‘Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone, prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone; silence the pianos and with muffled drum, bring out the coffin, this Ashes is done.’
W.H. Auden’s famed poem ‘Funeral Blues’ seems an apt way to bring to a close one of the most engrossing, thrilling, and boorish men’s Ashes series ever.
Now that I can finally think clearly, having been deprived of sleep and reason across six pulsating weeks of glorious cricket and tribalist nonsense, I can also attempt to answer a question that was raised before the first ball was bowled.
Manage, strategise & dominate. Download Wicket Cricket Manager today!
In the lead in to the Ashes, there was much talk of this being an ‘era defining’ tour, in which an experienced Australian men’s team hoped to enshrine its legacy forever.
The core of this team, picked consistently as a unit since 2016, features Steve Smith, David Warner, Usman Khawaja, Marnus Labuschagne, Nathan Lyon, Josh Hazlewood, Mitchell Starc and Pat Cummins.
(Photo by Visionhaus/Getty Images)
There have also been peripheral yet important contributions from Tim Paine, Alex Carey, Matthew Renshaw, Peter Handscomb, Cameron Bancroft, Marcus Harris, Mitchell Marsh, Travis Head, Cam Green, and Scott Boland.
While there has been no mass exodus of retirements just yet, there is no doubt with an average age pushing well into the mid-30s, the time is closing on this team’s long summer.
So, will the 2016-2023 Australian side go down as an all-time great?
Their Test record is certainly nothing to sniffle at. Since the summer of 2015/16, the team has won 43 Tests, lost 23 and drawn 16, equating to a winning percentage of 52%. Highlights include two Ashes wins, an away win in Pakistan, a World Test Championship, and countless thumpings at home (not to mention a T20 World Cup win in 2021).
And yet, Ian Higgins’ labelling of them as an ‘almost team’ feels fair. There has been no definable series win it can hang its hat on. It twice lost gallantly in India, but was far less impressive in losing twice more to them at home. The 2019 and 2023 Ashes series in England were drawn after giving up winning positions. Indeed, outside the Pakistan victory, one cannot overlook its poor away record. It suffered a devastating 3-1 loss to South Africa in 2017, a 3-0 drubbing at the hands of Sri Lanka in 2016, and a drawn 1-1 series against Bangladesh in 2017.
The team’s legacy has also suffered from an image problem. Sandpapergate, the exiting of Justin Langer as coach, campaigning on a range of progressive social and political issues, pragmatic approaches to training and playing, unconventionally defensive tactics, and a generally affable relationship with the opposition has led to accusations of the team being ‘soft’, ‘entitled’ and ‘un-Australian’.
(Photo by Richard Heathcote/Getty Images)
Such barbs hurt all the more when they came from ex-players, many of whom were the childhood heroes of the current team. Joining a chorus of attacks from Steve Waugh, Adam Gilchrist, Damien Martyn, Shane Warne, and Matthew Hayden, Mitchell Johnson called Cummins and the team ‘gutless’ for failing to support Langer’s retention as coach.
Former wicketkeeper Ian Healy, meanwhile, blamed low one-day international crowds not on poor scheduling or promotion but on the team not winning ‘hard enough.’ Huh?
The ridiculousness of such statements reveals that perhaps the team’s contested legacy has as much to do with us, as it does with the team itself.
Cricketing pundits, me included, continue to assess its on field record in the long shadows of their fathers and sisters. Having followed the 15-year reign of the men’s ‘golden generation’ and played alongside the current women’s ‘golden generation’, Australians have been conditioned to think that winning every Test match is a reasonable expectation.
The Smith-Paine-Cummins era, however, is a comparatively successful one. Their combined 52% winning record is below Ricky Ponting’s 62% and Steve Waugh’s 72%, but equal with Mark Taylor’s 52% and above Michael Clarke’s 51%, Allan Border’s 34%, and Ian Chappell’s 50%. The reality is that international cricket is highly competitive, and winning a difficult prospect, especially away from home.
The team’s image problem as ‘soft’ is also misplaced. Outside Warner, the traditionally ‘hard’ Australian playing philosophy, which essentially translates to ‘be an obnoxious prick to your opposition’, simply does not align with the temperament of the current team. While highly competitive, the documentary The Test, which delves into the behind-the-scenes life of the team, reveals many of the players to be irreverent, polite, professional and thoughtful by nature.
(Photo by Stu Forster/Getty Images)
One could make the argument their earlier attempts to play with the ‘headbutting the line’ style of their predecessors ended in them rubbing sandpaper on the ball when they realised they did not have the same depth of talent to back up their forced snarls.
The current team can take solace that the golden generation’s dismissiveness is less about their own failures and more about the cyclical pattern of authoritarian parenting that has existed in Australian cricket since time immemorial.
Few recall that Waugh’s now celebrated team was regularly lashed by their own forefathers: “Sam Loxton, Ian Meckiff, Lindsay Kline and Alan Davidson all indicated they were disgusted with the way this team carries on”, Neil Harvey said in 2001, “They are a good team but they’re not the greatest ever. They haven’t beaten much.”
Cricket Australia may have some form of inter-generational trauma born out of consistently asking the young: ‘think you’re better than your old man, do yah?’
When this band of current players breaks apart, they will not ascend to the top tier of Australian cricketing glory. Their achievements will be acknowledged, without being preserved in amber gold.
But they are a team who has played with skill, grace (since Sandpapergate) and dare I say loyalty to the Baggy Green when far greater riches may have understandably tempted them elsewhere. If nothing else, they have become true to themselves, to their own nature and values, and for that they deserve our respect.
JamesH
Roar Guru
That's my concern. There aren't many killing it with the bat in the Shield lately. We keep seeing players have a good season and then follow it up with a modest one.
Simoc
Roar Rookie
This is a top Australian team. Previously we had a weak middle order but Head, Green and now Marsh are laying waste to that. Our bowling attack has always been competitive with the best and as pointed out England are currently ok away as well but that is rare as with India. We shall see how good England are away when they visit India in the New Year. I expect India will eventually be dominant when they get over their psychological shortcomings. They appear to have an endless stream of quality talent but hopeless selectors who do their best to stymie the talent which is so apparent in IPL.
Pumping Dougie
Roar Guru
Plenty of exciting talent coming through in the bowling and allrounder departments to replace these guys over time. Just need another couple of Steve Smith's or Ricky Pontings to emerge and an opener or two (Pucovski will do).
Pumping Dougie
Roar Guru
This Aussie team will be remembered as a classy, talented, united World Champion, Ashes retaining side. Their opponent, the Pompous Ponms, will be remembered from this series as the biggest whingeing hypocrites and full-of-sh!t sales pitch to ever walk the planet. :happy:
The tagger
Roar Rookie
Thanks for this Knightwatchman. I really enjoyed your use of "live" and "dead" test data as a means to assess a team's performance and therefore their legacy. I think it is fair to say Australia has been blessed with some wonderful teams across the journey.
The Knightwatchmen who say Nii
Roar Rookie
The 2016-23 side has been a very good side, but cannot be compared with Mark Taylor’s 1994-99 unit. The legacy of a team is in winning test series all around the world. 42 of the 50 tests Taylor captained were when a series was still alive and the W-L-D ratio is 25-7-10. This is a win rate of 59.5%, and 78.1% for tests that had a result, with 76.2% of tests having results. For the 2016-23 outfit the ‘live’ test numbers are 32-23-8 for a win ratio of 50.8%. For the decided tests among these, it is only 58.2% with 87.3% of tests decided involving this latter day team. Taylor’s team won everywhere but India. Apart from India in India only, they faced top-notch opposition from Pakistan, South Africa and the West Indies in 8 series and won 7 of them, the only loss by the absolute narrowest of margins i.e., 1 solitary wicket. They won in each of those three countries. The only top-notch opposition the 2016-23 sides has faced has been South Africa in 2 series and India in 4. They did not win a single one of these and half of them were on home soil. In the three Ashes series Taylor captained, Australia won all of them, and twice snuffed out genuine opportunities for England to square up the final rubber after having already retained the urn. There have been four Ashes series in the current time frame under consideration, and while Australia have not finished any of them without the Ashes in their hands, TWICE they have failed to prevent England from finishing all square in the series. Australia have only won away from home to mid-range opposition in New Zealand and Pakistan, and, once again, failed to stop a mid-range opposition in drawing level in the final test, in Sri Lanka 2022, and also could only square a series against an improved Bangladesh in 2017. Australia lost all 5 of the remaining away tests against two of these same mid-range opposition, 0-3 in Lanka Land 2016 and 0-2 in Pakistan’s home away from home in 2018, the UAE. Taylor only played one series against mid-range opposition, at home against New Zealand in 1997-98 and comfortably won 2-0 with the 3rd test rain-ruined with Australia already well and truly on top. While Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting’s teams lost 2 out of 4 series they played against top level opposition i.e., in India 2001 and England 2005, they were far superior to the current crop at smashing the mid-range opposition to smithereens, especially away from home. Between 1999 and early 2006, they won 10 series, one in Sri Lanka, as well as home and away against New Zealand and declining South African and Pakistan teams, drew in the West Indies in 1999, were robbed of a comprehensive series win at home against New Zealand in 2001-02 due to rain, and lost in Sri Lanka 1999, albeit a series virtually reduced to a one-off test also due to rain. In all tests, live and dead rubbers alike, against this same mid-range opposition in the preceding paragraph, Australia won a phenomenal 80% of tests that weren’t ruined by rain (24/30 with 6 rain ruined) and 88.9% of the result tests among them. I do not see the relevance in considering tests against minnows.
whymuds
Roar Rookie
For sure, India can't seem to win any ICC trophies! But despite the drawn Ashes series, I think Australia is the best test team around right now (I held this view after the recently completed BG series and before Australia won the WTC). Impossible to beat at home and probably more adept to win / compete anywhere else around the world than any other team. Not many clinks in the 11 aside from replacing Warner.
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
back in that era, the success of tours was also judged by how many County games the touring team won and to go through undefeated was an enormous accomplishment. It wasn't that long ago Aussie teams results against County sides in the leadup matches were considered a good pointer to how they'd go in this series. A real shame these leadup matches have disappeared. Mind you, the Countys were often fielding 2nd XI's or even under 19's players before these matches were scrapped, so probably not much benefit if they were to be played now.
The tagger
Roar Rookie
Thanks rowdy. Really enjoy the angle you have taken and I think there is some substance to it. I am not sure a team can be defined solely by its captain and their qualities, but it’s a damn good start
The tagger
Roar Rookie
Can’t add much to that. I think they’re the team of our time. I think their Achilles heal has been tournament play, where England, Australia and even New Zealand have been superior. But with the WC approaching I’d have my money in India for sure!
The tagger
Roar Rookie
Highly recommend the grade cricketer podcast. They have have articulated many of these themes and more in a very funny way
The tagger
Roar Rookie
Cheers David. Haha yes I look forward to the day when I can finally say “back in my day”
whymuds
Roar Rookie
You asked the question: "So, will the 2016-2023 Australian side go down as an all-time great?" At the macro level, during this period (1 Jan 2016 to today), Australia's w/l ratio was 1.652, versus India 2.421, South Africa 1.320 and England 1.179. India dominated at home - no need to unpick this further. But India's fortunes overseas was mixed with a w/l ratio of 1.187 versus Australia 0.764, South Africa 0.500 and England 0.666. During this period India won 2 away series in Australia (the Everest of accomplishments for Asian teams), drew one in England that India would most likely have won if it wasn't for rain and lost a couple of hard fought series in South Africa. By almost every measure, except for not being able to win the WTC trophy - a brand new introduction to a format 140 odd years old - India has been the top of the pile for a while now, and that team is statistically is an all-time great.
Redcap
Roar Guru
One of the creators of The Grade Cricketer.
Micko
Roar Rookie
Who is Ian Higgins???
Redcap
Roar Guru
"Cricket Australia may have some form of inter-generational trauma born out of consistently asking the young: ‘think you’re better than your old man, do yah?’" Ah yes, we all ultimately disappoint out parents, whether they say so or not. And at some point we all ultimately stop caring, which is important because we're the only ones who can meaningfully let go of it. Then again, the older members of this team are the last who're roughly the same age as me. So, a few years from now there's a fair chance I'll be furiously decrying the lack of respect shown by the players toward coach David Warner (actually, no, that's seems unlikely :happy: ). Another fun read - thanks Tagger.
The tagger
Roar Rookie
Haha from what I’ve read they were quite the outfit. Winning 4-0 in England you’ve gotta be good !
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
Surely this is about team cohesion. For example in the Bradman era the best team was the one Vic lead in SA in Bradman's absence. That was a happy team. There was no patrician exclusion in that team. Again the teams that were lead by captains who had the respect of the team rather than their win loss ratio are, in my mind, were better teams. Post WW2 the best teams are Richie's, Ian's, Allan's, Mark's and Steve's. After that it was captaincy by committee. I think percentages are a broad indication. But playing for a team and guided by the man up front is more important. For example Border built a team out of abject performances to lead a generation of cricketers that didn't lose an Ashes series. The other's that l mentioned did the same. This current team is ok but definitely nowhere near a high water mark.
Rellum
Roar Guru
For me, this team sits above the mid 80s team and that's it. The bowling is better but the level of keeping and batting is not much different. Warner and Marnus home record pips the mid 80s team as well. All the other sides I have watched play for Aus since 1980 are better. If they were going to be considered great you wouldn't need to write this article as it would be a near universal view the team was great.
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
What about Brandman's Invincibles? :happy: