Deja vu

[brysie]

To me Australia's current predicament has many of the hallmarks of one of our greatest embarrassments, losing the Ashes to England in 2010/11.

Some similarities include
- inconsistent selection policies and an unsettled side
- brittle and ill-disciplined batting susceptible to collapse
- reliance on brilliant or outstanding individual performances from players in order to win (e.g. Johnson 6/39 in Perth)

Following the series defeat, the Argus review was ordered, the focus of which was to restore Australia to the no. 1 position in Test cricket.

Now that the 4th Test is almost a foregone conclusion, it seems appropriate in the context of this series loss that another similar review be conducted. That context is an Indian series victory for the first time in Australia where:
- Pujara and Kohli have been the only real consistent contributors for India with the bat
- Ashwin has missed 2 Tests
- India's pace attack has outperformed a much-vaunted Australian attack
- India have lost away series to England and South Africa prior to this tour and, in my opinion, aren't the number 1 Test side in the world

Some of the things I would like to see implemented (on a short term basis):
- overhaul of the selection committee (how Greg Chappell is involved in any capacity is a disgrace given his record) and a directive be given to pick players on form and in the roles they play for their respective States
- introduction / involvement of recent Australian players such as Ponting, Gilchrist, Gillespie, McGrath rather than the likes of Hick and Saker
- aggressive and hostile treatment of visiting sides by the Australian media. It seems as though the media coverage here has, for the most part, fawned over India and given them a soft ride in the press. Not enough was made about their easy run to no. 1 with the number of home tests played and their dismal away record, nor was there really any pressure placed on Kohli and his antics on the field. Although unlikely that any action would've been taken, pressure should've been mounted on him and his on-field demeanour, much like the pressure that's usually placed on an England captain in an Ashes tour Down Under
- pitches should be made to be fast and bouncy, irrespective of venue, so as to be as advantageous to Australia as possible.
- administrations such as the BCCI should not dictate where matches are played - the first 2 Tests of this series should have been Brisbane and Perth, thereby giving us the greatest chance of being 2-0 up after 2 Tests

They're some of my thoughts/frustrations. Interested to know yours. It's not a quick fix, as players need to be unearthed and developed at Test level, however there are other things which can be done in the interim to assist with a transformation

 

[Blue1980]

Yes it’s reminded me a lot of that series, right down to a one off win in Perth.

And basically everyone angry and wanting everyone sacked is reminiscent of the aftermath of that 2010-11 series.

The weird selections as well.

Having a hopelessly out of form Clarke and a washed up Ponting didn’t exactly help either.

 

[Marshland]

We haven't seen anything yet.

Just wait for the twin car crashes that are the 50-over World Cup followed by a dismal Ashes later in the year.

 

[PhatBoy]

To me Australia's current predicament has many of the hallmarks of one of our greatest embarrassments, losing the Ashes to England in 2010/11.

Some similarities include
- inconsistent selection policies and an unsettled side
- brittle and ill-disciplined batting susceptible to collapse
- reliance on brilliant or outstanding individual performances from players in order to win (e.g. Johnson 6/39 in Perth)

Following the series defeat, the Argus review was ordered, the focus of which was to restore Australia to the no. 1 position in Test cricket.

Now that the 4th Test is almost a foregone conclusion, it seems appropriate in the context of this series loss that another similar review be conducted. That context is an Indian series victory for the first time in Australia where:
- Pujara and Kohli have been the only real consistent contributors for India with the bat
- Ashwin has missed 2 Tests
- India's pace attack has outperformed a much-vaunted Australian attack
- India have lost away series to England and South Africa prior to this tour and, in my opinion, aren't the number 1 Test side in the world

Some of the things I would like to see implemented (on a short term basis):
- overhaul of the selection committee (how Greg Chappell is involved in any capacity is a disgrace given his record) and a directive be given to pick players on form and in the roles they play for their respective States
- introduction / involvement of recent Australian players such as Ponting, Gilchrist, Gillespie, McGrath rather than the likes of Hick and Saker
- aggressive and hostile treatment of visiting sides by the Australian media. It seems as though the media coverage here has, for the most part, fawned over India and given them a soft ride in the press. Not enough was made about their easy run to no. 1 with the number of home tests played and their dismal away record, nor was there really any pressure placed on Kohli and his antics on the field. Although unlikely that any action would've been taken, pressure should've been mounted on him and his on-field demeanour, much like the pressure that's usually placed on an England captain in an Ashes tour Down Under
- pitches should be made to be fast and bouncy, irrespective of venue, so as to be as advantageous to Australia as possible.
- administrations such as the BCCI should not dictate where matches are played - the first 2 Tests of this series should have been Brisbane and Perth, thereby giving us the greatest chance of being 2-0 up after 2 Tests

They're some of my thoughts/frustrations. Interested to know yours. It's not a quick fix, as players need to be unearthed and developed at Test level, however there are other things which can be done in the interim to assist with a transformation

Well who’s number 1 then?
There’s half a dozen sides I’d rather see at the top than India but let’s hear a reason why they’re not?

SA are becoming India - they are getting harder and harder to beat at home but absolutely disgusting in Asia.
England have just hit a little pocket of form that suggests the Ashes debacle is a long way behind..... but remember they were also trounced and dismissed for 58 in NZ less than a year ago.
Pakistan are less predictable than a GoT episode, Australia are shite.
Sri Lanka are garbage, the West Indies take two steps back every time they take one forward, and Bangladesh are only just starting to win at home.

NZ? Well they can’t beat Australia anywhere and as much as they may be the best placed to challenge India, they simply don’t play enough test cricket to prove it.

So who’s number one? Ireland?
They had their moments at Malahide, certainly, but I don’t want to read that much into their performance there just yet.

 

[Scotland]

Reminds me a bit of a shitter, less interesting 2005 Ashes. Close, but not close at the same time.

We had a much stronger team then but one batsman averaging over 40 for the series and one bowler keeping us in it (+ McGrath when he played). A good victory to us, a close victory to them and a couple of tests that look closer on paper than they really were. This time a close ish win to them, a win to us and then a massive win to them. Dynamic is slightly different playing only 4 tests, but it will end up 2-1 or 3-1.

McGrath missing two tests was a deciding factor, much like Smith/Warner being N/A for this series. Our batsmen didn't perform as a group and there weren't many memorable individual innings. This time around we haven't seen a single 100. Our bowlers have been mostly ordinary, with Cummins doing his best to drag us over the line. Lyon has battled manfully. In 2005 it was Warne supported by Lee when McGrath was out. Our tormenter then was Flintoff who was the all rounder we have spent the next 13 years trying to find. This time it's Pujara who has faced roughly the same number of balls as our best 3 batsmen. The selectors will make it their mission to find a Pujara now.

We responded then by dropping Damien Martyn and playing around with the bowling setup a bit, alternating between playing Warne and MacGill and Watson/Symonds or playing Nathan Bracken. And in true CA fashion Martyn was recalled the following year for no real reason. Be interesting to see how much bathwater is thrown out this time with a side full of players that haven't proven themselves for years prior.

 

[Marshland]

McGrath missing two tests was a deciding factor, much like Smith/Warner being N/A for this series. Our batsmen didn't perform as a group and there weren't many memorable individual innings. This time around we haven't seen a single 100. Our bowlers have been mostly ordinary, with Cummins doing his best to drag us over the line. Lyon has battled manfully. In 2005 it was Warne supported by Lee when McGrath was out. Our tormenter then was Flintoff who was the all rounder we have spent the next 13 years trying to find. This time it's Pujara who has faced roughly the same number of balls as our best 3 batsmen. The selectors will make it their mission to find a Pujara now.

And that is a bad thing how? If we had a #3 half as good we can shore things up so much.

 

[Scotland]

And that is a bad thing how? If we had a #3 half as good we can shore things up so much.

They'll get blinkered as they have been in persisting with Watson and then Marsh for a decade. I mean we've currently got Labuschagne at #3 as a spin bowling all rounder. Nothing against the guy but he doesn't have a particularly good record with the bat or ball in any format and he's at #3 in the test team. A part time leggie at #3. What the ****?

If we had a batsman as technically good as Pujara then they'd be scoring 100s for fun in the Shield. Our nuffy selectors will decide that the first person to score 100 at a strike rate of 30 is the next anointed one and destined for test greatness.

 

[Richard Pryor]

They'll get blinkered as they have been in persisting with Watson and then Marsh for a decade. I mean we've currently got Labuschagne at #3 as a spin bowling all rounder. Nothing against the guy but he doesn't have a particularly good record with the bat or ball in any format and he's at #3 in the test team. A part time leggie at #3. What the ****?

If we had a batsman as technically good as Pujara then they'd be scoring 100s for fun in the Shield. Our nuffy selectors will decide that the first person to score 100 at a strike rate of 30 is the next anointed one and destined for test greatness.

Agree, building the side from what they want to have rather than what they do have isn't feasible with the level of Aus cricket at the moment.

 

[brysie]

Well who’s number 1 then?
There’s half a dozen sides I’d rather see at the top than India but let’s hear a reason why they’re not?

SA are becoming India - they are getting harder and harder to beat at home but absolutely disgusting in Asia.
England have just hit a little pocket of form that suggests the Ashes debacle is a long way behind..... but remember they were also trounced and dismissed for 58 in NZ less than a year ago.
Pakistan are less predictable than a GoT episode, Australia are shite.
Sri Lanka are garbage, the West Indies take two steps back every time they take one forward, and Bangladesh are only just starting to win at home.

NZ? Well they can’t beat Australia anywhere and as much as they may be the best placed to challenge India, they simply don’t play enough test cricket to prove it.

So who’s number one? Ireland?
They had their moments at Malahide, certainly, but I don’t want to read that much into their performance there just yet.

You're right, it's close, but I'd have South Africa and England slightly ahead of India over the 4 year period from which the rankings are calculated. I think that both those sides across the period have performed better in a variety of conditions.

India having 19 games in a row on the subcontinent (including 16 at home) before travelling to South Africa and England to me skews their ranking across that 4 year period. This to me is what I think more should have been made of by media commentators, as well as the disgraceful behaviour of the BCCI in refusing to play at the GABBA or a day/night Test at the Adelaide Oval.

 

[Seagrave_Holmes]

Feels like we have gone nowhere since the 10/11 Ashes debacle.

 

[PhatBoy]

You're right, it's close, but I'd have South Africa and England slightly ahead of India over the 4 year period from which the rankings are calculated. I think that both those sides across the period have performed better in a variety of conditions.

India having 19 games in a row on the subcontinent (including 16 at home) before travelling to South Africa and England to me skews their ranking across that 4 year period. This to me is what I think more should have been made of by media commentators, as well as the disgraceful behaviour of the BCCI in refusing to play at the GABBA or a day/night Test at the Adelaide Oval.

Over four years I would agree on SA.
Since the start of 2015 England have lost 6 and drawn 5 series. They’ve won 7.
SA are 9-4-1 and about to go to 10.

England admittedly do look like they’re finally getting it together but over an extended period I think it’s hard to make an argument for them.

 

[King Elvis]

Wasn’t the latest bloody review meant to put value back on the shield comp?

Is that why we’ve ignored everyone who is performing in it?

 

[brysie]

Over four years I would agree on SA.
Since the start of 2015 England have lost 6 and drawn 5 series. They’ve won 7.
SA are 9-4-1 and about to go to 10.

England admittedly do look like they’re finally getting it together but over an extended period I think it’s hard to make an argument for them.

I think the manner of England's loss to us last summer tarnishes their claims quite significantly. They barely gave a yelp, bar Cook's masterful double at the G.

The other factor that I think should be taken into account is the disgrace that were the Indian pitches prepared for South Africa when they toured India in 2015. Those pitches were designed to limit South Africa's dominance, who at the time, were clearly the no. 1 team in the world. Similarly, there was talk of South Africa paying them back with green tops when India toured, however at leat pitches that are green have the opportunity to settle as the match progresses, as opposed to a rank dustbowl which turns square from ball one.

 

[brysie]

Wasn’t the latest bloody review meant to put value back on the shield comp?

Is that why we’ve ignored everyone who is performing in it?

Unfortunately the recommendations arising from reviews and royal commissions are not required to be implemented by governing bodies or governments.

The fact that Greg Chappell has returned as a selector is an indictment on Cricket Australia's ability to implement, and stick to, such a wide-ranging review.

 

[corbies]

I think the manner of England's loss to us last summer tarnishes their claims quite significantly. They barely gave a yelp, bar Cook's masterful double at the G.

The other factor that I think should be taken into account is the disgrace that were the Indian pitches prepared for South Africa when they toured India in 2015. Those pitches were designed to limit South Africa's dominance, who at the time, were clearly the no. 1 team in the world. Similarly, there was talk of South Africa paying them back with green tops when India toured, however at leat pitches that are green have the opportunity to settle as the match progresses, as opposed to a rank dustbowl which turns square from ball one.

The pitches South Africa prepared never settled. Both teams picked 5 pace bowlers and there were genuine talks that one of the matches were going to be called off due to the pitch.

 

[Scotland]

Feels like we have gone nowhere since the 10/11 Ashes debacle.

We won the 2013/14 Ashes 5-0, lost 2015 3-2 and won 2017/18 4-0. We also beat India 4-0 in 2011/12 and 2-0 in 2014/15. Not all bad. It's just in Asia where we stink.

Last year Warner and Smith scored 1128 runs between them. Harris and Finch have about 350 between them this year.

2015 we had Warner, Smith, Rogers score about 1300 between them. 2013/14 it was Warner, Haddin, Rogers and a bloke named Mitchell Johnson had a reasonable series...

We're half way through the 4th test and none of our batsmen have made a century. When was the last time that happened?

 

[Hamingja]

Wasn’t the latest bloody review meant to put value back on the shield comp?

Is that why we’ve ignored everyone who is performing in it?

Harris the only new batsman picked on form and while he probably lacks the class for a long term test career he has comfortably been the best bat (which isn't saying much admittedly).

 

[Park cricketer]

Always amused whenever I read a blinkered anglocentric view of cricket. It's so partisan that it's not even funny. Core beliefs include:

1. Pitches that turn are always inferior to pitches that seam around because spin bowling is clearly an inferior skill to pace bowling.

2. Consequently pitches that turn from day one are terrible cricket wickets and pitches where the ball seams around throughout the match is a fantastic advert for test cricket.

3. Wins by the subcontinent teams at home don't matter because they doctor their wickets to create pitches that turn in countries where conditions, incredibly, aid spin bowling.

4. Asian countries won't be considered a top team unless they prove their mettle outside asia, but the converse is not needed because, hey the subcontinent teams doctor their wickets.

Since the start of 2015, these are the W/L ratios of teams:

Ind - 3.111
SA - 1.461
NZ - 1.454
Aus - 1.294
Eng - 1.086

England were held to a draw against a lowly ranked Windies side in WI, drew against Bangladesh away, were trounced in India and Australia with zero wins and lost in NZ where they were shot out for 58. They also drew against NZ and Pakistan twice at home. Their highlight away win was in South Africa and the recent series win in Sri Lanka.

South Africa have been very dominant at home and in Australia but have struggled against England both home and away where they lost both series. They also haven't been remotely competitive in asia, they got demolished in India and Sri Lanka and drew against Bangladesh (it was a rain interrupted series granted but they weren't pulling trees down when rain stayed away).

Since Alastair Cook's side created history in India in 2012, India have been pretty much invincible at home, losing just one test in a span of six years (against Aus at Pune) and winning 23 matches. And no, contrary to the popular belief, not all these matches were played on ragging turners. Only South Africa got the rough end of the deal and they paid us in the same vein this year. Australia got two tests where the ball turned fron day 1 and two flattish wickets. Outside home, India trounced Sri Lanka twice in their own home (where teams from outside asia regularly struggle), won comfortably in West Indies, were very competitive in South Africa and England winning a test each in both countries and are now in the process of securing their first ever series win in Australia. India are not even close to being one of the great test teams like the past Windies and Aussies side or even the Saffer side of early 2010s, but they clearly have a right to say they're the best of the bunch right now because they are invincible at home and are very competitive away. And no, India didn't refuse to play at Brisbane, I read that the Gabba lost out to the Optus stadium in the bidding for home tests in Australia because the new Perth stadium wanted to host its debut test against India.

 

[PT Bar None]

We won the 2013/14 Ashes 5-0, lost 2015 3-2 and won 2017/18 4-0. ...

That 2015 series was a complete bizarro series to me. You look at 3-2 result like and think - that must have been closely contested. But from memory each individual game was completely one sided

 

[The King!]

I just don’t see past greats, Ponting, Warne, Mcgrath etc coaching or doing anything full time , not the $ in it or the time to do it.

Besides can’t polish a turd, if the talent isn’t there

Maybe we just ask them all to come out of retirement

 

[big_e]

I just don’t see past greats, Ponting, Warne, Mcgrath etc coaching or doing anything full time , not the $ in it or the time to do it.

Besides can’t polish a turd, if the talent isn’t there

Maybe we just ask them all to come out of retirement

They're the wrong guys for the job anyway. All played in dominant teams surrounded by other greats. It's why Warnie keeps throwing out X Factor names like D'arcy Short, cos you can get away with that in a great team.

We've developed a messiah complex, and it's to our detriment. We don't need another review, in fact part of the reason for this mess is we grossly overreacted to one series loss.

We've been beaten badly in this series but we could have done a lot better if some of the players selected weren't below average. It's as simple as that.

 

[The King!]

They're the wrong guys for the job anyway. All played in dominant teams surrounded by other greats. It's why Warnie keeps throwing out X Factor names like D'arcy Short, cos you can get away with that in a great team.

We've developed a messiah complex, and it's to our detriment. We don't need another review, in fact part of the reason for this mess is we grossly overreacted to one series loss.

We've been beaten badly in this series but we could have done a lot better if some of the players selected weren't below average. It's as simple as that.

Yep good points, also doesn’t help 3 first choice batsmen aren’t there,

But I don’t disagree, there is some mixed selections though, chop and change kids out of the side but bring back proven hacks like marsh

 

[big_e]

Yep good points, also doesn’t help 3 first choice batsmen aren’t there,

But I don’t disagree, there is some mixed selections though, chop and change kids out of the side but bring back proven hacks like marsh

M Marsh was on the face of it a bad selection but if he'd taken a wicket and scored his average, we'd have been much closer.

Harris and Head are the only two batters to average in the 30s. Bowlers' strike rates are all well below average. If everyone performed just 5-10% better, we'd have given them a shake.