How good

[Pessimistic]

I'm not a cricket fan but how good is 12 wins in a row when the only 'away' games are Zimbabwe and New Zealand ? Is it that the competition for the aussies is very poor, and there are a lot of tests here because they make money ?

Is it a bit similar to Carlton winning 12 in arow but only getting to travel to freo and play most games at optus oval ?

 

[GoEagles]

Pessimistic - the real test for the Aussie's will be in March when they play India in their home country. Then in July/August when Australia goes to England, so there is a high chance of burnout for some players.

 

[-TotalFooty2000-]

I was going to post a new topic, but this one seemed to be appropriate.

Fuel for discussion, an article in the Fairfax papers: "Good, not great: Holding"

Australia is only as good as what the opposition can produce. The current-day opposition is not very good at all. Only South Africa, and to a lesser extent New Zealand and Pakistan are closest to really challenging Australia IMHO.

I am 20yo. I am almost one of those young people who only remember a winning Australian team. The first cricket tour that I followed and remember most clearly is the 1989 Ashes Series. Is the 1984 West Indies team better? What about other teams: Chappell's 1972 side, and others in the article.

Australia can keep winning, but they must win more on the subcontinent. This team is not the greatest ever, yet.

------------------
Go to Football Victoria Total Footy or The Pitch

 

[Guest]

If you're comparing opposition, the Australian players who played in the test series against the Windies here in 84/85 were:

AMJ Hilditch
KC Wessels
MJ Bennett
GM Ritchie
WB Phillips
AR Border
DC Boon
GM Wood
GF Lawson
RM Hogg
J Dyson
SJ Rixon
KJ Hughes
TM Alderman
RG Holland
GRJ Matthews
CJ McDermott
GN Yallop
CG Rackemann

Not exactly the greatest combination ever to represent this country so the boot is now on the other foot and I wouldn't use the strength of the opposition as an argument.

I still think our current side lacks a solid top order mainly because while it's very nice to score a century or two in a series, a top line batsman needs to be getting 30's and 40's in between which doesn't happen often enough in this side.

Cricket is a very selfish game where each individual in the side needs to do their job. While this is a very, very good side, some of the individuals aren't doing their job.

I may be sounding contradictory here but I don't like the term 'great' being associated with a side that does have some deficiencies.

 

[Dipper]

I don't understand you Aussies wondering whether this present team is great or as good as West Indies 84 side,firstly they're a bloody good side(the best in the world by some distance)secondly they can only beat what's out there.When Windies set the record in 84 the standard of Test cricket wasn't exactly shit hot-Australia had the worst side in it's(glorious) history during the mid 80's,England got thrashed 5-0 by West Indies(twice)and weren't much better,India & Pakistan were strong at home but not away,NZ were a one man team,Sri Lanka were just starting out & South Afica & Zimbawe didn't have test teams.Every Test side will have deficiencies it's the nature of the game partly due to the contrasting conditions from country to country,but from what I see of your side is a top 6 that receives quite a bagging & yet they regularly put in the big scores & most of them average over 40,A tail that wags regularly (Lee,Gillespie,Magill all make decent scores),A brutal fast bowling line up that includes blistering pace,guile & bounce & a couple of very good spinners & a wicketkeeper-batsman who has to be seen to be believed(he could be a batsman in any team in the world including Australia)So stop worrying about it you should think yourself lucky to have them (just like your Rugby League side,Rugby Union,Davis Cup tennis players,swimmers.......)