View Full Version : The last time Australia lost a Test match
Gunnar Longshanks
16 Jan 2008, 23:35
25/08/2005 - Fourth Test vs England at Trent Bridge.
The controversial Sydney Test against India was our 22nd Test since. Two draws and 20 wins. Hopefully this thread doesn't send Australia tumbling to defeat in Perth. That would be bad timing.
Our last losing Test team was:
Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Martyn
Clarke
Katich
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
Kasprowicz
Tait
Five are gone. Six if you include McGrath, who would have played in Tait's place if fit.
I think the most telling element of Australia's undefeated streak is that much of it has been driven by players who either weren't in the side when it started, or who have dramatically improved since.
Mike Hussey and Stuart Clark have debuted, and both were immediately world-class. 2120 runs at 84. 62 wickets at 20. They were fringe players.
Jaques has debuted, and is now a regular, casually maintaining a Test average of 50+.
Clarke was dropped, before being recalled against Bangladesh. Since then, he's made 750 runs at 62.
Symonds was brought in against South Africa towards the end of 2005. He was dropped again, and then recalled against England. Since then, he's scored 632 runs at 91. Throw in eight wickets at 26. Prior to the current Test in Perth.
That's five guys who at one stage in Australia's undefeated streak were not considered good enough to be in the Test side. Since the last time Australia lost a Test, all these guys, at one stage or another, have been considered fringe players. Pretty impressive when you look at their achievements since their most recent recalls.
You can throw Brett Lee in there as well. Obviously he had been around the block a few times already, but since Australia last loss a Test match, Lee has taken 102 wickets at 27. If you take out the Fifth Test of the 2005 Ashes, it's 101 wickets at 25. Either way, a vast improvement on his previous output.
So, after all that, my point is that Australia have essentially turned over half their side - debuting three players and recycling two - in the space of 30 months, all without losing a single Test.
That kind of change is meant to cripple teams. Instead, it has made Australia better, even though we now get fewer runs from our #7 and much fewer wickets from our spinner.
I can't think of a more poignant illustration of the strength of Australian cricket. Rebuild, but stay #1 throughout. That's not just dominance. That's hegemony.
DeadlyAkkuret
17 Jan 2008, 00:52
This is a great post, and I especially like the part that proves Clarke deserves his place in the team. A lot of people jumped the gun after the SCG test. Typical Big Footy hoopla!
There's one very obvious thing to come out of those stats, and that is that the Aussies clearly hate losing to the Poms. Unlike most teams that come over here and get beaten, we didn't make excuses and point to injuries, or bad umpiring decisions. We took a good, hard look at ourselves and got right back on the horse.
Australia will always be one of the top 2 cricket teams, because no team in the world has more resolve or mongrel about them than we do. Add that pure determination to the fact that we have an incredibly talented team, with many great players who can't even get into the side, and I can't see us falling from the top of the tree for a long time.
awesome_assassin
17 Jan 2008, 03:16
Agree about this being a good post. The scary thing is some of those guys that are not in that side like Mc Grath, Langer, Martyn Katich are are still capable or would be if they were still playing( like Mc Grath in that 20/20 match for NSW).
Warne is another example, 2 years ago i would have put my house on the fact that he would keep going untill 2009 ashes, he was still bowling well.
I never used to think it was a good idea to blood player in their lae 20's to play for Australia, thats now changed.
Players are now fine tuning their skills and getting picked at a later age, but the confidence they are showing (Jaques & Hussey for eg) proves its worth. Sure you might not get 10 or more years out of some of these guys, but 5 years out of a player who is at the top of his game, is more than enough to suggest its worth. Australia are still going through a transition phase with Hayden and Gilchrist close to retirement as well. Worthy replacements are waiting in the wings in Rogers and Haddin. We will still be a strong side.
Father Jack
17 Jan 2008, 05:22
And all this time Australia has had an 'old' team which apparently doesn't bode well for the future. It never ceases to amaze whenever a debutante strolls out to the wicket for his first dig in Test match cricket when they flash his first class stats up on the screen to find that said debutante has thousands upon thousands of runs behind him already. Oddly enough they tend to slot straight into the team as if they were born to it. Despite being in their thirties and thus not a forward-thinking selection. Funny that.
This answered a question I was going to ask...
I think this is the true streak that should be looked at. What is the longest a team has gone without being bowled out twice.
The_Eagles
17 Jan 2008, 06:22
quality post, newspaper worthy
Excellent and well researched post - as some one said, newspaper worthy although it would exceeed some of the rubbish being served up following the Sydney test.
One question if I may regarding this comment;
You can throw Brett Lee in there as well. Obviously he had been around the block a few times already, but since Australia last loss a Test match, Lee has taken 102 wickets at 27. If you take out the Fifth Test of the 2005 Ashes, it's 101 wickets at 25. Either way, a vast improvement on his previous output.
What was significant about that game?
This answered a question I was going to ask...
I think this is the true streak that should be looked at. What is the longest a team has gone without being bowled out twice.
I think it's about 28 by the Windies.
Yep, good post by Gunnar, although i was bemused to see how he's now belatedly jumped onto Symonds, after flogging him for so long on this forum.
Gunnar Longshanks
17 Jan 2008, 09:57
What was significant about that game?It was part of the series that preceded the streak.
I guess there are two numbers. One is from the start of the streak. The other is post-Ashes.
I think the Ashes loss was a major spur to Lee, but his form during it wasn't that great. The improvement began afterwards, and has accelerated since McGrath's retirement.
Gunnar Longshanks
17 Jan 2008, 10:00
quality post, newspaper worthyDon't be silly - I can't compete with Roebuck's 'empty can' analogies.
"He batted with the haste of a young man running to catch a bus in the rain."
That's the kind of bullshit that passes for cricket writing in this country.
Gunnar Longshanks
17 Jan 2008, 10:03
I think it's about 28 by the Windies.
Yep, good post by Gunnar, although i was bemused to see how he's now belatedly jumped onto Symonds, after flogging him for so long on this forum.Pffffttt...
1) I haven't jumped onto anyone - I've merely presented Symonds' numbers, which are not in dispute.
2) I never flogged him. I made the point that, at the start of the summer, his spot was far less secure than the other members of the top 6. If you can find an example of me calling for him to be dropped, I'd like to see it.
Stop making up bullshit.
BK Eaglesfan
17 Jan 2008, 15:13
Given the make up of our last side, and the score at the WACA just now, only one thing is clear......Shaun Tait is bad luck!
Adelaide Hawk
17 Jan 2008, 18:27
Yeah, I remember that Test. It was the last time Australia played when nobody bitched about their attitude or lack of sportsmanship.
crudbucket
17 Jan 2008, 19:47
bookmark this thread for about 5pm on Sunday arvo.
red+black
17 Jan 2008, 20:05
Since our last home series loss (v West Indies 1992/93), Australia have lost a mere 3 tests at home when the series was still live.
Gunnar Longshanks
19 Jan 2008, 20:27
Hopefully this thread doesn't send Australia tumbling to defeat in Perth. That would be bad timing.Like clockwork.
sen entertainment bloke
19 Jan 2008, 21:08
Like clockwork.
Out of interest, do you know how Australia's tossing winning rate has been during the 20 tests?
Out of interest, do you know how Australia's tossing winning rate has been during the 20 tests?
From an undisclosed source, I can tell you that Clarke normally comes out first with Hayden a close second, Johnson looking the goods in third, Ponting holding out the end, however some nasal delivery looks to have him fixed up by the 21st test.
sen entertainment bloke
20 Jan 2008, 20:17
From an undisclosed source, I can tell you that Clarke normally comes out first with Hayden a close second, Johnson looking the goods in third, Ponting holding out the end, however some nasal delivery looks to have him fixed up by the 21st test.
Ahem, Tom Moody is the best hagis tosser ever evidently.
I meant, has Australia won more coin flips to decide who bats who bowls first during the streak.
I have this thing about the toss being to big an advantage in a five day game. Knw that Steve Waugh says it's not whether or not you win the toss that matters, it's how you perform afterwards.
davey_magik
21 Jan 2008, 20:58
What worries me about our future is our bowling. As strong as our stocks have been in the past, we can't simply expect we'll pump out more quality.
Tait will always have his very good and very bad days, but Clark and Lee as good as they are will be gone in 3 years one thinks, I rate Hilfy but he's still got a lot of work and Johnson hasn't impressed me.
No doubt we'll have some more young quicks on the scene by then, but you wouldn't think they'll be ready for Tests by then. Compare that to countries like India (RP Singh, Sree, Khan, Pathan, Sharma, Patel), England (Anderson, Broad, Tremlett) and Pakistan (Asif, Gul, Tanvir, Ali?) and it is a bit of a worry.
Illinois Nazi
21 Jan 2008, 21:35
I meant, has Australia won more coin flips to decide who bats who bowls first during the streak.
I have this thing about the toss being to big an advantage in a five day game.
I think someone mentioned during the Sydney Test that Ponting as captain is running at about 40%, so that wouldn't suggest the toss is vital.
What worries me about our future is our bowling. As strong as our stocks have been in the past, we can't simply expect we'll pump out more quality.
Tait will always have his very good and very bad days, but Clark and Lee as good as they are will be gone in 3 years one thinks, I rate Hilfy but he's still got a lot of work and Johnson hasn't impressed me.
No doubt we'll have some more young quicks on the scene by then, but you wouldn't think they'll be ready for Tests by then. Compare that to countries like India (RP Singh, Sree, Khan, Pathan, Sharma, Patel), England (Anderson, Broad, Tremlett) and Pakistan (Asif, Gul, Tanvir, Ali?) and it is a bit of a worry.
Hence them being so keen on giving players like Mitch an extended run.
On a serious note, Gunnar this is far and away your best post in Bigfooty history.
Gunnar Longshanks
21 Jan 2008, 23:00
On a serious note, Gunnar this is far and away your best post in Bigfooty history.I disagree.
Probably not even top 20.
Out of interest, do you know how Australia's tossing winning rate has been during the 20 tests?
During the 16 match streak:
Australia: 6 won
Opposition: 10 won
Australia won the toss 40% of the time.
Durn the 21 match undefeated streak
Australia: 8 won
Opposition: 13 won
Australia won the toss 38.46% of the time.
Ponting clearly needs to work on this aspect of his game ;)