I deal in fact, not opinion, and it is now a confirmed fact that cricket is most interesting when the Australian team performs poorly.
The recent dramatic loss to South Africa has everyone talking and once again paying interest to the game.
The Australian team were bowled out for their second lowest Test total ever, suffered a humiliating defeat, and suddenly ears prick to the story in the news.
Otherwise, its just another game of cricket. Test cricket at that, which most people, except the deluded like myself, find extremely dull.
Test cricket was most interesting in the 70s and 80s. All teams had some pretty good players in them, some real iconic players and characters too.
They also had some bad players in the mix which made them vulnerable. The players weren’t all professional so anything could happen.
Australia were like that too. The brilliance of Lillee was mixed with cod ordinariness of Bruce Yardley or Trevor Chappell. It was a good team but could easily struggle.
England was always likely to beat them, as was any side really. And of course, the Windies was like viewing great art. It all made for the exciting frustration of losing and was thus interesting.
Then came that era where Australia were going around easily beating everyone. It almost killed the game.
It was that era where the game’s rule-makers started coming up with attempts at making the sport more interesting to get people watching, like Twenty20, or whatever it’s called.
Is this a coincidence? No it isn’t.
It’s because Test cricket was becoming so methodical, so predictable due to a dominating, yet dull Australian side, that you knew what was going to happen, so I began trimming the edges of my lawn and polishing the new car rather than following the cricket.
There were other reasons of course. Such as the loss of talent in other countries’ teams. In that era, usually good teams turned bad and couldn’t compete.
The English were unbelievably bad; the West Indies totally lost the plot; Pakistan too; India and South Africa were only just okay.
Australia were the only team with good players in it, ruled by this new professionalism that bleached any interest – no collapses, no glimmers of brilliance followed by poor – nothing but dull professional technique.
Glen McGrath was lauded as a great even, the dullest bowler to roll the arm over – couldn’t swing it, not particularly fast, constant line and length.
Australia seems now a troubled side.
Most Aussie supporters are angry about it. They are beside themselves with all sorts of theories as to why this is so.
But the team has talent in it; there are some very good bowlers and batters still. They can still produce some good innings, bowl a team out for little.
But the great thing about it is they can also collapse in the batting, and the bowlers can produce some very ordinary spells.
This all means that anything can happen.
This South African Test is a perfect example of it. Clarke gets 151, yet still the team collapses and falls over.
Australia will never be a totally hopeless side, eever. But they can now be beaten, and beaten with some astonishingly poor performances, which is worth tuning in just for the chance to see it.
And this is good for the sport. You probably hate it because you love the Aussie side so much, but if you look without bias, it’s just interesting.
So there’s no need for analysis and getting all worked up over whether Pup Clarke is too metro-sexual to be a decent captain.
Just rejoice in the fact that the Aussie team is how it should be and Test cricket now has some new life pumped into it.
There is now that lovely thing in sport called competition, so enjoy.
dasilva
Guest
I kind of agree with the gist of the article. Although saying that, it is an opinion not a fact Sport at its best is a contest. The best series during Australia dominance was when the opposition challenge Australia such as the India 2-2, India 2-1, England 2-1 and WI 2-2. However when Australia were dominating all the team and floggin the team mercilessly, I didn't particularly find it entertaining to watch. It's not the fault of the Aussie cricketers though. Nevertheless I look at the South Africa test and it was entralling to watch despite australia getting hammered. I guess I watch cricket from the perspective of a neutral rather than a hardcore Australia fan.
Jiggles
Roar Guru
It's good to see that Tall Poppy Syndrome is alive and well in Australia in the 21st Century.
WoobliesFan
Guest
"Just rejoice in the fact that the Aussie team is how it should be and Test cricket now has some new life pumped into it. " As it should be? As opposed to as it shouldn’t be? When is a team defined by where it should or shouldn’t be? If anything, a team is defined by where they currently are. We are currently, totally and utterly, crap and it’s not that we should be crap. Strange logic. It’s hardly interesting that the Australian cricket team is losing at the moment....I found it way more interesting when we were a killing and dominating the opposition....BOOM BANG KAPOW! As for the West Indies comparisons, well, we dominated longer, we dominated better.....you say the competition wasn’t as good.....15 years at the top negates that argument...we dominated 2-3 generations of players....think about it - other nations had two decades to find good players....we won 16 consecutive tests, TWICE!....WI only managed 11. Respect to Sobers and his boys, but the Steve Waugh teams we’re incredible....5-0 ashes sweep....and against a team full of received OBE's....lol
Johnno
Guest
Yes Sheek good point Rackers clearly was the man not Terry Alderman, i had no idea for what little it is worth in realitity, just how good Carl Rackeman's season was, 1985 was way before my time. He was an akward bowler to face, big strong intimidating Quennslander with aggressive awkward side angle robust action was tough to face when fired up, and could really bowl when fire dup as shown by the rebel tour stats. Bruce Reid is as good a bowler as i have just about ever seen. Just so injury prone. He was basically picked for Asutralia as soon as fit never had to prove himself in the sheffield shield, and as good as more if not more talented as i found Bruce Reid seemed to have lovely variety to his bowling, saw some highlights of his match at MCG Ashes test 1990 he ripped through England and was a handful for all teams. He would of played i think a lot of tests in the great west indies sides to, as a left armer with pace and bounce adding to that variety, right up there with Wasim akram as best left armer in last 30 years.
sheek
Guest
Johnno, The selections are based on 1984/85 season going into 1985 mostly. Around 1985, Alderman wasn't the same bowler as he was around 1981 & 89. Furthermore, in 3 rebel tests against the Saffies in 1985/86, Rackemann took a whopping 24 wickets. So I reckon Rackers was the hotter bowler at the time. Reid didn't make his Australian appearance until the second half of the domestic 1985/86 season. Reid was an awesome bowler, as good as McGrath I reckon, who was a similar type, but leftie vs rightie. Unfortunately, Reid was injury-prone.
Johnno
Guest
Shhek good combined team mate, but 1 point i don't agree with Terry Alderman in England contains 12th man and caller rackemann starting in favour. Can't agree with you on that one Sheek. Rackemann was very good and had a lot of injuries but Terry Alderman in England was amazing at least in 1989, i don't know how good a bowler Terry Alderman was in England around year 1985 so i don't know. ALso maybe Bruce Reid maybe pushing too for selection he was young but still good then.
sheek
Guest
Trying to find the definitive Aussie XI of the 70s would be a nightmare. For example, the best eleven players of the period 1974-76, when the Aussies played 10 test against England & 6 against the Windies, actually played together 'in toto' just once - against England, 4th test, 1974/75 series. These eleven players were: Ian Redpath (vc), Rick McCosker, Ian Chappell (c), Greg Chappell, Ross Edwards, Rod Marsh (k), Max Walker, Dennis Lillee, Jeff Thomson, Ashley Mallett. For the remainder of the time, for one reason or another, at least one of these players was missing due injury, unavailability or form vagaries. The 70s was a time of great change. Until the WSC explosion of 1977-79, when players were finally paid what they were worth, the game was still semi-professional. Many outstanding players retired early to get a real job - Paul Sheahan & John Benaud being the best examples. I mention this because it is extremely difficult to get an accurate gauge on the quality of the Aussies in the 70s, with so many players coming & going & coming again, for a whole host of reasons. Indeed, much the same can be said for the 80s. The WSC bitterness continued well into the 80s, effectively splitting the cohesion of the Aussies. Let's look at 1985. This is the team that went to England - A.Border (c), A.Hilditch, G.Wood, K.Wessels, D.Boon, G.Ritchie, D.Wellham, S. O'Donnell, W.Phillips (k), R.Phillips (2k), G.Matthews, M.Bennett, R.Holland, G.Lawson, C.McDermott, D.Gilbert, J.Thomson When it became apparent Rixon, Alderman & McCurdy had acepted rebel contracts, the replacements named were R.Phillips, Rackemann & Maguire. However, when it became apparent that Rackemann & Maguire had also accepted rebel contracts, Gilbert & the veterna Thomson were named as replacements! This is the rebel team that went to SA - K.Hughes(c), G.Yallop (vc), J.Dyson, S.Smith, M.Taylor, M.Haysman, G.Shipperd (2k), S.Rixon (k), T.Hohns, T.Hogan, T.Alderman, C.Rackemann, R.Hogg, J.Maguire, R.McCurdy, P.Faulkner. They were joined in their 2nd season (1986/87) by Wessels. Try this combined XI: J.Dyson, G.Wood, K.Wessels, K.Hughes (vc), A.Border, W.Phillips, S.Rixon (k), T.Hohns, G.Lawson, C.McDermott, C.Rackemann, T.Alderman (12th). Not bad, is it? Backup players would be - either Hilditch or Smith as opener; Boon, Yallop or Haysman in the middle order,W. Phillips already 2nd keeper, Bennett or Hogan as spinner, & O'Donnell, McCurdy & Maguire as pacemen. The fact is, if you selected the best players from each team, you would have had a powerful line-up. Even more so if it was unified. But of course, Australian cricket was be-deviled by political splits throughout the 70s & 80s. Anyway, it's a nonsense to say cricket is interesting when Australia is weak.
Brett McKay
Expert
Phil, that's not a fact either, it is - again - your opinion. I happen to think the Australian side of the late 90s-early 00s against the great Windies side of the 80s would be a pretty even contest, a contest well worth paying to see. Obviously, that's my opinion. And by saying Australia's period of dominance is curtailed by the quality of the opposition, then surely it stands to reason that the Windies side of the 80s also played against "plod ordinary sides", and just as the "characteristic West Indian side" went into decline, the Australian side is now there too. In either situation, both great teams can't do anything about the quality of their opposition. But neither does that matter. My point is that you and your circle of friends may well consider dominant cricket to be dull, but you can't ignore the fact that just as many observers actually quite liked when the Australian team was on top. And it's not even just Australian cricket followers - the Barmy Army have always travelled well, but their numbers are well up currently with their team on top. And there's nothing wrong with that..
phil osopher
Roar Guru
Yes I deal in opinion, like Alan Jones, dressed up as fact, but that's the....no dont worry. But a fact it is, that I know a lot of people who have no interest in sport whatsoever, in fact, everyone I know despise sport. But I like it. Now when cricket is discussed, they always say, without fail, they used to watch it a bit in the 80's, they liked it then, but since then have had no interest at all. This is fact. This is not coincidence neither, these people are the best indicators of whether something is interesting or not because it has to have something beyond the normalities that sport usually offers to make them take notice. Sport freaks have no ability at all, they'll watch anything and find it interesting. That period of Australian dominance , or more accurately the decline in the characteristic West Indian side, pushed these people away from any interest in cricket, which indicates to me that cricket became dull. now Cameron, all those great accomplishments you mention were all done against plod ordinary sides. I do accept the Indian tests were good, and so was 2005 in England, yes, but everything else, and thats a lot, was not. That Australian team played against very poor sides. In the 80's they played against rather good opposition on a whole, and any achievements made then far outweigh anything done by Steve Waugh and Tubby Taylors lot. They would have got nowhere against that 80's Windies side. Now that's a fact.
Cameron
Guest
Phil you must be living in fairy land if you thought the Australian cricket team was dull during its era of dominence. I uesd to love how McGrath would name publicly who he was going to target and then the mind games would begin and also how that played out on the pitch with the evil looks and sledging. Who knew what miracle ball Warne would bowl next, and was the 2nd fastest 100 ever by Gilly in Perth dull also? And if you try to argue that it was boring and predictable in terms of results, what about Australias tour to India where it lost the series, with one test decided by just 1 wicket and another where aus failed to chase a target of just over 100? Not to mention the 2005 Ashes tour. Phil, you started the article by saying you only deal with facts not opinions but your assertion that the aus team was dull and perdictable is certainly YOUR opinion.
Brett McKay
Expert
"I deal in fact, not opinion, and it is now a confirmed fact that cricket is most interesting when the Australian team performs poorly." I'm sorry, but you're still dealing in opinion...