Lamenting the end of a great cricketing era

anglo-celtic is a better description than anglo saxon

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 ;)

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.

I think today’s Indian side would have been competitive against previous sides.

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.

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.

I have a high regard for Hussey's work ethic and I am backing him to play at the level he did two years ago. His recent form in India was exceptional. He is starting to hit his cover drives with fluency. He did not look good at Adelaide. but neither did North( 16 and 2) Hussey put on 79 with Clarke in the first innings and I still back him despite your misgivings. He belied his 35 years with the flying catch off Barath in the first innings. I see him integral to the rebuilding,more so than North. North has done well and perhaps would be unlucky to be dropped. But if you want to fit Smith in then the options are only North or hauritz. And I wouldn't like to drop Hauritz now that he is beginning to believe in himself. Smith at six for me.

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.

Well Vinay, it would certainly be interesting if he did get a bit of a run-out but then there is the dilemman, who makes way? Watson will most likely retain his spot in the side but I think most people agree that he isn't the opener Australia is looking for which is somewhat strange in my opinion as Aus have Jacques, Hughes, Warner and Katich who are all capable of opening, why do we need to add extra pressure on to an all-rounder who isn't cut out for that role anyway? I'd like to see North retained, I like his technique and I think he will be a solid player for a number of years to come whereas Hussey (who is pushing 35) has been given far too many opportunities and what the hell is he doing batting at 4 anyway? He's a 6/7, I feel like Clarke is shirking some responsibility, he should be coming in at 4 and building the Australian innings, Hussey is the kind of player to finish one off. Anyway Vinay, why North and not Hussey? And where does Smith slot in? My key stats for this: *North - 30.5 years old - 9 tests with 3 hundreds - century every third test (plus he is a good bowler) *Hussey - 34.5 years old - 44 Tests with 10 hundreds - century/4.4 Tests . Hussey -

FP and FOF..I have seen him play on half a dozen occassions now,twice live and the rest on TV. He is ready. He loves the pressure situation and yesterday powered NSW to a victory in a controlled knock. Put on 92 with Rohrer and then a quick 70 odd with Warner. He took his time and you could see him change up a gear when required. He hasn't lost his baby fat yet but between the ears he is as hard as nails. His bowling needs work but he is prepared to throw in the googly after being hit. He is looking to take wickets and is not deterred by batsmen coming after him. The guy is nineteen but he is a wicket taker. He will get better. I'd throw him in against Pakistan,who surprisingly dont handle leggies as well in OZ as they do In pakistan. It is the bounce here that worries them,against the quicks and the leggies. I think he is ahead of Bailey and McGain.But i would play him instead of North.

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.

I don't know that he is ready. I've only read good things about him and haven't had the chance of seeing him play yet but by all accounts he has got the goods and considering Katich is old enough to be his father I'd much rather see Smith given his chance. Australia needs players who will go on to have 100-125 Test matches in there career, Katich might make 70-80 and even then he will have been hanging on, he is 34 already and seeing as he got his chance so late he won't bow out, he'll have to be forced.

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.

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.

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?

In Adelaide Johnson bowled wildly for the most part but took wickets. Other than Siddle the bowlers kept it reasonably tight, and yet the still Windies made two substantial totals. In the first innings Siddle and Bollinger (note: Johnson was but is no longer always trusted with new-ball duties) had the Windies pinned down until Johnson came on and relieved pressure with legstump four-balls and wayward bouncers. The pattern was repeated later in the innings when Brendan Nash cashed in on a Johnson spell. I realise this analysis suggests there are issues elsewhere in the bowling attack (and there are) but Johnson rarely rolls the opposition, so unless he can exert some control he becomes a bit of luxury. Australia's recent Test results are not flattering, so basically I'm just throwing up a theory as to why the Johnson-spearheaded Australia continues to struggle. I actually like the comparison with Brett Lee; another who's all-or-nothing style often put pressure on his fellow bowlers (see the drawn home series to India in 2003 and 2005 Ashes); of course the likes of McGrath, Warne, Gillespie, MacGill and Kasprowicz had sufficient skills to either a) carry the load or b) resign Lee to 12th man duties. If all that mattered was that a spearhead bowls fast and takes wickets then maybe Wayne Holdsworth (not in Johnson's class, of course) would have forged a Test career.

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.

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!)

You don't seem to realise Johnson's place in the side. He is there solely to take wickets, a bit like Lee when he came into the team. The captain will expect his other bowlers to be tight but Johnson will be expensive and take wickets - even when he is bowling bad.

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?