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

[Mr Meow]

Yes you can.

We were on the back foot in those final 3 Tests, in fact we had to fight tooth and nail to stay competitive in the entire series.

England's recent ODI WC woes have made for mirthful entertainment no doubt, but the fact remains they were highly competitive throughout the 2023 Ashes series.

I don't care what England's attitude is to squaring the series; we were in a position to win the Ashes on English soil, but the fact is that apart from 2-3 players we looked a little down on touch for much of that series.

Joe Root thinks man-for-man England are a better outfit than Australia but I reckon that's bullsh*t and we should probably have won the past two Ashes series on English soil.

But the 2023 English Test outfit were a pretty formidable opponent and we - in my opinion - were lucky not to completely cough up that early 2-0 lead and hand them back the urn.

I'm a big fan of the current Aussie set-up but I'm not so parochial that I can't give strong opposition credit for pushing us to be the best.

By the way salvaging by it's definition means rescuing something from a bleak situation, and usually not your initial target, but "something" to hang onto.

England fit this salvaging description perfectly. They couldn't even regain the Ashes with a full match to play. You can say Australia coughed up a series victory but "salvaging a draw"? Please.

 

[frankrizzo]

Yes you can.

We were on the back foot in those final 3 Tests, in fact we had to fight tooth and nail to stay competitive in the entire series.

England's recent ODI WC woes have made for mirthful entertainment no doubt, but the fact remains they were highly competitive throughout the 2023 Ashes series.

I don't care what England's attitude is to squaring the series; we were in a position to win the Ashes on English soil, but the fact is that apart from 2-3 players we looked a little down on touch for much of that series.

Joe Root thinks man-for-man England are a better outfit than Australia but I reckon that's bullsh*t and we should probably have won the past two Ashes series on English soil.

But the 2023 English Test outfit were a pretty formidable opponent and we - in my opinion - were lucky not to completely cough up that early 2-0 lead and hand them back the urn.

I'm a big fan of the current Aussie set-up but I'm not so parochial that I can't give strong opposition credit for pushing us to be the best.

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.

 

[PhatBoy]

2-0 up as holders is the series done barring a miracle. Which they got in match 5 but not match 4.

They turned up when there was too much left to do. It wasn't a lady luck shining on us escape at all. You sound like a Pommy moral victory devotee.

The "you are just saying this out of blind parochialism" routine is a lazy cop out. Argue the points for their merit, don't accuse people of something you have zero idea applies.

What he’s saying does apply.
Australia fully deserved it, but in another world they don’t even get a shot at winning the first test.

From a ‘series scoreboard’ point of view, Australia made all the running: within a lot of the games themselves, they did a lot of the chasing.

 

[Mr Meow]

What he’s saying does apply.
Australia fully deserved it, but in another world they don’t even get a shot at winning the first test.

From a ‘series scoreboard’ point of view, Australia made all the running: within a lot of the games themselves, they did a lot of the chasing.

I don't disagree that Australia was the more defensive side in the role of counter puncher. It just doesn't make sense to me the notion of "salvaging a drawn series" from 2-0 up. It quite clearly is an apt description for the home side pulling it back and getting something (pride, the players themselves mentioned they were desperate to at least not lose - hence "salvaging") out of the series, if not the original goal (regaining the urn). I've said a few times a drawn series felt right in the end, so it's both wrong to say England didn't even deserve that or that Australia were lucky to scrape it.

Let me use a silly metaphor. My position is always that failing to win a home Ashes series is a failure (bogey). Losing an away Ashes not as embarrassing but still a bogey. Retaining (drawing) as holders in an away series is par. Winning away from home is probably an eagle, winning at home a birdie (dominant) or par (close-fought).

The last 4 series we have:

Australia: birdie, par, birdie, par
England: bogey, bogey, bogey, bogey

You can make a miracle chip shot or long range putt to finish a couple of those holes, but if they started by hitting the drink or not landing on the green from the tee shot, it doesn't mean you "deserved more" at the end of it.

 

[Cursed Cat]

By the way salvaging by it's definition means rescuing something from a bleak situation, and usually not your initial target, but "something" to hang onto.

England fit this salvaging description perfectly. They couldn't even regain the Ashes with a full match to play. You can say Australia coughed up a series victory but "salvaging a draw"? Please.

We were in a position to win the series, in the end we could only salvage a draw. You could say 'settle for' a draw if you prefer.

However you want to label it, the fact remains that we did not win the series on English soil, and haven't done so for a while now unfortunately (yes: The Ashes were retained) - the frustrating part is that Cummins Aussies had got themselves into a position to get it done but ultimately could not.

I see that as a knock on the Smith/Paine/Cummins era, along with their combined Test series record against India over that period.

It's been a very strong period of Australian cricket as other posters have detailed in this thread, but my point is we haven't had it all our own way.

 

[Mr Meow]

We were in a position to win the series, in the end we could only salvage a draw. You could say 'settle for' a draw if you prefer.

However you want to label it, the fact remains that we did not win the series on English soil, and haven't done so for a while now unfortunately (yes: The Ashes were retained) - the frustrating part is that Cummins Aussies had got themselves into a position to get it done but ultimately could not.

Settle for a draw does make a lot more sense than salvage.

If the urn is retained after match 4 (no matter the circumstances), the main aim is achieved by the holders and failed by the chasers. We are then going into supplementary mode. Australia want to win the series outright and England avoid embarrassment of defeat at home, but the nature of the contest does change a bit. I think the Aussies were giving it a good go until the magic ball made an appearance. But fair enough, saved by rain a match earlier, you can almost say it evened out.

There was serious mourning after match 4 and a relative lack of interest in the final Test by every person over here (in England) that I know. That sparked a little only once Broad announced his retirement.

And I don't disagree with frustration at not going on and winning it. It getting painted as an English success more than an Australian one, or it "feeling" like it, is where I draw the line. England salvaged a drawn series. Well done to them for that. But salvaging is all it was.

 

[Cursed Cat]

Settle for a draw does make a lot more sense than salvage.

If the urn is retained after match 4 (no matter the circumstances), the main aim is achieved by the holders and failed by the chasers. We are then going into supplementary mode. Australia want to win the series outright and England avoid embarrassment of defeat at home, but the nature of the contest does change a bit. I think the Aussies were giving it a good go until the magic ball made an appearance. But fair enough, saved by rain a match earlier, you can almost say it evened out.

There was serious mourning after match 4 and a relative lack of interest in the final Test by every person over here (in England) that I know. That sparked a little only once Broad announced his retirement.

And I don't disagree with frustration at not going on and winning it. It getting painted as an English success more than an Australian one, or it "feeling" like it, is where I draw the line. England salvaged a drawn series. Well done to them for that. But salvaging is all it was.

I don't think Cummins or Steve Smith would agree with that; both made comments to the media stating that they'd come to win the series.

Steve Smith: "I thought we probably had all the tools in the kit bag to go ever there and win, and we weren't satisfied with drawing the series again. Obviously we did that last time... We wanted to win and do one better, and we weren't able to do that... So overall it was a bit disappointing."

Retaining the Ashes was good, beating England outright on English wickets would have been better and more definitive. Especially as we'd retained-without-winning last time we visited the UK, too.

Personally I couldn't care less how the English viewed the drawn series, they can paint it however they like - their squad seemed near-delusional at times in regards to the reality of the results and as such their views should be taken with a grain of salt.

So I don't ''feel'' like England were successful any more than you do.

But I reckon you ''feel'' like Australia were more successful than they were; for mine we merely held our ground from 4 years prior and blew an opportunity to further strengthen the legacy of the current Australian cricket set-up. The ''main aim'' was not achieved.

 

[PhatBoy]

I don't disagree that Australia was the more defensive side in the role of counter puncher. It just doesn't make sense to me the notion of "salvaging a drawn series" from 2-0 up. It quite clearly is an apt description for the home side pulling it back and getting something (pride, the players themselves mentioned they were desperate to at least not lose - hence "salvaging") out of the series, if not the original goal (regaining the urn). I've said a few times a drawn series felt right in the end, so it's both wrong to say England didn't even deserve that or that Australia were lucky to scrape it.

Let me use a silly metaphor. My position is always that failing to win a home Ashes series is a failure (bogey). Losing an away Ashes not as embarrassing but still a bogey. Retaining (drawing) as holders in an away series is par. Winning away from home is probably an eagle, winning at home a birdie (dominant) or par (close-fought).

The last 4 series we have:

Australia: birdie, par, birdie, par
England: bogey, bogey, bogey, bogey

You can make a miracle chip shot or long range putt to finish a couple of those holes, but if they started by hitting the drink or not landing on the green from the tee shot, it doesn't mean you "deserved more" at the end of it.

I appreciate what you’re saying too and I understand the oddity of the terminology of ‘salvaging’ a series draw from a position of leading it 2-0. It sort of felt like the tempo of the series was dictated by England - the variable if you will, while Australia was the constant so I also get what Cursed Cat means in using the phrasing he used

 

[Mr Meow]

I don't think Cummins or Steve Smith would agree with that; both made comments to the media stating that they'd come to win the series.

Steve Smith: "I thought we probably had all the tools in the kit bag to go ever there and win, and we weren't satisfied with drawing the series again. Obviously we did that last time... We wanted to win and do one better, and we weren't able to do that... So overall it was a bit disappointing."

Retaining the Ashes was good, beating England outright on English wickets would have been better and more definitive. Especially as we'd retained-without-winning last time we visited the UK, too.

Personally I couldn't care less how the English viewed the drawn series, they can paint it however they like - their squad seemed near-delusional at times in regards to the reality of the results and as such their views should be taken with a grain of salt.

So I don't ''feel'' like England were successful any more than you do.

But I reckon you ''feel'' like Australia were more successful than they were; for mine we merely held our ground from 4 years prior and blew an opportunity to further strengthen the legacy of the current Australian cricket set-up. The ''main aim'' was not achieved.

I've never once said it wasn't disappointing not to win the series. I've said that Australia would leave it closer to accomplishing their goals than England. I stand by that. For all their talk and bravado England failed for the second consecutive time to regain the Ashes on home soil. Both times they failed that task by the conclusion of match 4, then Australia had a match 5 to win it and failed. So, achieving the first task and failing the second. England both times at best you could say salvaged pride: "well at least they didn't go on and win the series on our home turf". It's a consolation prize. Australia didn't win the lottery but they got a decent chunk of booty. I'm glad the players didn't say that was what satisfied them. The English players appeared to do so by being "moral victors" every match and therefore "feeling" like the better side.

I "feel" like Australia did well to retain on away soil in Bazball mania as the opposition had the belief and momentum that could trouble any side. I am disappointed they didn't go on and win the series. The side that failed most remained England even if Australia didn't "climb the mountain" so to speak. None of these things are mutually exclusive. And none of them suggest Australia salvaged a drawn series.

 

[Mr Meow]

I appreciate what you’re saying too and I understand the oddity of the terminology of ‘salvaging’ a series draw from a position of leading it 2-0. It sort of felt like the tempo of the series was dictated by England - the variable if you will, while Australia was the constant so I also get what Cursed Cat means in using the phrasing he used

Yeah very different styles made it a bit tricky to assess.

I guess in football terms it was like one side playing with a crazy high line, pressing ridiculously aggressively, shooting from outside the box and trying all sorts of flashy moves. The other was content with sitting back a little and waiting for the right moments to pick the other off with a counter or sensible possession chains, getting an early lead and holding on for a draw when the opposition start scoring goals - enough to "settle the tie" but not display dominance. If that happened on Australian soil it would be a bit embarrassing but it was a pretty hostile atmosphere so away from home you say "fair enough". England definitely played well enough that I think it's unfair to say Australia "should have gone on to win it". Sometimes a draw is a just result.

 

[Cursed Cat]

I've never once said it wasn't disappointing not to win the series. I've said that Australia would leave it closer to accomplishing their goals than England. I stand by that. For all their talk and bravado England failed for the second consecutive time to regain the Ashes on home soil. Both times they failed that task by the conclusion of match 4, then Australia had a match 5 to win it and failed. So, achieving the first task and failing the second. England both times at best you could say salvaged pride: "well at least they didn't go on and win the series on our home turf". It's a consolation prize. Australia didn't win the lottery but they got a decent chunk of booty. I'm glad the players didn't say that was what satisfied them. The English players appeared to do so by being "moral victors" every match and therefore "feeling" like the better side.

I "feel" like Australia did well to retain on away soil in Bazball mania as the opposition had the belief and momentum that could trouble any side. I am disappointed they didn't go on and win the series. The side that failed most remained England even if Australia didn't "climb the mountain" so to speak. None of these things are mutually exclusive. And none of them suggest Australia salvaged a drawn series.

You said in your last comment that if the urn is retained then the ''main aim'' is achieved - these are your words.
So by that measure, Australia successfully achieved their main aim.

However senior Aussie players Smith and Cummins have said that the main aim was to actually win the series - and by that measure, they failed.

Again; couldn't care less about moral victories or how England felt about the results.

We were in a winning position, but ultimately couldn't win the series. We salvaged a draw after being in a winning position, or, if you prefer, had to settle for a drawn series after being in a winning position.

 

[Mr Meow]

You said in your last comment that if the urn is retained then the ''main aim'' is achieved - these are your words.
So by that measure, Australia successfully achieved their main aim.

However senior Aussie players Smith and Cummins have said that the main aim was to actually win the series - and by that measure, they failed.

Again; couldn't care less about moral victories or how England felt about the results.

We were in a winning position, but ultimately couldn't win the series. We salvaged a draw after being in a winning position, or, if you prefer, had to settle for a drawn series after being in a winning position.

We're getting stuck on phrasing so let me try again. First goal: retain the Ashes (retaining usually precedes winning, as holders). Ultimate aim: win the series. The players were like us, disappointed to not go on and win the series, but proud of the Ashes defence given what the opposition brought.

Cummins: "I think we can be immensely proud of holding the Ashes, England are a very strong team in their own conditions. We are really proud of how we stuck strong."

With your original comment, Cummins maybe should've said "I'm glad we could at least salvage a drawn series in the end". For me it would've made more sense for Stokes to say that. We're probably just going round in semantics loops at this point. It was a good Australian campaign but not an outstanding one. Retaining the urn for 4 consecutive series is really good going even if we would've loved 4 series wins.

 

[PhatBoy]

Yeah very different styles made it a bit tricky to assess.

I guess in football terms it was like one side playing with a crazy high line, pressing ridiculously aggressively, shooting from outside the box and trying all sorts of flashy moves. The other was content with sitting back a little and waiting for the right moments to pick the other off with a counter or sensible possession chains, getting an early lead and holding on for a draw when the opposition start scoring goals - enough to "settle the tie" but not display dominance. If that happened on Australian soil it would be a bit embarrassing but it was a pretty hostile atmosphere so away from home you say "fair enough". England definitely played well enough that I think it's unfair to say Australia "should have gone on to win it". Sometimes a draw is a just result.

Pretty spot on I think

 

[evolved2]

We screwed up in the Ashes. Remember we came off a thumping win in the WTC and had England on the canvas at 2-0. Our defensive bowling and fielding strategies were disappointing, and we often allowed England to dictate terms of the game.

Compare that to our ruthless strategy in the ODI world cup final. I hope we continue with that approach.

 

[Cursed Cat]

It was a good Australian campaign but not an outstanding one. Retaining the urn for 4 consecutive series is really good going even if we would've loved 4 series wins.

Agree with that.

As we all know, the bar for Australian cricket Greatness (without going all the way back to, say, the Invincibles) are the Mark Taylor and Steve Waugh teams who never, ever lost a series at home, routinely won overseas Test series - except in India, for the most part - and won World Cups.

The Smith/Warner/Hazlewood/Starc/Lyon/Cummins era have had periods of strength, but haven't quite climbed the mountaintop to true Australian cricketing greatness.

For this current Australian team to be recognised as truly Great (as per the OP) they need to tick off the following:

Beat England in England.

Beat India in Australia (!). A win in Sth Africa would look good on the CV too.

The aforementioned group of players have the WC victories against their names, and that is a huge tick.

Winning a Test series in India is currently the hardest task in cricket, but I doubt most of the Aussie veterans will get another shot at achieving this feat; Cummins might still be around to tick it off though.

 

[Raysboy]

You can't salvage a 5 match series from 2-0 up. England salvaged a drawn series, which in their mind was a moral victory, yet retaining the Ashes on away soil is closer to "job done" than failing to regain them at home.

It never seems to be mentioned that we lost Nathan Lyon for the last three and a half tests. He was our leading wicket taker to that stage and two of the other tests were so tight that we may have won them if he was playing.

 

[PhatBoy]

Agree with that.

As we all know, the bar for Australian cricket Greatness (without going all the way back to, say, the Invincibles) are the Mark Taylor and Steve Waugh teams who never, ever lost a series at home, routinely won overseas Test series - except in India, for the most part - and won World Cups.

The Smith/Warner/Hazlewood/Starc/Lyon/Cummins era have had periods of strength, but haven't quite climbed the mountaintop to true Australian cricketing greatness.

For this current Australian team to be recognised as truly Great (as per the OP) they need to tick off the following:

Beat England in England.

Beat India in Australia (!). A win in Sth Africa would look good on the CV too.

The aforementioned group of players have the WC victories against their names, and that is a huge tick.

Winning a Test series in India is currently the hardest task in cricket, but I doubt most of the Aussie veterans will get another shot at achieving this feat; Cummins might still be around to tick it off though.

Officially they haven’t:

• won in Sri Lanka
• won in India
• beaten India in Australia
• won in England
• won in SA

You could go back to things like winning in NZ and WI because ‘this’ team hasn’t toured there as such but they a) won in both venues last time they went which seems like forever ago now, and b) would probably do so again (pretty comfortably in the case of the WI much as it pains me to say it)

 

[PhatBoy]

It never seems to be mentioned that we lost Nathan Lyon for the last three and a half tests. He was our leading wicket taker to that stage and two of the other tests were so tight that we may have won them if he was playing.

Nor does it get mentioned that Leach played none of the tests. He’s not as good as Lyon. Certainly no argument there, he’s not in the same class. But Moen Ali isn’t in the same class as Leach either. And I think we can agree the pretense of Ali being an ‘all rounder’ to offset the difference is a bit of a myth

 

[Mr Meow]

Nor does it get mentioned that Leach played none of the tests. He’s not as good as Lyon. Certainly no argument there, he’s not in the same class. But Moen Ali isn’t in the same class as Leach either. And I think we can agree the pretense of Ali being an ‘all rounder’ to offset the difference is a bit of a myth

Even though Ali's bowling was erratic, he chipped in and it was only the injured finger innings he missed where you'd think it was costly (cause none of their spin stocks as of 2023 were great). Leach wouldn't have been a big upgrade.

Australia did lose its best and most in form bowler. Sure they shouldn't have been so reliant on him but it that was a massive thing to contend with, while the downgrade of Leach to Ali was minor.

Think England losing Stokes or Broad early on for something that would have been similar.

 

[PhatBoy]

Even though Ali's bowling was erratic, he chipped in and it was only the injured finger innings he missed where you'd think it was costly (cause none of their spin stocks as of 2023 were great). Leach wouldn't have been a big upgrade.

Australia did lose its best and most in form bowler. Sure they shouldn't have been so reliant on him but it that was a massive thing to contend with, while the downgrade of Leech to Ali was minor.

Think England losing Stokes or Broad early on for something that would have been similar.

I think Broad you could make a similar comparison to. As I said Leach isn’t nearly as good as Lyon but not having your only test quality spinner available for any test is a big blow. Australia at least did get 8-229 out of Lyon in a test win, that’s a handy bit of output if you’re going to say goodbye to him half a test later.

Ali to his credit did actually find a way to make the odd contribution that was, relative to his general Ashes input, better than expected.

 

[Mr Meow]

I think Broad you could make a similar comparison to. As I said Leach isn’t nearly as good as Lyon but not having your only test quality spinner available for any test is a big blow. Australia at least did get 8-229 out of Lyon in a test win, that’s a handy bit of output if you’re going to say goodbye to him half a test later.

Ali to his credit did actually find a way to make the odd contribution that was, relative to his general Ashes input, better than expected.

Yeah all fair enough points. I just thought the Aussie bowling attack lost a bit of control and balance once Lyon got injured. England somewhat got off the leash afterwards and Cummins in particular appeared fatigued by the end.

It is remarkable (and worrying?) that Lyon remains so important. I don't think they managed Murphy well at all and I think that also at least was partially from the psychological effect of losing their reliable talisman.

 

[PhatBoy]

Yeah all fair enough points. I just thought the Aussie bowling attack lost a bit of control and balance once Lyon got injured. England somewhat got off the leash afterwards and Cummins in particular appeared fatigued by the end.

It is remarkable (and worrying?) that Lyon remains so important. I don't think they managed Murphy well at all and I think that also at least was partially from the psychological effect of losing their reliable talisman.

Australia - though I don’t think it is limited just to Australia, other sides do it as well - has a habit of bringing guys in to cover other regulars, and they do a great job and suddenly everyone gets on the ‘oh we have a ready made star waiting in the wings’ bandwagon.

It’s happened recently with Murphy and Boland after their efforts in India and at the MCG respectively. Lungi Ngidi when he very first played for SA suffered a bit from it as well and when they were called on again and were expected to back it up like their more seasoned counterparts immediately again, it doesn’t always go according to plan and it often happens that they get mismanaged a bit and I reckon that’s probably exactly what you’re alluding to. Even right back when Gilchrist was playing, Brad Haddin played a couple of blistering knocks for NSW and some hard hitting cameos for the Australian ODI side so it was just assumed that he’d be a like for like replacement for Gilly.

It’s a hard job handling players in those situations.

 

[Jamurp]

It's a fantastic side and a lot more likeable than past Australian sides that rubbed me up the wrong way apart from a few players, despite how good and entertaining those sides were to be fair.

Love Cummins and think despite the w***er 'woke' crowd, he's a very popular captain and a great cricketer in his own right.

Side feels like it's been a 'nearly' team for a while, but has now achieved a lot and really is one of the best Aussie sides ever.

 

[Santana]

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 revisionary history over the Leeds tests is nuts. On the "Back Foot"

 

[Soggy2112]

I think the only time it has backfired into ultimately losing was the final in India, and even then it may not have if Australia did what everyone except themselves thought they would and batted first.

It backfired on them the test we won, they made it too much of a s**t tip and it became a shootout. A hard fought 60 from Ussie was enough.