They keep winning - but do they stack up against the really great sides ?

[Bloodstained Angel]

Ok - another comprehensive demolition of the opposition by the Aussies.

This team seems to be amongst the greatest of all time. They are set to break the Test record of the Windies and now some commentators have started taliking about this team in the same breath as the 1948 Invincibles.

I see a paradox here - this Australian team just keeps on winning, but I'm sorry I juyst don't rate them as a truly great side.

Why ? - Because the top-middle order batting is rubbish, and has been for a long time now.

This latest test match follows the pattern that has been established for a few years now, Australia has relied on Tail-enders to get a competitive total.

Australia was on the ropes at 7/196 but guess who rescued the Aussies this time ? As usual it was the wicketkeeper and a bowler who can bat a bit.

Its the same as in a whole succession of test matches now, top order batting has failed miserabley only to be rescued by the wicketkeeper and the bowlers. (thank you Gilchrist and Brett Lee)

Now my point is this

The Australian are winnning because :

- The opposition are in complete dissarray
- They bowl very very agrgressively and back it up with fantastic fielding.
- The wicketkeeper is a great batsman (Healy AND Gilchrist) and the bowlers can all bat a bit too.

The Australians are NOT winning because they are one of the best teams of all time.

I'm sorry but the top and middle order batsmen fail far too often for this team to be even considered as good as 1948 Invincibles, Richie Benauds great squads of the 1958-1962 period, or even the Chappell brothers teams of the 70's and 80's.

Truly great teams don't have to rely on the wicketkeeper and the bowlers to post competitive scores.

But the irony is - Steve Waughs men just keep marching on with big and easy wins all the time, lost in the hype is a serious critique of Australia's woeful mifddle order performances.

cheers

 

[Guest]

Absolutely right BSA.

I'd love to know the last time Australia were 4 for 350 odd. It's hard to bag the team because the success rate over the past two years or so has been sensational but you couldn't compare them to the invincibles. In fact I'm not sure they would even be as good as Ian Chappell's side in the mid 70's.

We have also relied too much on McGrath and Warne lately although with Lee in the side now and hopefully Dizzy staying fit, the bowling does look a lot stronger.

 

[goatmaster]

Agree with you both.
The top order (1st 4) have struggled with the exeption of Langer who is very vulnerable early because his footwork is average. Mark Waugh should have been dropped 12 months ago Slater is a risk to any wide ball & the other openers haven't cut it.
However great sides get themselves out of trouble. It is the mark of a great team.


------------------
Goatmaster
the prime minister of the principality of Mooball

 

[ptw]

I disagree - to some extent.

In any great team there are a couple of standouts, and the rest are very good players, made to look good by the circumstances.

I would rate:

S. Waugh (50.38)
G. McGrath (21.76)
S. Warne (25.96)

as absolute top level players, no doubt.

B. Lee (16.05)
A. Gilcrist
R. Ponting (46.93)
S. MacGill (23.03)
Gillespie (22.16)

all have the potential to move into the top bracket, just too early to tell right now.

Langer (41.03)
Slater (43.93)
M. Waugh (41.61)

are really good players, but have probably reached their potential and will never be top class.

Bichel, Hayden et al make up the numbers.

The problem I have with comparison to the Chappell teams is they span 10 or more years and therefore it is not a fair comparison. If we take one team (from memory)

Top Class
G. Chappell (53.86)
D. Lillee (23.92)
D. Walters
R. Marsh

Next Tier
G. Wood (31.83)
B. Laird (35.28)
I. Chappell (42.42)
L. Pascoe (26.06)
R. Hogg (28.47)

Making up the numbers

J Higgs et al

The only difference I can see is some of the current team have question marks as it is too early to tell (is Gilcrist better than Marsh ? - who can tell ?).....but overall they have a smattering of stars a solid core of good players, and a few "stars in the making". It is easy to glmourise the good teams of the past, but the stats I think are compelling.

wrt Bradman's 1948 team (without being burnt at the stake) you could run the same arguement about the quality of the opposition, the opposition was really only England....so if England had a bad run we dominated (and v.v.).

Also wrt the opposition, I think the opposition now days is more spread out. If you listed the top 5 fast bowlers at the moment they might be (no order)....

McGrath
Donald
Walsh
Pollock
Akram

in 1978 this might have read...

Roberts
Garner
Holding
Lillee
Hadley

so you had a tough time against the windies but not so much elsewhere. Therefore saying that G. Wood's average is lower than Slaters because Slater never had to face the Windies at full strength (although Walsh and Ambrose are not bad players!!) ignores the fact that when Wood was not playing the Windies the other sides lacked the fast bowling depth. We should also not ignore the fact that the spin bowling of today is far above the spin bowling of the 1970's...which is why I have more time for M Waugh than most others here.

sorry about the disjointed post !!!

ptw

 

[servo]

You did say it was a team didn't you??

A team is a team and as such does not have to have a text book batting order, or a non batting wicket keeper, or bunnies at the bottom end. Just because this team doesn't have a Greenidge/Haynes combination at the top or a Lillee/Thompson/Walker/Gilmour pace attack does not mean it is not a better team.

All a team can do is what it is asked to do, win. This team has just equalled the record for consecutive wins and will probably go on to break it. That in itself qualifies them as one of the best. Remember that when the WI set that record the Aussie team was in dissaray and we could still beat England and New Zealand at the time so WI's opposition was not strong.

The 1948 team was exceptional but remember it was just after the war, England had been devastated by the bombings. I am not saying they lost all their cricketers in the war. I am saying that cricket was not as higher a priority as it was for Australians. They were a bit more interested in rebuilding their lives. Their preparation was poor in comparison to the Aussies.

Personally I think the WI team of the early 80's was better than the team we just had at Brisbane. But add a fit Warne & a fit Gillespie and the question is not so clear.

 

[Dipper]

Hey Servo
I totally agree with your concept of a team that it is the sum of all it's parts & that tail enders making runs is just as legitimate as anything else.BUT I have to bring you up on the point 'Remember that when the WI set that record the Aussie team was in dissaray and we could still beat England and New Zealand at the time so WI's opposition was not strong'-in fact your blokes couldn't beat ours becos in 85 Ashes series we beat you 3-1.And boy would I fu@king settle for that score next summer(I can dream)

 

[Drakey]

GGGGGGGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

This IS a great side.

Lets compare it to the side that played the West Indies in Brisbane in the 1st test in 1975. Remember this side won this test & went on to win the series 5-1.

batting
1975 AVE 2000 AVE
Redpath 43.45 Slater 43.93
Turner 29.53 Hayden 22.93
Chappell I. 42.42 Langer 41.03
Chappell G. 53.86 Waugh M. 41.61
McCosker 39.56 Waugh S. 50.38
Marsh 26.51 Ponting 46.93
Gilmore 23.00 Gilcrest 56.41

Bowling
1975 WKT AVE 2000 WKT AVE
Gilmore 54 26.03 Lee 35 16.05
Jenner 24 31.00 Bichell 4 85.75
Lillee 355 23.92 McGrath 298 21.76
Thomson 200 28.01 McGill 62 23.03
Mallett 134 29.84

Averages arn't everything but when I look at the 1975 side's batting, I see 1 good opener, quality at 3 & 4 & then nothing.

Only 1 of the 2000 side's top 7 average under 40. Only 3 of the 1975 side averages over 40.

Based on their averages you could make a case for the inclusion on Redpath, G Chappell & maybe (just maybe I Chappell) into the 2000 side.

As for the bowlers

1975
Lillee was probably the greatest of all time, Thommo was quick but once he lost that extra yard of pace due to injury he was ordinary. He couldn't swing the ball & only had an off cutter. Gilmore had talent but didn't do enough with it, Jenner was a hack & Mallett was steady.

2000
McGrath is one of our greatest ever bowlers, Lee is the quickest bowler in the world with a good action and an outswinger. Bichell is a hack & McGill is a better bowler than either jenner or Mallett ever were. If it wasn't for Warne McGill would have 150 + wickets by now.

Add the fact that the 2000 side is superior in the field & I beleive under the leadership of a better captain.

Sorry you knockers are wrong. this is an outstanding cricket side.

 

[Drakey]

Oh yeh by the way.

Slater is a world class opening batsman.
To all you Greenidge & Haynes lovers out there, here are there records.

Greenidge
108 tests, 44.72 Ave, 19/100, 34/50
Haynes
116 tests, 42.29 Ave, 18/100, 39/50
Slater
63 tests, 43.93 Ave, 14/100, 17/50

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

If they are so great why do the top and middle order batswmen fail all the time ?

Why is it continually left up to the wicketkeeper and a tailender to post competitive totals all the time ?

Drakey can you answer Spogs question - can you recall the last time you saw Australia 3 / 350 odd - I can't.

The Australian batting has been propped up by the likes of Ian Healy, Adam Gilchrist, Damian Fleming, Paul Reiffel, Shane Warne and Andy Bichel.

Like I said this Australian team keep on winning because their bowlers bowl aggressively to a well set attacking field that know how to hang on to their catches. I might also add that this Australian team keep winning because the opposition is usually in total disarray.

This is not a great team - great bowling, great fielding and poor opposition hide a middle batting order that is average at best and pretty mediocre at worst.

cheers

 

[Drakey]

1st test Aust v Pakistan 1999 3-311
3rd test Aust v Pakistan 1999 5-381

hows that.

 

[Guest]

I've just gone to extensive lengths to prove the failings of the top 4 in the current lineup compared to the Chappelli side of the mid 70's. Unfortunately I've shot myself (and BSA and goatmaster) in the foot (feet).

I chose 22 consecutive tests between 73 and 76 and compared the scores at four for against the last 22 tests played by the current side (excluding the last test).

Average score at 4/:
70's 167.22
Current 169.27

Average total score:
70's 338.73
Current 380.45

The 70's side past the 300 mark for the loss of four wickets 3 times compared to the current side 2 times.

The opponents were NZ, Eng and WI for the 70's side and Zim, NZ, Pak, WI and Eng in the last 22 tests.

I might have to rethink about this thread now but the current top order does have a feeling of vulnerablility about it.

 

[Drakey]

Ok

Lets compare them to the 1961 side that played in the tied test.

McDonald (39.32)
Simpson (46.81)
Harvey (48.41)
O'Neil (45.55)
Favell (27.03)
Mackay (33.48)
Davidson (24.59) (186 wkts at 20.53)
Benaud (24.45) (248 wkts at 27.03)
Grout (15.08)
Meckiff (11.84) (45 wkts at 31.62)
Kline (8.28) (34 wkt at 22.82)

3 quality batsmen in Simpson, Harvey & O'Neil & 2 great bowlers in Davidson & Benaud. The rest?

 

[Arch]

g'work drakey.

 

[Drakey]

Ok this is for all the people out there who crap on about the "great" windies side.

This is how their top order performed in the 1st innings during the 84-85 series here. When they set the record.

1st test 6-186
2nd test 5-184
3rd test 5-172
4th test 5-154
5th test all out 163

Thats Greenidge, Haynes, Richardson, Richards, Gomes & lloyd.

Haynes averaged 27
Greenidge averaged 26
Richardson averaged 26

Their 2 top run scorers were Gomes & Lloyd batting 5 & 6 with Dujon 3rd in the averages batting at 7.

As you can see this "great" batting lineup was saved by the lower order in almost every game.

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

OK fair enough

But I will echo Spogs comments the top order has a look of vulnerability about it.

 

[ptw]

well done Drakey...you said what I was trying to say but far more effectively (where did you get your stats ?).

Perhaps we cannot see the forest for the trees.

This side is a great side BECAUSE they appear vulnrable at the top order. It is true that minus S Waugh there is no-one there I would like to be batting for my life. They all have an air of inconsistency about them....but collectively they perform...when one fails someone else steps up. This must be a key criteria for a great team, otherwise once an opposition suss's out the key player (eg McGrath on Lara...Warne on Cullinan) its all over.


I also think that a run making tail is such a valuable asset. To be 5-170 and then go on to make 350 odd routinely must be demoralising for the opposition.

Anyway...no doubt in my mind that they are a great side.

I live O/S but I happen to be in Adelaide for day 4 of the test match. Just hope it is still going by then...pray we win the toss and bat first !!!

ptw

[This message has been edited by ptw (edited 28 November 2000).]

 

[Dipper]

Disagree with Drakey at your peril!

 

[acuguy]

A great team cannot really be measured by individual success, a great team is when they perform together, why don't we look at the averages of the australian players over there period they have not been beaten in.
A great team has players who perform when most needed, someone may not get runs for two test but then gets a hundred when it counts, this is an endless debate. I just think that in twenty years time when people may be debating the 2000 side against the great 2020 side they will probably be looking upon the waughs,slaters,mcgraths, pontings, lees in same way we are in awe of the chappells , lillees,benauds,davidson,harveys.
do u guys get my point

 

[servo]

very much so acuguy