There was a two match series in India where the Aussies managed to score over 400 in each first innings and still lost. Around 2010? Or so. The second innings batting quite the shambles.
-
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
What the * has happened to this team?
- Thread starter Foggle
- Start date
- Tagged users None
There was a two match series in India where the Aussies managed to score over 400 in each first innings and still lost. Around 2010? Or so. The second innings batting quite the shambles.
Cleavy
Hall of Famer
now I've heard everything! 
http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cric...dd-man-out-for-australia-20150731-gip8k1.html
According to baum our batting is stronger than the bowling and hazlewood is the bowling weak link(38 wickets@20) and the man that would get dropped for siddle or perhaps cummins.
haven't read much of his stuff lately is he normally that full of s**t?
According to baum our batting is stronger than the bowling and hazlewood is the bowling weak link(38 wickets@20) and the man that would get dropped for siddle or perhaps cummins.
haven't read much of his stuff lately is he normally that full of s**t?
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
Yeah normally Baum is pretty good. I'm certain the batting being more powerful than the bowling is a typo. If you read the context around it a typo makes sense.
But dropping hazlewood? Total bollox.
But dropping hazlewood? Total bollox.
The Aussie cricket journos usually start losing the plot in the Ashes in England. This is fairly normal, they've got to keep churning stuff out - the joys of the non-stop news cycle - while their expectations and predictions are lying about them in tatters.
If Siddle comes in it has to be for either Johnson or Starc.
How dare you mention Siddle as a fix for anything.
- Sep 18, 2014
- 22,036
- 19,896
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Man United, San Antonio Spurs
Players out of form. Seriously, we are way to reliant on Warner & Smith to make the runs, if they get going, we seem to do well, if they fail, the rest of the side fails and we crumble like apple pie. Rovers is the only one capable of sticking tough and working through an innings.
Voges is not Upto it, Clarke is finished, Starc still needs to learn how to bowl in test matches.
The poms are nothing great, really, but a few swinging balls and we go to water, can't handle it, play stupid shots all the time.
Voges is not Upto it, Clarke is finished, Starc still needs to learn how to bowl in test matches.
The poms are nothing great, really, but a few swinging balls and we go to water, can't handle it, play stupid shots all the time.
- May 16, 2014
- 12,163
- 15,984
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Nothing has happened to this team. We've been shaky away for a long time. The Windies is a lot different to England with Anderson in fine form in England.
I think we could still get up to win 1 more match but the problem is no match has looked like being a draw so really we need to win both matches to retain the Ashes.
Still though, our problems are nowhere near as bad as Englands were when they visited Australia. So while we need to transition (Harris, Watson, Haddin, Clarke, Rogers been a part of the team for a fair while and are all gone/going/on their way out) we should have enough to remain stable. Warner, Smith, Hazelwood, Starc, Neville, M.Marsh is a good core.
I think we could still get up to win 1 more match but the problem is no match has looked like being a draw so really we need to win both matches to retain the Ashes.
Still though, our problems are nowhere near as bad as Englands were when they visited Australia. So while we need to transition (Harris, Watson, Haddin, Clarke, Rogers been a part of the team for a fair while and are all gone/going/on their way out) we should have enough to remain stable. Warner, Smith, Hazelwood, Starc, Neville, M.Marsh is a good core.
Carbine Chaos
The Gaff-er
- Apr 1, 2009
- 63,931
- 94,225
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Perth FC, Everton, Delhi
I wouldn't drop him, but to be fair, he was absolute puss in the last Test.
You expect inaccuracy from Starc (not that it excuses it), but Hazlewood really shouldn't be spraying it around so much.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
It's been a pretty poor series really. A lot of passengers on both sides.
Our bathing us still very fragile, particularly overseas. As has been mentioned rogers is still the only one who is consistently willing and able to knock out tough runs.
I'm hoping Ferguson continues to churn out big scores in the shield and force the selectors. He's not renowned for tough runs I know, but he had s great technique which is something severely lacking in our top seven, although heading in the right direction with Marsh's and nevill inclusion. Watson was to tight and robotic at the crease and haddin too loose. Their replacements have a better balance.
For all of Smith and Warner's improvement they are still very loose at the crease and are going to be prone to some cheap dismissals. At the moment they are doing fine. Smith doing better than fine. But they still don't strike me as guys who are going to consistently make big scores every series without failure for half a decade, ala Ponting. I also think Smith will do better at 4, but right now is our best bet at #3. If s Marsh comes in, I'd consider batting him 3.
Overall our biggest problem with the batting is taking in the swinging ball. We just seem lost completely with it. It's been an issue for a long time now, across several coaches, and batting set ups.
Our bathing us still very fragile, particularly overseas. As has been mentioned rogers is still the only one who is consistently willing and able to knock out tough runs.
I'm hoping Ferguson continues to churn out big scores in the shield and force the selectors. He's not renowned for tough runs I know, but he had s great technique which is something severely lacking in our top seven, although heading in the right direction with Marsh's and nevill inclusion. Watson was to tight and robotic at the crease and haddin too loose. Their replacements have a better balance.
For all of Smith and Warner's improvement they are still very loose at the crease and are going to be prone to some cheap dismissals. At the moment they are doing fine. Smith doing better than fine. But they still don't strike me as guys who are going to consistently make big scores every series without failure for half a decade, ala Ponting. I also think Smith will do better at 4, but right now is our best bet at #3. If s Marsh comes in, I'd consider batting him 3.
Overall our biggest problem with the batting is taking in the swinging ball. We just seem lost completely with it. It's been an issue for a long time now, across several coaches, and batting set ups.
A lot of problems with the swinging ball is simply down to hard hands going hard at the ball.
Rogers plays inside the line and does play with soft hands a fair bit which is very 'english' of him. None of the others seem to.
None of that is a reason for Smith's shot in the last match.. No one seems to be able to cope with the pressure of being BEHIND the game in our test team.
I have hopes of Neville there. He really does look like a busy player who can play each ball on its merits.
What has happened to this team?
I'd answer, the inevitable has happened; age is catching up with an old team.
It's important to remind ourselves of what's happened over the past 2 years in Australian cricket because many people (ie the broader public) seem to be under the misapprehension that the Australian test team has undergone a 'rebuild' of some sort which lead to our recent successes in winning the Ashes and defeating South Africa. I'd argue that we actually deferred the rebuild and opted instead to go for a short term patch up job. Rogers and Haddin were reinstated, Watson was persisted with, old stager Harris finally had an injury-free run and proved to be everything we'd hoped he could be (ie a world class bowler) and Johnson finally strung together a 2 year period where his mental demons all but left the building and allowed him to unleash hell upon the world's batsmen. The Johnson-Harris combination was perfect; the ferocious spearhead and the foil at the other end who could not only dry up the runs but was equally capable of taking top order wickets.
But, as it turns out, it was more a neat alignment of the planets than a new era. The real rebuild is yet to begin and it looks like Steve Smith will end up eating the $hit sandwich as he deals with the period after Rogers, Clarke, Watson, Haddin, Harris and Johnson. Voges was another temporary fix with little thought beyond the next series or two.
As good as Hazlewood, Pattinson, Cummins, Starc etc may be down the track, they're not Harris and Johnson (not yet anyway) and, while Johnson may be around for another year or so, you already get the impression he's a lesser menace without Harris at the other end.
The batting is an unmitigated disaster with only Smith and Warner likely to be there a year from now. Actually, I may well be optimistic in that assessment - it could be a matter of months until they're the only two standing.
At some point the selectors will have to roll the dice by identifying a few genuinely young batsmen who they believe have the class to make it at test level. Then they will have to select them and persist with them. Great teams and great eras are built around a core group of 10-15 year players. Sometimes future champions make an immediate case for test selection (think Ponting R, Chappell G) while others simply ooze natural talent even if their first class records suggest selection is premature (think Waugh S, Clarke M, Warne S, McGrath G for a start). If the latter group had been forced to 'put the runs on the board for a sustained period' before test selection beckoned, we may have been waiting for years. In fact, we may never have seen Warne. IMHO, it is the selectors job to spot raw talent and bring it to the fore early. Genuine young talent needs to be identified, selected and persisted with if the aim is to produce great sides.
While plenty will point to the likes of Hussey M, Langer J, Hayden M etc, I don't believe a great side can be built exclusively around seasoned veterans or journeymen. Those blokes were the exception to the rule and, in any other era, would have been test regulars many years earlier. The period 1995-2005 was a golden era in Australian cricket and shouldn't be regarded as a template for future selection.
So, to return to the thread title, what has happened to this team? Simple, about half of them - perhaps more - are at the end and, as careers come to an end, individual performances, are usually tapering off. We got carried away with a 5-0 home Ashes success, a victory in South Africa at a time where the home team was distracted with the retirement of their long standing captain and a world cup victory.
I'd answer, the inevitable has happened; age is catching up with an old team.
It's important to remind ourselves of what's happened over the past 2 years in Australian cricket because many people (ie the broader public) seem to be under the misapprehension that the Australian test team has undergone a 'rebuild' of some sort which lead to our recent successes in winning the Ashes and defeating South Africa. I'd argue that we actually deferred the rebuild and opted instead to go for a short term patch up job. Rogers and Haddin were reinstated, Watson was persisted with, old stager Harris finally had an injury-free run and proved to be everything we'd hoped he could be (ie a world class bowler) and Johnson finally strung together a 2 year period where his mental demons all but left the building and allowed him to unleash hell upon the world's batsmen. The Johnson-Harris combination was perfect; the ferocious spearhead and the foil at the other end who could not only dry up the runs but was equally capable of taking top order wickets.
But, as it turns out, it was more a neat alignment of the planets than a new era. The real rebuild is yet to begin and it looks like Steve Smith will end up eating the $hit sandwich as he deals with the period after Rogers, Clarke, Watson, Haddin, Harris and Johnson. Voges was another temporary fix with little thought beyond the next series or two.
As good as Hazlewood, Pattinson, Cummins, Starc etc may be down the track, they're not Harris and Johnson (not yet anyway) and, while Johnson may be around for another year or so, you already get the impression he's a lesser menace without Harris at the other end.
The batting is an unmitigated disaster with only Smith and Warner likely to be there a year from now. Actually, I may well be optimistic in that assessment - it could be a matter of months until they're the only two standing.
At some point the selectors will have to roll the dice by identifying a few genuinely young batsmen who they believe have the class to make it at test level. Then they will have to select them and persist with them. Great teams and great eras are built around a core group of 10-15 year players. Sometimes future champions make an immediate case for test selection (think Ponting R, Chappell G) while others simply ooze natural talent even if their first class records suggest selection is premature (think Waugh S, Clarke M, Warne S, McGrath G for a start). If the latter group had been forced to 'put the runs on the board for a sustained period' before test selection beckoned, we may have been waiting for years. In fact, we may never have seen Warne. IMHO, it is the selectors job to spot raw talent and bring it to the fore early. Genuine young talent needs to be identified, selected and persisted with if the aim is to produce great sides.
While plenty will point to the likes of Hussey M, Langer J, Hayden M etc, I don't believe a great side can be built exclusively around seasoned veterans or journeymen. Those blokes were the exception to the rule and, in any other era, would have been test regulars many years earlier. The period 1995-2005 was a golden era in Australian cricket and shouldn't be regarded as a template for future selection.
So, to return to the thread title, what has happened to this team? Simple, about half of them - perhaps more - are at the end and, as careers come to an end, individual performances, are usually tapering off. We got carried away with a 5-0 home Ashes success, a victory in South Africa at a time where the home team was distracted with the retirement of their long standing captain and a world cup victory.
Last edited:
ManWithNoName
TheBrownDog
I really don't think that being 'carried away' by:
1 Regaining the Ashes 5-0
2 Beating the No1 team on their home turf
3 Winning the World Cup
is necessarily a bad thing, Wins deserve to be celebrated. We were the best. Tests and ODIs.
I agree some players in the team are old. They hit their peak over the last 18 months. Any drop-off for old players is likely to be sudden. Clarke, Harris, Haddin, Voges (Voges had earned his spot). No one's complaining about Rogers' form.
Cricket is a funny game. The game can swing on one or two key moments (Haddin dropping Root being a classic). Also, the game is made up of individual performances being added together - if several players have good games - we win. If we get less good performances than the opposition - we lose. To use an example, if either Rogers or Smith had failed at Lord's, we still would have won. If that player then produces that performance at Edgbaston - maybe we win. You could argue that one of those innings was 'wasted' at Lords.
Our weakness is our bowling. Johnson's fine. Hazlewood hasn't yet made the change from 'Looks like McGrath' to 'As effective as McGrath'. As some feared, Starc's white-ball form hasn't carried over to the tests. (I'm not promoting dropping him - but he's not a very good test bowler yet). Lyon is good, steady, but not a match-winner (I don't think there's a match-winner waiting in the Shield, either).
Last edited:
There's been one constant problem since about the 2009 Ashes.......when we have "Bad Days", they always turn into utterly diabolical days.
All teams have days where the opposition out-plays you, that's sport. But a truly great team will keep plugging away with the ball or grinding out a score in tough conditions. We OTOH seem to have these implosions where we completely lose any semblance of control, and can do nothing to get the situation back. You only need 1-2 of those kind of days to lose an entire series....the 2009 Ashes being a clear case in point.
All teams have days where the opposition out-plays you, that's sport. But a truly great team will keep plugging away with the ball or grinding out a score in tough conditions. We OTOH seem to have these implosions where we completely lose any semblance of control, and can do nothing to get the situation back. You only need 1-2 of those kind of days to lose an entire series....the 2009 Ashes being a clear case in point.
Some interesting comments about the lack of depth in Australian cricket. I recall similar things being said in the mid 80's. Next thing out pops Warne, Gilchrist, McGrath, Waughs, etc etc
Australian cricket will be fine. Just a temporary blip .It happens when teams age and the selection process is geared towards continued success rather than taking a short term hit
Australian cricket will be fine. Just a temporary blip .It happens when teams age and the selection process is geared towards continued success rather than taking a short term hit
ManWithNoName
TheBrownDog
We're like a footy side with no Plan B. We attack, and if that doesn't work we attack some more.
Perhaps it was a poor choice of words. By 'carried away' I meant the ongoing, almost blind, belief that the same group could be relied on to continue winning regardless of their age. It was always a risk and a big one at that. We're now half way through an Ashes tour during which 3 players have either retired or been effectively retired by the selectors. The one success, Rogers, has already announced this tour will be his final test series and Clarke looks cooked. We already know that Cricket Australia is champing at the bit to hand over the reigns to Smith such is the fractured relationship between the skipper and his employer. I can't remember a tour like it. The irony is we could still retain the ashes because the English team isn't much chop either, particularly now that their key bowling weapon may miss the balance of the series.
- Sep 15, 2011
- 31,615
- 48,105
- AFL Club
- West Coast
It might happen again, but we can't exactly rely on it. The fact is, people are looking at the Shield and seeing a lack of competition for spots (batting, that is; our bowling stocks are good and look good for the future).
Hazelwood's inaccuracy was strangely accurate from what I saw. He gave them ball after ball on the pads.
Starc on the other hand was spraying it wide either side. And the batsmen seemed to play and miss as Johnson a lot. Maddening.
Hazlewood bowled exactly the way young, inexperienced quicks do when they see their batsmen collapse for a low score.
He thought he needed to blast England out and get 5 for bugger all like Anderson did so set about trying to force something to happen instead of just bowling regularly and letting things happen.
Which is why, as Doodlesweaver points out, his inaccuracy was stranger accurate. He just ignored the fundamental basics of first class bowling in order to try and get the match winning fivefer.
Starc on the other hand has never really understood how to bowl at first class level.
