It's time to recognise how great this current team is

[Soggy2112]

Saying we were on back foot in third test is very results orientated, it was a very up and down match with both sides looking like they had taken charge then blowing the advantage multiple times, we were in control with bat then lost our last 5 wickets for just 20 in first innings but then we had england 5-80 in their first dig and we couldnt put them away that certainly not on back foot thats taking foot off the throat still a major issue for sure but presenting that third test as england being all over us is just not true at all.

The whole series was on a knife edge, no team ever really had “control”.

We were an umpires call against Stokes away from having him out. We probably win if it weren’t for that.

Also very nearly ran through them at the end.

The only test where one side actually dominated the other was the Lords test, and even then Stokes nearly undid all that.

 

[DaRick]

It's hard for me to assess how good this AUS team is.

In soccer terms, they're merely a very good (not great) league side, but when there's a cup to win, they're likely to win it. I think of them as being like Chelsea during the Abramovich-era.

But they rank behind the sides who could boss both league and cup competitions. The great 90s/00s AUS sides are the equivalent of late 80s/early 90s AC Milan or late 70s/early 80s Liverpool.

The inverse would be Graeme Smith's 2008-14 SA team. Extremely hard to beat across a series (league), but with a comparatively disappointing cup record. Probably like SAF's Man U side from 1993-2013.

 

[PhatBoy]

It's hard for me to assess how good this AUS team is.

In soccer terms, they're merely a very good (not great) league side, but when there's a cup to win, they're likely to win it. I think of them as being like Chelsea during the Abramovich-era.

But they rank behind the sides who could boss both league and cup competitions. The great 90s/00s AUS sides are the equivalent of late 80s/early 90s AC Milan or late 70s/early 80s Liverpool.

The inverse would be Graeme Smith's 2008-14 SA team. Extremely hard to beat across a series (league), but with a comparatively disappointing cup record. Probably like SAF's Man U side from 1993-2013.

Not in test cricket. Smiths test team couldn’t have done much more really aside from actually win in India, and, oddly, win at home against Australia. They won everywhere else against everyone else. They won in every test nation bar India and drew there twice - something Australia never managed to do during Waugh’s tenure (obviously they did eventually do it however whereas Smith’s team didn’t conquer it)

Smiths team did conquer what for most teams was the equivalent of India in that they won in Australia so that too must count for something.

One dayers are a different story clearly as they didn’t win jack s**t and it still haunts them to this day but boy they had a good test side and I think you can make the argument that it was a great test side. Certainly the third best of the last 50 years behind WI and Australia.

 

[PhatBoy]

2 losses, 6 draws, 22 wins across 30 series.

 

[DaRick]

Not in test cricket. Smiths test team couldn’t have done much more really aside from actually win in India, and, oddly, win at home against Australia. They won everywhere else against everyone else. They won in every test nation bar India and drew there twice - something Australia never managed to do during Waugh’s tenure (obviously they did eventually do it however whereas Smith’s team didn’t conquer it)

Smiths team did conquer what for most teams was the equivalent of India in that they won in Australia so that too must count for something.

One dayers are a different story clearly as they didn’t win jack s**t and it still haunts them to this day but boy they had a good test side and I think you can make the argument that it was a great test side. Certainly the third best of the last 50 years behind WI and Australia.

1) I'm considering both ODI and Test cricket.

2) Let's just say that WTC finals and ODI WC finals would be the equivalent of cups, whereas accumulated series would be the equivalent of a league.

3) Comparing them to SAF's Man U is very much a compliment.

4) The WTC finals they would (hypothetically) have played during that period were 2009, 2011, 2013. In 2009, they would be playing an Australian team that had just defeated them at home. In 2011, they would have been playing ENG at their absolute zenith, and before Philander's debut (he was a crucial part of their 3-0 series victory against them in 2012). They'd likely take 2013. IND were in transition, ENG were declining and AUS were in the doldrums.

EDIT: Interestingly enough, during SA's peak years, ENG/IND/AUS all shared time with them at #1.

 

[Tandy]

It's not great. Teams can win and not be great. Being a top 3 test team is easy these days. Just be Australia, India or England. Haven't really had everyone firing together. Warner hasn't deserved his spot for over 12 months. Smith and Marnus down on their own standards. It's been Uz and Head to an extent for the last couple of yrs in my view. Now this summer it's just Marsh. With Warner the 1. Bowlers, Cummins is obv the best in the world or close to it but not overly inspiring as captain. The rest of the bowlers can be replaced. So no this side isn't one of the great sides imo.

 

[PhatBoy]

1) I'm considering both ODI and Test cricket.

2) Let's just say that WTC finals and ODI WC finals would be the equivalent of cups, whereas accumulated series would be the equivalent of a league.

3) Comparing them to SAF's Man U is very much a compliment.

4) The WTC finals they would (hypothetically) have played during that period were 2009, 2011, 2013. In 2009, they would be playing an Australian team that had just defeated them at home. In 2011, they would have been playing ENG at their absolute zenith, and before Philander's debut (he was a crucial part of their 3-0 series victory against them in 2012). They'd likely take 2013. IND were in transition, ENG were declining and AUS were in the doldrums.

EDIT: Interestingly enough, during SA's peak years, ENG/IND/AUS all shared time with them at #1.

I think they would have been odds on to have won at least 2 probably more. They had the best all round side comfortably. Full credit to Australia for actually taking series off them - they are among the Australian team’s finest achievements in my lifetime, seriously - that’s not meant to be a patronising statement - in my time following cricket. The ONLY things that separate that team when it had Boucher the great Aussie team overall to me is Adam Gilchrist and Shane Warne and those factors get pulled back to a lot less than they appear on paper because of the presence of Kallis which was something the Aussies didn’t have.

The Aussies were definitely the all conquering team and of course they did it across the formats too which just accentuated their legacy.

The Windies did it too albeit there was not as much emphasis on one day cricket at that stage. We may never see the like of either team’s dominance again.

And I take your point that it wasn’t a criticism. But yeah they were a damn, damn good side and I know I do harp on about it a bit but I think they got to the summit of test cricket too they just maybe didn’t do it with that unequivocal aura that the Aussies had overall

 

[Mateyman]

Honestly think we were fairly unlucky to draw that Ashes series. A number of circumstances fell against us there. In the same way as we were incredibly fortunate to win the ODI World Cup. Sometimes you get the breaks and sometimes they go against you.

Overall I think this team has had some incredible achievements. Need to do one of beating England in England or India in India at least to be a really great test team.

 

[DaRick]

I think they would have been odds on to have won at least 2 probably more. They had the best all round side comfortably. Full credit to Australia for actually taking series off them - they are among the Australian team’s finest achievements in my lifetime, seriously - that’s not meant to be a patronising statement - in my time following cricket.

On paper, SA definitely had the best all-round side during that period, but the devil is in the details:

1) SA would quite often struggle for parts of a series - long parts of a series, even - before pulling a game out of the bag to draw or win the series. AUS 2012/13 epitomises what I'm talking about: AUS were probably the better side in the first two Tests despite clearly having a weaker outfit on paper, but they got thumped in the third and lost the series. Comprehensive series victories like ENG 3-0 in 2012 were actually quite rare for such a talented side. The AUS team of a decade earlier would have won many more games during this period, and more convincingly to boot.

2) SA reached their zenith in 2012 with Philander's inclusion, and as I pointed out, they were rarely dominant across a series. Winning in 2009 and 2011 was no means guaranteed. A 2013 win was likely, though.

3) What you've missed is that while Graeme Smith led by example, he wasn't actually a great tactician. He tended to run plans into the ground even when it was blatantly obvious that they weren't working. Letting Clarke/Hussey smack Tahir into the Adelaide stands all day long kinda sums up what I'm talking about, and I think that partially explains why they weren't as dominant as they could have been.

The ONLY things that separate that team when it had Boucher the great Aussie team overall to me is Adam Gilchrist and Shane Warne and those factors get pulled back to a lot less than they appear on paper because of the presence of Kallis which was something the Aussies didn’t have.

With all due respect, you're going too far here.

1) Smith didn't have an opening partner who could keep up with him. Matthew Hayden did.

2) Kallis/Amla/de Villiers/du Plessis can compete with Ponting/Martyn/Hussey/Clarke, but were they actually better? du Plessis is the worst of those eight batsmen by some distance. Plus AUS had the likes of Lehmann/Symonds/Katich in the mix. SA lacked that depth.

3) Adam Gilchrist was probably a better gloveman than Boucher (who was solid), and a much better batsman. Boucher was good for his era, but definitely not the revolutionary that Gilchrist was.

4) Kallis all-round ability was invaluable for his side, but Warne was a master of psychological warfare. As was McGrath, whom BTW I rank above Steyn. Steyn would look ineffective and expensive for long periods and then bowl unplayable spells. McGrath just applied unrelenting pressure.

5) I rank Philander above Gillespie, but he debuted in 2011. Ntini was past his best by 2008; I'd take Morkel over Lee, but he actually peaked after that golden period. Then you had bit-part players like Tsotsobe, and SA's own Ashley Giles in Paul Harris.

The Aussies were definitely the all conquering team and of course they did it across the formats too which just accentuated their legacy.

The Windies did it too albeit there was not as much emphasis on one day cricket at that stage. We may never see the like of either team’s dominance again.

And I take your point that it wasn’t a criticism. But yeah they were a damn, damn good side and I know I do harp on about it a bit but I think they got to the summit of test cricket too they just maybe didn’t do it with that unequivocal aura that the Aussies had overall

Agreed.