Is being in a transitional phase really an excuse?

Brian, Regrettably, Aussies can be as big a bunch of imbeciles as anyone else, so I certainly am not a one-eyed Aussie. But I am a proud Aussie nevertheless. And if you ever read any of my posts you would know this. Indeed, some Roarers reckon I sail close to the wind on the side of treason. But I call it as I see it, with little sugaring. Being an Aussie doesn't protect or excuse you from imbecilic behaviour.....

Results-wise, yes, but that particular time period Australia play most of its Tests against a rampant West Indies ('83-'85) and a reasonably strong but waning England side ('85-'87). I'd say that mid-80s side was stronger than the current crop in that it contained the nucleus of players who would contribute (to varying degrees) to the team's resurgence up to the mid-90s; the likes of Border, Waugh, Jones, Boon, Marsh, Matthews, Reid, Lawson, Hughes and McDermott (with Alderman, Rackemann and Hohns making an impact after returning from Rebel duties). I'm not sure the current selection contains as much potential when you look at the ages of some of the key players now.

India in 2001 aside, the bulk of Hayden's runs coincided with Australian dominance, and came in favourable conditions and against mediocre bowling. He was obviously a good player but nowhere near a great.

I suspect Pakistan could've/should've won the Sydney Test and the West Indies went close in both Adelaide and Perth, so, yes, Australia struggled badly that summer. The trouble is as soon as wins are recorded, the inner sanctum proclaims a corner has been turned and that the side is ready to challenge for the No.1 ranking - take the Johannesburg win, for instance, which featured a horrendous first-innings batting collapse and relied heavily on an 18-year-old whose body isn't yet ready to contribute on a regular basis.

Spot on. Ponting's captaincy was exposed in England and India.

Mitchell Johnson is a match-loser more than he's a match-winner.

Sheek - when Ponting had the cattle and the side could captain itself, no one complained because we were winning. His captaincy skills were then tested and I'm sorry, but he wasn't a good captain. More a belligerant one. Great batsman (until 2 years ago), but not a great skipper.

Ponting was the best captain from 2004-2008 because he was a great batsman. He never had the cricket brain to be a good captain, this was shown up many times, bowling White to try and win in India in 2008 comes to mind. Mark Taylor on the other hand was a champion captain but not as good a batsman as Ponting. Fact is when Waugh retired in 2004 Ponting was the only set player in the side with 5 years left in him Of course Australia has had bad captains, Clarke's captaincy of the T20 side is a recent example or do you believe that because the selectors and players are Australians they do not make mistakes.

Lose champion players and of course there is a transition. What made Australia almost unbeatable was having Warne and Gilchrist in the one side, with Gilchrist Australia could be 5/150 and still be expected to make 400. Replacing Warne was always going to be a forlorn task; Bill O'Reilly, Ritchie Benaud and Shane Warne were all about 30 years apart. If its any consolation the current Australian side is light years ahead of the side of the mid 80's when Australia didn't win a series between January 1984 and December 1987.

Also West Indies have been in a "rebuilding" phase for the past 10 years. I think the whole idea that you lose all these games now to win games in the future are antiquated ideas of cricket's semi-professional era. England are number 1 at the moment. Anderson and Swann are very good bowlers but not even close to being all time greats like McGrath and Warne. Pietersen has got his average back over 50 after it languishing in the high 40's and I highly doubt he will retire with an average higher of 50 due to his inconsistent nature. I dont think most people would put Pietersen in the same category as Ponting, Waugh or Hayden. Trott is averaging an awesome 57 after 23 tests and 2000 runs but its too early to decide he if is an all time great. Mark Taylor averaged 65 for his first 2000 runs. Matt Prior is a very solid keeper and batsmen but he is no Gilchrist. Instead of focusing on finding the next all time greats to carry the team and focus on building a good squad and getting the most out of all our players and winning every game with the squad we have. With the amount of cricket being played we need to bring a more baseball style approach of having a good squad with depth and not relying on a few greats.

One of the most underestimated successes of England's rise to the top is their ability to negate players. Going into 2009 Ashes Johnson and Hughes were the hottest thing in world cricket and England blunted Johnson and destroyed Hughes. Johnson didnt have an awful 2009 Ashes, 20 wickets @ 32.55 but England got the better of him. Just like how in 2005 England totally dominated Gilchrist. Though your point about Johnson could be even further strengthen by the 5 wickets he took in the 2nd innings of the 4th test match we won at Headinley, though England did collapse for 100 in the 1st innings where Johnson only took 1 wicket. Ponting's batting slump and Johnson's bowling inconsistency have been big blows.

Life is in a constant state of flux. It might be a convenient excuse to use words & phrases like "transitional", or rebuilding", but they're just excuses. Things go in cycles, & the smart administrators, or coaches, or CEOs, or GMs, or whoever, are smart enough to stay ahead of the game, & make the right changes that keep their team or business at the fore-front. Australian cricket has collapsed, partly because we have lost a lot of great players over the past 5 years. But also Australian cricket has collapsed because the selectors & administrators weren't willing to make some tough decisions earlier, & introduce new blood earlier. Of course, it is never an exact science. You can give plenty of guys an opportunity (like the revolving door of spinners), but often it is up to the player to grab his chance. Unfortunately, too often, for every single one that does succeed, many fail to grasp their moment.....

Well, it seems that unless we are at no 1 we are in transition according to the press and fans.

Brian, If that's true, then perhaps a dozen guys who captained Australia in more than a handful of tests should never have done so. Would you like me to name some? I won't simply because I don't believe Australia has had any really bad captains. Just good captains, better captains, & a lot of brilliant captains. No one complained much about Ponting's captaincy in 2006/07, even though we knew he led a side that could lead itself. He was still the guy who had to pull the team together into a cohesive unit, & he did that. The players did the rest.

NO. This old 'transitional' chestnut has been used over many years now re Australian Cricket. Our batting is the problem and has been consistently for yolks even when we have been a force. Our bowlers and bench mark fielding once kept us at the top of the international seedings but not any more. NZ are mediocre at best as far as the Test version of the game is concerned and it is clear we have joined them as a second tier cricket nation. NZ can be excused however, as they are approx 5 mill and the equivalent of our lesser states while we have absolutely no excuse whatsoever, especially if we believe this to be our national sport? Our batsmen should take a pay cut, simple as that.

NZ has been rebuilding since Richard Hadlee and (to a lesser extent) Martin Crowe retired!

Long time reader, first time poster to The Roar! When looking at the trajectory of the Australian team following the retirements of the greats in 2007, one thing strikes me: Mitchell Johnson. When he has been on - with ball and bat - , i.e. basically the time from the SCG India Test, through the two South Africa series, Australia was largely victorious, or at least very competitive. When he hasn't been on, i.e. both Ashes series since then and basically every series since the 09 Ashes, Australia has been mostly poor. It seems clear that when he has been on, Australia has won games. I feel that the Perth Test in 2010, a flash of Johnson brilliance, adds weight to this hypothesis. Coincidence, or is Johnson really that much of a game-breaker? If he is, where to from here? If he has 18 months (following his recovery) of solid Shield and ODI results should he go to England in 2013? It is obviously a long way off, but given that it seems a lot of people have basically ruled a line through his name due to his ridiculously frustrating inconsistency, I'd be interested to hear what people think.

That a great comment. Never thought of it like that but I agree wholeheartedly. Punter should never have been captain except he was the only batsman born in the whole 1970s who could hold his spot in the side. Clarke ditto early 80s. Hopefully next time around there will actually be competition for the job

I do agree transition is no longer an excuses. Why have Jaques, North, Hauritz, Hilfenahus etc spent so much time playing in the transition period if they are simply not good enough. What about Haddin, when will he play when we are not in transition? Since Bollygate we have lost 2 out of 2 series to both England and India and slipped to be ranked No 4. The problem was excerbated by the unbeaten summer against a poor Windies and a dubious Pakistan which inflated the ego of some average players. Maybe losing at home to NZ will finally result in real change in our top 7.

The NZ team are in a re-building phase too ...bracewell and boult are new entrants and Brownlie looks the goods (thanks WA) ...there are a number of other medium fast bowlers coming thru, including a south African lad called Wagner, based in Christchurch ....we do need to sort out the batting top order though ...! Just like Australia !