After losing five consecutive Tests, Australia have won two on the trot against quality opponents. That is all that matters – the controversy from Brisbane about declarations and field placements is irrelevant.
The Australian media and cricketing public has become so predictably negative when it comes to the national team. When Australia secured a giant first innings lead against Pakistan at Brisbane, the talk was not of how well the home team had played but how poor Pakistan had been.
Suddenly the visitors were being painted by many fans as a woeful team with no idea how to play in Australian conditions. Apparently there was no merit in Australia outplaying Pakistan – even a second grade team could roll through them.
Then, once Pakistan belatedly showed the true extent of their generous ability in the fourth innings, the focus shifted to how supposedly pathetic Australia were. They had no heart as a team, spinner Nathan Lyon was a joke, Steve Smith was the worst captain in world cricket.
There was such deep negativity directed towards the Australians after the match you’d have thought they’d suffered a heavy loss.
Instead, they’d just beaten an opponent which was number one in the Test rankings only two months ago. A Pakistan team which in the past three years has the second-best away record (after South Africa) of any of Australia’s Test opponents.
A team which just four months ago did what Australia have not been able to achieve since 2001 – they avoided losing a Test series in England, drawing 2-2 with the hosts. As I wrote ahead of the first Test, Pakistan are not to be underestimated.
This is easily the best Pakistan team to tour Australia since 1999, when they boasted the likes of Wasim Akram, Inzamam ul-Haq, Saeed Anwar, Saqlain Mushtaq and Mohammad Yousuf.
On that aforementioned Roar piece there were numerous comments from Roarers claiming that Pakistan’s batting line-up was weak. One Roarer even suggested Australia’s rookie-laden top seven was better.
Yet Pakistan have five batsmen in their top seven who average 42 or more in Test cricket. And not just because of small sample sizes – four of those batsmen have played 50-plus Tests and the other, keeper Sarfraz Ahmed, has 1805 Test runs to his name from 31 matches.
It is a batting line-up which had a recent hiccup in New Zealand but which stood up far better in English conditions than did the Australians. In England, Pakistan had four batsmen who averaged 39 or better, compared to Australia who only had three batsmen who averaged more than 28 in the Ashes.
I will repeat it – this is a good Pakistan team. And one which has a lot more experience than Australia. Pakistan had an awful start to the Brisbane Test but it always seemed likely they’d bounce back. Under the captaincy of Misbah ul-Haq they have proven to be a resilient unit, unlike the often flaky Pakistan line-ups of the past.
This was highlighted in emphatic fashion as they pushed their way to 450 in the fourth innings at Brisbane. Now, there were unmistakable issues with Smith’s field placements and the unthreatening bowling of Nathan Lyon. But Australia’s effort in that fourth innings was far from rank.
Pacemen Mitchell Starc, Josh Hazlewood and Jackson Bird all bowled well. Only Lyon struggled.
Sometimes, when things go against a team, it’s because the opposition has played some good cricket. But there is little nuance in modern assessments of cricket matches – observers are so keen to accentuate the negative, to mine for controversy.
Let’s not forget that Australian cricket was in “crisis” just a few weeks ago. A 5-0 loss in the ODIs in South Africa had been followed by Australia losing their fourth and fifth Tests on the trot. Wholesale changes were made to the Test team, with a new and long-overdue emphasis on youth.
Since making five changes to their Test line-up for the Adelaide Test, Australia have won both their matches against quality opponents. One triumph may have been in a dead rubber and the other a close shave, but a victory is a victory. We can ask little more of a young, rebuilding team than for them to win.
Australia did not play poorly at Brisbane. They batted well in both digs and bowled solidly for a large part of the Test. It is comical that they’ve received such fierce criticism. Have Australian fans have become addicted to negativity?
Baggy_Green
Guest
Great point Bushie....dont know about the early domination but this (pre renshaw-handscomb) team does not seem to turn around difficult situations and almost always lose the crucial moments. Also Smith does seem to run out of ideas when situation starts to go against the side But lets give this team a chance and some time. The team has shown good resilience and fight in the last 2 tests and look more willing to slog it out !!
Bee bee
Guest
Bugs, you do realise Helen Keller was blind, is dead and being American probably was not aware of cricket. This is taking irony to nuclear proportions. However, other than supercharged irony I liked your point and agree.
Mick_Lions
Roar Pro
This current Aussie squad doesn't seem to have the role players of old teams. Dominators like Hayden and Ponting yes, but where's the all day long rocks like Langer, Waugh and Border? Add counter punchers/clutch players like Gilly and Huss and you can see how this new side is so 1 dimensional. Obviously there isn't much talent around when our number 6 is mediocre at best. It took Hussey 10yrs and 12k runs to force his way in
davSA
Guest
I agree about the quality of this Pakistani team Ronan and have said so on previous posts on the Roar . I have also warned that under Mickey Arthur they seem to have stepped up a level. He will also be very focused on this series for obvious reasons. Nonetheless Australia should have their measure . The team already looks far more formidable than that which played the Proteas. The biggest error by far in my mind was sending a very poor side to SA in the one dayers . A hammering was always on the cards and happened. This cannot not have affected the Aussies mental set up for the SA test series. (or the Proteas more positively for that matter). The formats may differ but losing is losing. I am a Steve Smith admirer and predict that in time he will reward my faith in him. The 3rd test win against SA probably more important for the Aussie mind set than people realise . With regards your article however I feel that internationally in this age of mega bucks for cricketers that the gap between all sides with the exception of the Windies has narrowed. We all have to get used to that . I understand the Aussie public being so used to dominance in the sport but those periods of dominance will come again , just maybe not as frequently or for as long . Being criticall does always seem to flow more easily off the tongue than searching for positives.
Lroy
Guest
Yes, I think that about sums it up ;-) Cricket is the only sport that we all play together, whereas in the winter everyone follows the different footy codes, so cricket simply attracts more comments because more eyeballs are watching one game... not 32 suburban footy teams spread across the nation.
The Bush
Roar Guru
And yet we've dropped Nevill for a guy who values his wicket only slightly above Maxwell (presumably why he bats above him in the Shield... I'm only half joking). There was a time when you'd watch the Australian Cricket team and it had players in it that you always felt could save the game, no matter what stage it was at. True some of them are titans of the game such as Gilchrist and Steve Waugh. But others weren't in that same class, but were fighters, Harris, Langer, Hussey, Katich. It's funny because whatever faults you can find in the Test side, I still feel that way about the ODI side - we simply never look out of the contest - you always feel that someone will stand up and pull us out of the hole.
Brian
Guest
When SA were on top in Perth Nevill fought hard as did Smith in Hobart, but generally you are right most of them are definitely downhill skiers.
Mal
Guest
Clarke only gets on with Warne.
Bugs
Guest
Spot on Chris. Wade learning to catch is the biggest issue, but Helen Keller can see that SOK is currently our best spin option in India - Lyon will / should bowl in tandem with him there, so send him to back to NSW to regain confidence, and get SOK into the test team to elevate his.
qwetzen
Guest
Yes, a few people are being a tad critical of this side, let's face it, they're not very good, and losers attract criticism like Pauline Hanson attracts nutters. But I believe there's another reason for this criticism, and it's not a million kilometres from why Trump won. This reason being that this Aust mob is stunningly boring. From the top down; I've yet to hear Smith utter an original turn of phrase. He's the best Cliche Man since Alec Stewart "hung up the boots". Neither have I ever heard him say anything that's witty, humorous, self-depreciating, wry, insightful, light-hearted or even worse, interesting. (So a job at Nein awaits him as soon as he wants it). Warner, now that he's allegedly stopped throwing punches and launching drunken Twitter tirades at journos, unlike his captain, at least looks like a human but sadly, he also only speaks in cliches. Our fast bowlers: Jaysus! Is there anything that looks more childish and less threatening on a cricket field than when Josh Hazlewood puts on his 'You can't bat!' face after beating a batsman? Neck scrunched in like a grazing turtle, chin and bottom lip stuck out like a six year old who's just been kicked out of the sandpit and his hayseed haircut. Funny, but embarrassing. Starc's not much better, and both of them have the weak habit of doing their sledge/facial contortions as they're beginning to walk away. His Dennisness must be turning in his recliner rocker. Apart from Naifan, the whole shower look like the first XI at a strict upper-middle class school. There's not a man amongst 'em. They're the Boring Boys.
dangertroy
Roar Rookie
While I agree that we shouldn't be overly negative, this team is far from the finished article, so why shouldn't there be constructive criticism? Nick Maddison has been picked whilst out of form, Matthew Wade costs us more runs behind the stumps than he makes in front of them and Nathan Lyon can't bowl us to victory on a day 5 pitch. These are legitimate problems with the team, and one that need to be addressed, even if we are winning matches. What I don't like it unwarranted criticism, such as whether the follow on should have been enforced (it shouldn't have) orwhether Matt Renshaw was scoring too slowly (he wasn't). These type of comments that suggest the players are playing in a negative manner (I can't bring myself to say 'brand') are truly irksome.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Ronan, It's not just the reliance on the big players, which, as you say, is common in all teams. It's the manner in which the wins occur. As I said, it requires dominance from the outset and even then (think Perth), we still lose from some of those positions. My substantive point was the example provided by Pakistan. When was the last time an Australian team put up a fight in a tough situation, win or lose? Instead this team seems prone to collapses and crushing defeats. They're not common, but I honestly can't remember the last time I saw an Australian bat like Faf did a few years ago to save a test. Until Australia starts producing consistent performances, that include showing fight like that, we're going to continue to feel like they're only capable of winning in perfect circumstances.
matth
Guest
Does Smith get on with O'Keefe? I seem to remember that Clarke did not?
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
"One of the points raised was that this Australian side only has one way to win – by early domination via either Smith/Warner with the bat or Starc/Hazelwood with the ball." So Australia, like almost every side in world cricket, relies heavily on its star players (Smith/Warner/Starc/Hazlewood)? Look at England - without old stagers Cook, Broad and Anderson having any impact in India they got absolutely destroyed 4-0. South Africa have leaned very heavily on Amla/ABdV/Steyn/Philander since Kallis and Smith retired....their series against Australia was first time in a major series this wasn't the case. India are a fine side but most of their wins in recent years have hinged on Ashwin/Kohli/Jadeja/Rahane (until this past series where they exhibited good depth, like SA in Oz). Khawaja is now stepping up for Australia and was the reason they won the Adelaide Test against SA, while Handscomb and Renshaw were the pillars of Australia's winning first innings total at Brisbane. So there are some key contributions starting to emerge from Aussie players outside of the Big 4. That will take time to improve because Australia currently have their youngest Test side in something like 25 or 30 years.
fnq boy
Guest
Every Australian male is at birth a fully qualified Australian selector, same as guys born in NZ are automatically All Black triallists. In any case, I don't think our media and public here are that bad when they have a go at the national side. I was in England last year for the RWC when England got knocked out. Geez, hells bells you should have seen the vitriol directed at the team and coaching staff. And one can only imagine what it would have been like when they lost to Iceland in the Euros.
Onside
Guest
Maybe a reflection that people are 'cricketed out'. There's, Test cricket, One day cricket, International One Day cricket, Big Bash cricket, pregnancy test cricket, Women's Big Bash cricket, Womens Test Cricket, Womens Ashes cricket, Sheffield Shield cricket, Club cricket, Matador Cup cricket, that all morph into each other, and are promoted ad nauseum as one you beaut thing after another. And you'd better have snipped a decent Lotto prize if you want to take the family the Boxing Day Test to watch cricketers who earn 3, 4 or 5 million dollars a year. So sure people have a bit of a grumble, well why not, especially those who can remember when cricket was a sport.
Alex L
Roar Rookie
Well said ROC, complaints about the Australian side in Brisbane also show an utter lack of respect for this Pakistan team (which also is prevalent in Indian dominated cricket media) -- arguably the best test team in the world, and definitely the most adaptable -- any team that can get to #1 in the world (even if only for a cup of coffee) without being able to play at their actual home deserves a lot of respect.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Someone posted an article yesterday or the day before talking about why Lehmann should be sacked as coach. One of the points raised was that this Australian side only has one way to win - by early domination via either Smith/Warner with the bat or Starc/Hazelwood with the ball. I think this is part of the reason we're quick to jump on this side (and other recent sides). They're inconsistent and worse than that, often lacking in spirit and ideas (something that doesn't require talent - which you've either got or you don't). You talk about winning against South Africa, but it was a dead rubber. That's like congratulation England on winning an Ashes Test in the '90s - that consolation win was always basically meaningless. The 'Gabba win was much better. But even that win reveals the issue with this side - when was the last time you saw an Australian side put up a fight like Pakistan did? Instead we're more likely to do an England and collapse in a heap on the last day, 300 runs short. Until this side starts demonstrating a true fighting ability, I think we're always going to jump on them.
Tony Tea
Guest
You invite a stacks on when your difference between your good and bad is so great.
Brian
Guest
Listen to Ian Healy commentate. That should explain it.