The word ”choke” is a bit far-stretched term for a side that became the world champions less than a month ago but seeing how soft this Australian team has become after the sandpaper scandal in 2018, it has had a impact on their game.
They are not being dominant and they’re throwing away key moments in a match, and the question does arise that does this Australian side struggle to capitalise on crucial opportunities?
The Australians in the 1990s to mid-2000s were a force to reckoned with.
They always took the fight and pretty much always won whether they were up against England, a strong Indian team with world-class batters, Pakistan’s amazing fast bowlers, a fighting New Zealand team or the South Africans with Jacques Kallis and co.
Those teams dominated both home and away and the main reason was the fear and intimidation they put on opponents.
They had the ability to dominate from first ball of the Test and they had an arrogant style.
Australians in any sport have a fighting spirit – an intention to win absolutely everything. That Australian team showed it all and were for reason called the ”Invincibles” for a brief amount of time.
Coming back to this Australian team led by Pat Cummins, it’s a really really good side with batters having averages that have surpassed 50 and 60 in some cases.
But do opponents fear this side? Maybe not.
The big reason is they don’t show the intimidation levels or impose the fear that they are going to take the game away from an opponent.
Teams needing 100 with the last four wickets can still be a bit optimistic of winning the match and that is where we can notice there isn’t that fear anymore.
In the third Headingley Test, in the first innings with England 7-142 coming to tea with Ben Stokes on one leg with tailender Mark Wood, the Australians should have gained a lead of more than 100 if they had wrapped up the innings immediately.
Instead they leaked 95 runs in 10 overs with Wood smacking three sixes as Mitchell Starc and Cummins dug the ball in short.
The momentum thereafter was with England throughout the match.
A similar thing happened in the second innings with the match pretty much in the balance with 80 required and England six down with Chris Woakes and not much batting left.
(Photo by Ashley Allen/Getty Images)
Australia started spreading the field instead of attacking to get Harry Brook or Woakes out. They let them build a partnership without threatening them and ultimately lost the match.
Not long ago Australia lost a huge opportunity in winning a historical Test in Delhi. India were trailing by 124 runs after being 7-139 but Axar Patel and Ravichandran Ashwin stitched a partnership worth 114 for the eighth wicket and there was the Test, gentlemen.
Australia never recovered after that and in an horrific second innings, were rolled for a mere 113.
At Headingley in 2019, Stokes swatted a century when Australia started being complacent in the field with one wicket to go. He was at it again at Lord’s recently with 155, intimidating the Aussies and nearly stealing the result again.
The only solution for the Aussies is to play harder cricket. Australia trying to be nice has not really helped them and their intimidation is no more.
For now, with all the history in their side and the fact that a team has never won an Ashes series after being down 2-0 except Don Bradman’s team in 1936-37, Australia can breathe a bit easier.
But they also know this England team under Stokes and Brendon McCullum is a different beast and are not going to back down on their Bazball style.
They can only hope their missed opportunity at Headingley doesn’t come back to haunt them.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Indeed, comes down to small things sometimes. Warne dropped a relative sitter at first slip at first slip off Pietersen in the fifth Test which proved crucial. But can’t fault him too much given his great bowling across the series. Another game where the golden Aussies showed great “fight”, the chase by Langer and Gilchrist v Pakistan in 1999, wouldn’t have happened with DRS - I saw two shockers letting Langer off when watching highlights recently.
matth
Roar Guru
Lara's assault was great batting. Warne was just coming back from shoulder surgery and was well out of form. Also, Australia had rarely been challenged like that and struggled with that. 2005, I think England played brilliantly. Gillespie being ineffective and McGrath being injured and then not really fit played the biggest part in that series.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
I recall when Warne failed to stop Lara chase down a total in 1999. A choke, or just great batting? 2005 felt like a bit of a choke too.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
“Those teams dominated both home and away and the main reason was the fear and intimidation they put on opponents.” No, the MAIN reason was that they had one of the best combinations of batting averages and bowling averages of all time. Someone showed that the 2002 team had a claim to be the best on paper ever to take the field alongside the early 80s Windies and the 1948 invincibles. Not one batter in the first 7 averaging under 42 and all bowlers under 27. That’s way better than the current XI. And that team did choke too - against Lara and the Windies in 1999 and the Ashes in 2005. And they played better away because they had way more lead in games and tour matches then compared to after 2010. And Shane Warne compared to Lyon, let alone Murphy, is a huge advantage. Here’s the article I referred to: https://www.theroar.com.au/2020/07/11/which-was-the-greatest-test-team-assembled-on-a-single-day/
JamesH
Roar Guru
And Starc isn't that sort of bowler. His strength has always been attacking the stumps.
Tempo
Roar Rookie
Struggling to capitalise on key moments? How come they are up 2-1 then? With the two wins being in games where England were within 2 wickets of winning with 54 runs left and within 70 runs of winning with 4 wickets in hand? This team has matched the results of the 1998 and 2001 Australians in India against a much better Indian side and are playing against a better England side than those teams. I think the main differences between the golden teams and this one are Shane Warne and Adam Gilchrist. The idea the current team is too soft is nonsense psychobabble.
Pop
Roar Rookie
“Teams needing 100 with the last four wickets can still be a bit optimistic of winning the match and that is where we can notice there isn’t that fear anymore.” Teams like India and England have caught the blueprint that you need BOWLERS WHO CAN BAT in positions 8-9-10 if possible. We haven’t and are getting run down because bowlers who believe they can bat like Woakes, Ashwin and Jadeja will run down remaining runs of 100-150. The days of the LONG TAIL are over.
Ben Pobjie
Expert
It’s true: this team does not have Warne, McGrath, Ponting, Waugh, Hayden and Gilchrist. Until they learn to have Warne, McGrath, Ponting, Waugh, Hayden and Gilchrist, they will never be a truly great team. They need to harden up and start having Warne, McGrath, Ponting, Waugh, Hayden and Gilchrist. Cummins has been pathetic in refusing at any point of his captaincy to have Warne, McGrath, Ponting, Waugh, Hayden and Gilchrist.
matth
Roar Guru
Yeah but for some reason they moved away from what got the top order out and went full Neil Wagner
Opeo
Roar Rookie
Starc has been very good at cleaning up tails in the past.
matth
Roar Guru
Being aggressive no less
matth
Roar Guru
I think you could have finished after your first sentence to be honest. The 1990’s to 2000’s teams could mop up a tail because they had Shane Warne. When he wasn’t available they had Stuart McGill. That makes a difference and I don’t think being more arrogant changes that. 2nd test we had no spinner and in the third we had a rookie. I think they’ve tried to be too intimidating. That’s what a shirt pitched barrage actually is, I’d rather they go back to line and length and patience.
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
Exactly right. In the team review of that Test, I truly hope both Smith & Labuschagne apologized for their shot selections.
Opeo
Roar Rookie
Well put. There is no shame in losing by three wickets after being sent in on a seaming paradise in foreign conditionse either. And the tactics that allowed Mark Wood to score 24 runs is definitely not what lost us that match. We were two down, leading by 140, and Labuschagne and Smith threw their wickets away in consecutive overs. This is where we lost the match.
Wikipetia
Roar Rookie
Agree. They were ordered to count the cost of winning, and have done so, hence the changes in tone. But their results since Cummins took over can hardly be faulted. Letting Sri Lanka square the series maybe. But generally, they are doing as well of better as ever. Yes there are moments in games. But there always are. Agree re test 1 here. Concede 400 on the first day and find a way to win - that’s hard enough for me.
The tagger
Roar Rookie
We all need to take a deep breath. Lost one game by 3 wickets away. Keep calm and let’s see how we go at Old Trafford
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
I understand the point you're trying to make Kamran, but I'm not sure you've helped your cause by cherrypicking results to justify your position. I can argue that Australia is already playing hard cricket. The last 3 Test against India have resulted in Indian beltings by 9 wickets, a draw and a loss by more than 200 runs in the WTC. The same team then played hard cricket to win a near impossible victory in the First Ashes Test, thanks to some hard cricket by Cummins & Lyon. They then apparently went a step further in the hard cricket stakes at Lords when Carey stumped Bairstow and Cummins refused to call back the batsmen. I don't think there's any argument the Aussies need to work on their bowling & fielding tactics, but I think it's a stretch to suggest they need to play harder.