In the hand-wringing that has (quite appropriately) followed the Ashes series, one snippet is worth noting – discounting the Perth match (which starts to look such an aberration now that if Pakistan had been involved an awful lot of questions would be being asked), England went through the series losing precisely one second innings wicket.
I can only think of one similar series involving Australia in reasonably recent times – when Australia toured the West Indies in 1984, and the Windies lost not one single second innings wicket across a five Test series they won three-zip.
For an Australian, there are some unpleasant similarities between the two series – and you hope the next few years are better for the current Australian team than they were for their 1984 counterparts.
Back in 1984, as in the first Ashes Test, Australia actually looked pretty good for a while – batting first at the traditionally spin-friendly Georgetown, after much of the first day’s play was lost, they got 279 against a WI attack that wasn’t as awe-inspiring as some they fielded (but still had Garner and Daniel). Garner got a six for, and Roger Harper picked up the other four. The Australian batting list was a bit of a mixture – Wessels, Steve Smith, Ritchie, Hughes, Border, Hookes and Wayne Phillips (keeping wicket). None of them were bad players, but rather like the recent series, the captain, Kim Hughes, had a shocker and that perhaps affected the others. Apart from Border (and Graeme Wood, who only played one game), none of them could average out of the 20’s in this series – so they actually did worse than the 2010/11 Australians.
Anyway, Australia then bowled the Windies (Greenidge, Haynes, Richardson, Richards, Gomes, Lloyd, Dujon – one of the great batting lineups) out for 230. The Australian pace attack was a good one (when fit and firing anyway) – Lawson, Alderman and Hogg – but it was Tom Hogan who took the honours with a four for. All well and good so far. A second innings of 9-273 setting 323, which would be the highest innings of the match, looked a good position, until Greenidge and Haynes racked up 0-250 before time ran out.
That must have been almost as deflating as the England second innings at the Gabba last year.
Things didn’t get much better from there, although the 1984 Australians avoided a debacle of Adelaide proportions in the second Test at Port of Spain. Dean Jones came in on debut for Steve Smith, with Wayne Phillips getting to open as well as keep. Malcolm Marshall came into the WI side, and Joel Garner took another six for as Australia subsided for 255 (Border 98no). The Windies (Logie, in for Lloyd, notching 97, Dujon at seven carting 130) helped themselves to 8-468. Behind by 213, Australia was 9-238 with about two hours still to play when Terry Alderman joined Border, playing another lone hand. Everyone talks about the Border/Jeff Thomson last wicket stand that almost won an Ashes Test – this one deserves to be remembered at least as much. Somehow, they stayed together for 105 minutes, putting on 68, and play ended when Border got to 100, with Alderman on 21 (not quite his highest Test innings, but surely far and away his best – and the Windies perhaps ruing that the spin bowling had to be handled by Richards and Gomes, with Harper not playing).
So would this great escape be a momentum killer for the Windies and turn it all around for Australia? Nope. Instead, after a good start, it began to look more like Australia had shot its bolt. For the third Test at Bridgetown, Steve Smith came back in, and everyone (but him) contributed (Wayne Phillips back at seven notching 120) as Australia scored 429, which you would usually think represented a strong position. Big hundreds from Haynes and Richardson saw the Windies to 509, but it was now a long way into day four – surely a draw was the likely result. Did I mention Michael Holding was in for Daniel, so the Windies attack was Garner, Marshall and Holding (plus Harper and Baptiste)? Mentioning Harper and Baptiste actually would have been pretty redundant – Marshall five for, Holding four for, Australia all out 97 (did I hear a score like that in the Ashes series at some point?) in no time and the Windies cruised to a 10-wicket win.
From there, the floodgates opened. At St Johns, Australia dropped Smith again, bringing in Roger Woolley to keep and putting Phillips back up to open. John Maguire and Carl Rackemann came in for Hogg and Alderman (who, if not injured, must at least have been worn out). Border got another 98, but 262 must have looked ominously light on. Given that Richardson got 154 and Richards 178, Australia might almost have thought they did okay to keep the Windies to 498 (so long as they didn’t do the sums on the deficit). An even 200 in the second innings, with no-one getting past 29, and it was an innings victory and a two-up with one to play series win.
On to Kingston, Smith back in for Woolley (presumably there was some sort of plan in dropping and then recalling Smith from Test to Test), Phillips opening and keeping again (just because it had always failed before didn’t necessarily mean it would fail again – although it did) and Greg Matthews in for Jones (four bowlers plainly had not been working so you could actually see some sense there – Matthews also got to open in the second innings after injury to Smith. That must have been fun). A total of 199 probably seemed scant reward for all that deckchair shifting. Again, keeping the Windies to 305 (Maguire four for) would have seemed creditable, except that no-one could stay with Border and Australia whimpered off for 160, for another 10 wicket win/romp and three-nil to the Windies (with Australia lucky to get nil as they say).
So what do we make of all this? One thing that might raise some hackles is that, while you can certainly argue both that the 1984 Windies was one of the great sides, and that the Australian bowling lineup of 2010/11 was not up to the standard of the 1984 side, on paper at least – if we’re being fair, you have to acknowledge that but for its slip up at Perth the English side was every bit as dominant as the Windies were (and away from home as well), which might justify a re-rating of their quality as a side.
The other thing to reflect on is that in the next couple of years after 1984 Australian cricket slipped to its lowest point, with Kim Hughes imploding and rebel tours taking away a lot of good players. It wasn’t until the 1987 World Cup, the advent of Bobby Simpson and Alan Border growing into the captaincy that things turned around. That has to be a worry given the parallels between 1984 and now.
Australia after 1984 lost its captain, who should have been its best batsman, an experienced batsman in Hookes and its first choice openers. It had a batsman (Ritchie) and an all-rounder (Matthews) it had already invested a bit of time into, and neither of them ever really made it as test players. The batsmen/keepers they tried couldn’t do both jobs. The first choice bowlers were one of aging, injury prone or not so good in all conditions, and the back-ups never really made it. And don’t hold your breath for a wicket taking spinner. If we fast forward to today, you could substitute the names and leave the comments pretty much as they are (and the only ones that would be rough on would be Watson and Haddin). That must make you worry that there may well need to be a similar sort of time go by (and new players emerge) before there is any corresponding improvement.
About the only thing the current Australians have going for them compared to 1984 is that Rebel tours are a thing of the past – unless you think the IPL fills that role nowadays!
Fisher Price
Guest
Oh, yes, Brett Lee, the great Test bowler. And aren't Johnson, Harris and Siddle meant to be fast? Windies '76-'90 are miles ahead of this England side by the way.
plugger
Guest
"England just as good as 1984 Windies" Is this a joke? Brett Lee has proven that England can't stand up to real pace.
Viscount Crouchback
Guest
Interesting post, but I think you over-intellectualise what happened in Perth. I don't dismiss it as an aberration either, incidentally, but I don't think it had much to do with England being a "method" team. I think it's much more straightforward than that: England are simply very vulnerable on fast, bouncy pitches. They are not used to such conditions and they don't like them. Something very similar happened at the Wanderers last year when the Africans bounced them out. But there's not much evidence for the "no plan B" argument. I doubt that succumbing to a Peter Siddle hat-trick and a massive first innings deficit in Brisbane was in the plan either, but they recovered well enough from that. Equally, their superb rear-guard actions in Cardiff, Centurion and Cape Town hardly suggest a team who lose the plot when the game goes slightly awry. But yes, the West Indies comparisons are faintly ludicrous. England are a decent outfit but let's see five years of crushing dominance before we get too giddy with the "great" tag.
lopati
Guest
Problem is to most people it's all the same game, it's all "cricket." They dont realise it's like saying 100m, 3000m and marathons are all just "running." Srange difference is in cricket we have the "retired" players playing speedy rapid fire T20's (where you would expect the older to bust a groin or put their back out) with those same players unwilling to "plod about" in a "gentle slow moving tea drinking punctuated" test match, whereas in running, like most other sports, age works the opposite direction with the older folks moving to "gentler" forms of the games. (OK, not many ex sprinters run marathons, but plenty of 100m runners move to 4/800m and 1 milers move to 5/10,000 meters). Cases in point the ashes tests vs 1 dayers - Aussies keeping their own and just yesterday NZ vs Pak, NZ well beaten in the tests (OK, squeaked the first test to a draw) but the 1 dayer could not have been more completely opposite. T20 is a crowd pleasing game, but it's not really cricket. And test matches are not a "gentler" form of cricket.
JohnB
Guest
Oh, and the headline wasn't mine by the way! Maybe if there was a question mark at the end of it it would be roughly what I'm saying!
JohnB
Guest
You're right that time will tell, and the other comment that's been made (the Windies kept up that level of dominance for a long time) is right also. What I was trying to say is that the level of dominance the English showed (if we disregard Perth) happens very rarely, and warrants reconsidering how good they were. That no second innings wickets across an entire series factoid is one that's always staggered me, and England going close to matching it, across 4 tests anyway, was striking.
Fisher Price
Guest
Very interesting read. Thanks. This further support to the notion that mid-80s Australia was in better shape than the current side (and without the handicap of a deluded and $-obsessed board behind it). A lot of people talk of 86/87 as a nadir, but that side had lots of potential. I don't see potential in the likes of Clarke, Ponting, Siddle, Johnson and Hilfenhaus.
chris mackinnon
Guest
not bad article as the same as the other readers the west indies between 1977 and 1990 where the best team even the australian team who dominated wouldnt even get close no team in the history of the game would even get close to them
Scott Adams
Guest
U12's have had it forced on them in Canberra this season. Despite the fact they only normally play 50 overs a side in tw0 25 overinnings, the local mandarins have decided that a shortened form of the already short game is just what the kids need. Cricket as we know it will be dead in Australia in fifteen years if these idiot marketing men are allowed to keep going full steam ahead with their T20 obsession.
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
This is an interesting article, John. I like the statistic that England only lost one second-innings wicket across 4 tests. Unlike you, I am not sure if one can totally discard the Perth test as an "outlier". Statisticians devote a lot of time to devising ways to tell if a wayward point may be ignored - it's not easy. The thing that strikes me about Perth is that Australia won because its core of decent players - Watson, M Hussey, Haddin, Johnson and Harris - played bloody well, not because England were hopeless. If there was an interesting aspect to England's play in that match it was that: (a) an otherwise meticulously prepared squad had not prepared for the possibility of Johnson bowling so well, because they didn't believe it possible; and (b) finding themselves on the back foot, England had no plan B and duly crumpled in the fourth innings of the match. This is frequently a characteristic of "method" teams who are overly reliant on pre-laid plans, for example the South African teams of 1995-2008. As soon as the game does not go according to the anticipated script, they flounder. For over a decade we beat South Africa like England have just beaten us (remember the crushing Australian wins in Jo'burg in 1997 and 2002?). It wasn't because we were really that much better than South Africa, but simply because they didn't know how to cope with a team that took them out of their comfort zone. Great teams with great players have no such problem, because great players love unexpected situations: they instinctively recognize that it gives them a chance to showcase their genius, and so they embrace the challenge. One only needs to think of some of the deeds of players like Gilchrist, Warne, Viv Richards and so on to see this. Which brings me to your comparison of the 1984 West Indies side and the current English side. For a start it is invalid because the West Indies were a side, like the great Australian side of 2000-7, that was never out of a game: they had players who could win from anywhere, and loved the chance to do so. England showed in Perth that they are far from this. But the other thing is that the 1984 WI side played like this over a long stretch of time. This English side has only just begun. All summer I have been saying that we need to wait until England hosts India later this year to get a better indication of just how good the current England side is. And even if England do well in that series, it will still take quite a few more years of winning before they can be considered in the same breath as the WI of yore.
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Fairy,you are correct. it is a dictate from the "market driven" CA. It has happened in Grade in Victoria and I perhaps also in NSW. More like maketing drivel!
Fairy
Guest
Vinay, I play warehouse cricket in Brisbane (Premier grade) who have incorporated T20 into our draw this season. Not all are keen to play this style of cricket and when I mentioned this to one of the committee I was told that they were getting pressure from CA to incorporate T20. So they are forcing it upon us even at grassroots! -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
Fairy
Guest
I can agree with the similarities you discuss except saying the English are every bit as good as the 84 Windies. Yes the Poms were dominant and outplayed and outclassed the Aussies but the Windies were a champion team. Only time will tell how this English team is perceived. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
JohnB,they say cricket goes in cycles but I prefer to think it is a reflection of the quality of administration. Australia was strong till 1977...then the Packer/CA standoff which really did not resolve till the mid-80's. It is too long to detail here but with the advent of bigger TV deals and power shifting to Inida there has been a shift in emphasis to the shorter forms. England because of the different season has been largely unscathed by the IPL and it reflects in their Test side. Everyone else is biten by the bug. It seems in australia the way to the Test Team is through the Big Bash. yesterday,sadly,Mark Waugh proclaimed after the game of Twenty20 that "the future of Australian Cricket looks good" Unfortunately many of the viewers would swallow this line.