Mega Thread The Sky Is Falling! Official Australian Cricket Panic Thread

[King Elvis]

...

So we're playing a four Test series that we aren't that worried about winning?

That's almost worse than believing we're incompetent.

 

[Covertackle]

...

So we're playing a four Test series that we aren't that worried about winning?

That's almost worse than believing we're incompetent.

no. i think it may have just worked out that way. we took a gamble on our bowling attack (our best attack) and it failed. no sense getting them driven all over the park, and so our attack was modified for a few different reasons. none of them being to win...

 

[swingdog]

we have some really good bowling prospects, a good captain, and a hatred for england that will see us competitive. if we beat england, all will be forgotten.

edit. and dont forget weve always struggled in india. the pitches are just made that way.
.

So, we're going to beat a team which has just won away in the conditions where, apart from Clarke, none of our top order have made runs.

And we're going to beat them at home. Against a swinging ball, which we've never had any problems with....

 

[Covertackle]

So, we're going to beat a team which has just won away in the conditions where, apart from Clarke, none of our top order have made runs.

And we're going to beat them at home. Against a swinging ball, which we've never had any problems with....

why not? they are only ****en poms.

 

[King Elvis]

Poor form to merge these threads too; especially given the new thread title.

Iraqi Information Minister is our new mod; all is well, nothing to worry about?

 

[carloss]

if michael clarke does not bat 3 this next test, he never will. its TIME!

Meh, the difference between batting at #3 and #5 in the Test team at the moment is about 5 minutes.

 

[qman]

Poor form to merge these threads too; especially given the new thread title.

Iraqi Information Minister is our new mod; all is well, nothing to worry about?

Exactly, it was a hypothetical question, regarding how great our team was not necessarily how bad this current side is. I think that generation was one out of the box not likely to be repeated again.

 

[Jimthegreat]

They doctor up wickets we can't bat on knowing full well we have no spinners of class to exploit it and knowing our world class pace attack is nullified on it. We're just playing out time. Surely no-one takes this series as a guide to our fortunes and we won't bat on these bunsen burners for another 4 years. Batting needs work but it'll be way better on more human pitches.

 

[Outshined]

I'm sure you're the sort who also believes that "one day", the Windies will be back at their perch.

And how exactly did you come to that conclusion? Surely not from the statement that at some point in the future, Australia will likely have a cricket team as good as the one we all had the pleasure of watching in recent years?

 

[King Elvis]

Meh, the difference between batting at #3 and #5 in the Test team at the moment is about 5 minutes.

Might not be if we have one of the world's best current batsmen at #3.

 

[Outshined]

Unless Clarke farms the strike all innings he'll still have walking wickets around him wherever he bats.

 

[Partridge]

I think it's interesting that so many in the last couple of years put our loses down to Ponting's captaincy - 2010/11 Ashes, WC, etc. Granted tactics wise he was nothing special - as a leader many admire him greatly - but I think a lot has to go down to us just not being as good as we have been accustomed to.

Exactly. Not to mention Ponting had to deal with losing two bowlers who'd taken 1200 test wickets. Makes a slight dint in your attack.

 

[Santana]

While not around, I've not doubt people were saying the exact same thing a few years after Thomson, Lillee, Marsh etc all retired. Same too with the Invincibles. Point is, the talent pool peaks and troughs.

That team of the 90s/00s was a rare event, but it will happen again some time in the future.

It's pretty unlikely with the current administration in place right now.

It won't just happen too. This whole it's cyclical thing is bullshit. There is a cancer in Australian Cricket right now and it's the CA. Things need to change there first if we are to become great again.

 

[Partridge]

All summer long we've had to put up with smirking Mickey Arthur and John Inverarity looking down their noses at us, telling us we don't understand what they're doing. Too right gents, we STILL don't have a clue what you're doing ... and neither do you. Both should be sacked immediately.

Can't argue with that. Spot on.

It's amazing how in most sports, but especially cricket, poor administration always leads to poor results. We only need to look at England for a perfect example of both extremes. From about the mid 1970s to the mid 2000s England set a new low for shambolic, lazy, amateurish and just horrible development and nurturing of its cricketers. They changed not just players but captains test by test (reaching a peak in 1988 v West Indies with I think 4 different captains in the first 4 tests). They had decent cricketers, but their whole setup of the game was outdated, and being English their culture shies away from being ruthless and winning; they'd rather be nice and come second. Finally they got their shit together in the early 2000s. It doesn't mean they've had a superstar side since; they haven't. But, they have perservered with players for far longer, kept a relatively stable administration and team together (for the most part), and not surprisingly, they're the strongest now they've been in decades. It's not a coincidence.

I don't think the sky is falling with Australia. But what the bone-headed selectors (and administrators) need to do is something like this:

1. Pick the best 15-20 cricketers you have and stick with them.
2. Don't think a conveyor belt of new coaches are going to save anything, the players have to work it out themselves.
3. The Captain is in charge of the team, especially the makeup of it and how they play. Without exception.
4. Very important - don't let sports scientists override either the Captain or the players on how fit someone is. Their input is useful, but it's just that - input. It's not the final decision.

Having an inexperienced cricketer struggle is no different to a footy player in his first 20 games; they might look lost early, but if you think they are the future (and they show enough glimpses) they you have to persist. Chopping and changing doesn't solve anything.

Anyway, rant over.

 

[Belnakor]

Having an inexperienced cricketer struggle is no different to a footy player in his first 20 games; they might look lost early, but if you think they are the future (and they show enough glimpses) they you have to persist. Chopping and changing doesn't solve anything.

Its interesting when you think of our team who beat the poms 5-0.

Ponting / Clarke / Warne / Gilchrist / Lee / Mcgrath were out and out guns basically from the moment they were on the scene

Hayden / Langer / Martyn / Hussey / Clark spent significant time in the wilderness.

so half the team really had no learning curve. This is different to AFL were maybe 10% of players, tops are guns the first year they play.

 

[Marshland]

...

So we're playing a four Test series that we aren't that worried about winning?

That's almost worse than believing we're incompetent.

Exactly. It's this minnow attitude, along with the associated whinging about the pitches that ticks me off. The side of a few years ago just wanted to win. Period.

Also, upthread someone mentioned Joe Root - the promising young batsman for England.

Can someone explain to me how he came in to the side with little experience of Indian conditions and played patiently and well, but that's beyond the ability of our top order?

Root had played in Indian first class cricket I believe, with the England Performance Program or whatever they call themselves.

 

[Outshined]

It's pretty unlikely with the current administration in place right now.

It won't just happen too. This whole it'scyclical thing is bullshit. There is a cancer in Australian Cricket right now and it's the CA. Things need to change there first if we are to become great again.

Because the current administration is going to rule cricket in Australia until the end of time.

CA are inept, but it will pass, young players will emerge, better people will be in charge, and we'll return to the top. Then all our good players will retire and it will start all over again. Eventually we'll have a team arguably as good as the one we've had recently. It may not be for another 50 years, but it will happen*

*Subject to test cricket remaining in tact.

 

[King Elvis]

http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8622257

Australia captain Michael "Pup" Clarke has given his batsmen a pep talk in a bid to inspire them to greater deeds after two heavy defeats against India.

A pep talk?

That'll help

"We had a chat this morning with our batsmen about forming a partnership, forming a bond, investing in the other batsmen," Arthur said on Wednesday.
"Michael was doing that today.
"When Michael talks, the other players listen because he's so experienced.
"He went out of his way today to make sure that he connected with every batsman and give them every bit of advice that he could to try to help them through their net session today to ultimately make them better players.

Wait... He doesn't do that regardless?

The skipper has confirmed he'll move from No.5 into the top four for the third Test in Mohali starting on March 14.

Now, that might actually help.

But I'm concerned that they've already started saying a move into the 'top four' - are they pre-empting the possibility that he'll shift himself to #4 instead of #3?

 

[Partridge]

Also, upthread someone mentioned Joe Root - the promising young batsman for England.

Can someone explain to me how he came in to the side with little experience of Indian conditions and played patiently and well, but that's beyond the ability of our top order?

My guess would be he's an intelligent young cricketer who's learned to solve problems himself, and worked out pretty quickly what he needed to do on their pitches and ended up playing well.

One of the big problems is too many coaches overcomplicating a pretty simple game. The players start to rely on them instead of using their own talent and application.

 

[Partridge]

Its interesting when you think of our team who beat the poms 5-0.

Ponting / Clarke / Warne / Gilchrist / Lee / Mcgrath were out and out guns basically from the moment they were on the scene

Hayden / Langer / Martyn / Hussey / Clark spent significant time in the wilderness.

so half the team really had no learning curve. This is different to AFL were maybe 10% of players, tops are guns the first year they play.

Not sure Lee belongs in that first category. I'd argue Hayden, Langer and Martyn all dealt with a very harsh learning curve of getting dropped and having to learn from mistakes at shield level (as did Steve Waugh).

 

[gbatman]

The big reason why we can't win there is because none of Australia's home wickets turn any more. Sydney used to turn and Hobart a bit too but none of them turn any more which has lead to there being a lack of good spin bowlers coming through and it has created a generation of defensive spin bowlers who bowl with no variation, imagination or flight.

We no longer know which domestic batsmen can play on turning wickets because none of them ever play on turning wickets any more. A few years ago we had Hayden, Lehmann and Clarke earmarked as spin specialists because we had all seen them make runs domestically on a turning wickets in Australia.

Sydney must turn and at least one other wicket must turn for Australia having any chance of doing any good in the sub continent and particularly India. If we don't make a few turning wickets in Australia, we will get a worse repetition than England have for not being able to play spin. In fact we are worse than them because at least they still have turning wickets and they can win in India.

Australian wickets MUST return to their past glory. At the moment they are all mostly the same. Hard, grassy, plenty in it for the quicks and batsmen who can play pace and very little spin. We must have two domestic venues where the ball turns otherwise we will keep producing the same type of crap defensive spinners, the batsmen will never learn to play spin and we will never be able to identify spin specialist batsmen.

The Selectors need to pull their heads in and pick a side that suits the conditions of the venue we are playing at. The selection for the first test was pathetic. The way the selections have gone about things has wreaked of the previous selection panel. People should lose their jobs over selecting just one spinner for the first test. That was unprofessional and excessively stupid.

It's not a lack of ability from our cricketers. It's a lack of experience on turning wickets and our selectors not knowing who can and who can't play against spin on turning wickets and not knowing who can and can't bowl on turning wickets.

 

[STFU Donnie]

All good points. I would add that the lack of application on the part of the batsmen in difficult conditions was the most worrying aspect.

 

[Team DJ]

Concentration from the batsmen.

Cowan (who sucks anyway) and Clarke aside they are all ODI/20Twenty Players

 

[Belnakor]

Not sure Lee belongs in that first category. I'd argue Hayden, Langer and Martyn all dealt with a very harsh learning curve of getting dropped and having to learn from mistakes at shield level (as did Steve Waugh).

but the point is over the half the team were thrown in at the deep end and were guns from the word go. Giving guys 20+ tests to prove they are shit is of dubious benefits.

 

[The_Reaper]

We need to prescribe our players with ritalin