantly anglos axon population of 22 million, with low population density, sound economy and high sports participation then we are by definition incomparable.
December 13th 2009 @ 2:49pm
Dave1 said | December 13th 2009 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
anglo-celtic is a better description than anglo saxon
December 10th 2009 @ 10:36am
Mushi said | December 10th 2009 @ 10:36am | Report comment
Also you could argue that neither do we have the genetic advantage of the West Indies and far greater fragmentation our first sport of choice than the Windies. Both natural advantages they enjoy as a cricketing nation over us.
December 10th 2009 @ 5:45pm
Freud of Football said | December 10th 2009 @ 5:45pm | Report comment
Where the hell did this come from?
The West Indies comprises of 12 nations, I’d say that alone makes them imcomparable to other cricketing nations. Name one other board that has to appease 12 countries, that has to deal with the infighting of nations, not states under one flag, separate countries.
And yes, India should flog the world given they have 1 Billion people, that they can’t (and probably won’t for at least 20 years) has to do with the fact that they started later than other countries, generally (of course you will find an exception if you look) Australians, Kiwis and SAFfers are far better natural athletes and all three, as well as England have a very very good domestic cricket scene while India continues to struggle domestically with power.
I don’t remember any Windian great who was fully of Indian heritage, they have mostly been mixed players but the iconic players are all tall, lean and black – sort of the anti-Indian.
December 10th 2009 @ 6:40pm
vinay verma said | December 10th 2009 @ 6:40pm | Report comment
Freud,just on the subject of iconic West indians,Rohan Kanhai was one of the best batsmen produced by the West Indies. He was of indian Guyanese descent and distinct from the African West indian. But we should not delve too much on this because he was West indian to all intents and purposes. I saw him at his peak between 1963 and 1965 and he did some things that I have not seen other batsmen do. Not Lara,not Viv or Geg Chappell or Tendulkar and Ponting. He did not have the intensity of Viv or the concentration of Tendulkar. Not as elegant as Greg and none of Lara’s extravagance. But he had something unique. The ability to make bowlers bowl to him. He could hit the lofted ondrive off the front or back foot. He played the falling hook shot where he finished on his back. He was playing the lap sweep before Tendulkar and he always looked as if he was having a ball. The sheer exuberance of the man was the lasting impression he left you with. Learie Constantine and Frank Worrell rated him one of the best in the Histroy of the game.
I suggest reading some of CLR James on Kanhai.
And as far as naturally athletic goes the perception that subcontinentals are not so is a stereotype. You have to understand the nature of the grounds to understand why Indians and sri lankans dont dive and slide as much. Its called self preservation. I saw Usman Khawaja,of Pakistan descent take one of the most athletic outfield catches I have seen in the last twenty years,one to rival Kapil Dev’s catch in the 1983 World Cup final. This was yesterday and he ran 30-40 meters to take it over his shoulder in full flight. As the grounds improve you will see subcontinentals become more “naturally” athletic as you put it.
December 12th 2009 @ 1:44am
ohtani's jacket said | December 12th 2009 @ 1:44am | Report comment
The BCCI wanting to drop two one dayers in favour of two Test matches against South Africa is good news for Test cricket. People’s attitudes towards sport have been funny lately. It’s almost as if they’re reminiscing on the earlier part of the decade when everything seemed better. Perhaps it has something to do with the recession or maybe it’s just a natural phase to go through as one decade passes into another and the stars begin to decline.
December 12th 2009 @ 6:53am
vinay verma said | December 12th 2009 @ 6:53am | Report comment
OJ,while it is good for Test Cricket,I am dismayed with the BCCI’s “operation oppurtunity” As far back as 2007-8 India and South Africa were pencilled in for a 3 Test Series in India. This then disappeared off the radar in the last 12 months. Now that India is nominally No 1 in the rankings public opinion has forced the BCCI to have a rethink. South Africa will agree as they dont want to upset their partner in the Champions League.
OJ,keep an eye on developments because India is not scheduled to play Tests against Australia till 2012. However,if India stay close to No 1 they will ask for Australia’s 7 ODI series in October 2010 to be modified to include Test Matches.
The BCCI has one eye on the ball and the other on the money. It is only because people like Kumble,Dravid and Tendulkar respect the eminence of Tests ,and the public,that the BCCI has a change of heart.
This is not suddenly an act of benevolence but simply politics of oppurtunity.
December 13th 2009 @ 2:39pm
ohtani's jacket said | December 13th 2009 @ 2:39pm | Report comment
Be that as it may, it’s still a good thing even if it’s not wholly altruistic.
Besides, I don’t think India being No.1 in the rankings is an awful reason for the BCCI to shuffle their stance
December 12th 2009 @ 5:00pm
Dave1 said | December 12th 2009 @ 5:00pm | Report comment
That’s the beauty of the rankings. This is the trophy teams are actually playing for and if it forces teams to play more test this is a good thing.