Unpopular opinion (potentially) - Australian cricket has always been average...

[magpiemaniac44]

No they didn’t. They drew 2-2. Australia hasn’t won a series in England since 2001. That includes the series they played against Pakistan over there.


Sri Lanka’s win loss ratio is awful but they’ve at least won a series overseas in the last five calendar years.

We retained the ashes with a test still to play. Put it however you like but I doubt many teams will be up and about and eager after they claimed the main goal only about 3 days earlier. Retaining the ashes in England is a win.

 

[PhatBoy]

We retained the ashes with a test still to play. Put it however you like but I doubt many teams will be up and about and eager after they claimed the main goal only about 3 days earlier. Retaining the ashes in England is a win.

Dude, Australian denialists have spent the best part of two decades reminding Indians that 03-04 was a draw not a win even though they retained the trophy out here.

Retaining the ashes was a solid effort and one a lot of people doubted but it wasn’t a win

 

[Pippen94]

My assessment would be that outside the golden years of 95-07, Australia has never been as good, or as bad, as they are generally made out to be.

Australia certainly aren't shithouse. The academy structures and domestic strength, as much as they might get criticised, mean that Australia will always be at least competitive.

It seems though that they are only ever one good series win away from being lauded the best in the world by the general public, and one series loss away from being called a basket case by the same demographic.

Was there much difference in ability between 1995 team & 1993 or 1991 or 1989.
Answer = no

 

[Pippen94]

If NZ aren't good how many are currently good? 1? The 1 NZ beat a month after losing to Australia?

Everybody is crap apparently

 

[PhatBoy]

Was there much difference in ability between 1995 team & 1993 or 1991 or 1989.
Answer = no

Answer: yes.

Glenn McGrath appeared.
Shane Warne went from being in his second year of Test cricket to his fourth.
Ian Healy learned how to hit centuries by 1993.
Craig McDermott and Merv Hughes disappeared from the bowling attack and Alan Border from the batting line up.

Michael Slater had arrived in 1993 to form a permanent and dominant opening partnership.

As cliched as the ‘boon and marsh’ combination was they only ever really had a lasting union in one day cricket. Taylor and Marsh, then Taylor and Boon formed one Ok and one quite good partnership, that was enhanced again when Slater came along.

Greg Blewett arrived early in 1995 and for a time he shone with two hundreds in his first two tests then a huge knock against South Africa.


The seeds were undoubtedly sown in 1989 and were thereabouts by 91-92.

But even the main driving force behind the ascent to the top in 1995 (Steve Waugh) was only really regaining permanency in the side by 1993. Prior to that he’d been dropped a few times and his only innings of note for a couple of years was an out of the blue even 100 at Sydney against the west indies

 

[Numero Uno]

Statistically better than every other test playing nation by some margin

didn’t we even flog a World 11 ?

 

[Pippen94]

Answer: yes.

Glenn McGrath appeared.
Shane Warne went from being in his second year of Test cricket to his fourth.
Ian Healy learned how to hit centuries by 1993.
Craig McDermott and Merv Hughes disappeared from the bowling attack and Alan Border from the batting line up.

Michael Slater had arrived in 1993 to form a permanent and dominant opening partnership.

As cliched as the ‘boon and marsh’ combination was they only ever really had a lasting union in one day cricket. Taylor and Marsh, then Taylor and Boon formed one Ok and one quite good partnership, that was enhanced again when Slater came along.

Greg Blewett arrived early in 1995 and for a time he shone with two hundreds in his first two tests then a huge knock against South Africa.


The seeds were undoubtedly sown in 1989 and were thereabouts by 91-92.

But even the main driving force behind the ascent to the top in 1995 (Steve Waugh) was only really regaining permanency in the side by 1993. Prior to that he’d been dropped a few times and his only innings of note for a couple of years was an out of the blue even 100 at Sydney against the west indies

Only slight personel changes really;
89 ashes had crack batting line up really with Taylor, Boon, Jones, Border & Waugh. Some of those guys may have been better in 95 some worse. Mark Waugh was to follow soon after with Slater all before 1995. Flawed Blewett being part of 95 team is not a plus.

Seam bowling was a strength in 89 & all of early 90's with Hughes, Reid, McDermott, Alderman, Lwason etc. 1995 team had Julian & Rackerman was reinforcement - I'd say greater depth earlier.

Big difference was emergence of Warne as world class spinner which was missing piece. But you're just talking about a single player who was already great in 93.

Think about this; Aussies just lost to west indies in 93 & then won close series in 95.

On paper & on field no dramatic change

 

[Plugger35]

This doco shown on The Weekly last night sums up Australian cricket.

 

[PhatBoy]

Only slight personel changes really;
89 ashes had crack batting line up really with Taylor, Boon, Jones, Border & Waugh. Some of those guys may have been better in 95 some worse. Mark Waugh was to follow soon after with Slater all before 1995. Flawed Blewett being part of 95 team is not a plus.

Seam bowling was a strength in 89 & all of early 90's with Hughes, Reid, McDermott, Alderman, Lwason etc. 1995 team had Julian & Rackerman was reinforcement - I'd say greater depth earlier.

Big difference was emergence of Warne as world class spinner which was missing piece. But you're just talking about a single player who was already great in 93.

Think about this; Aussies just lost to west indies in 93 & then won close series in 95.

On paper & on field no dramatic change

Waugh had never hit a test century until 89. Boon was 3-4 years off becoming, briefly, the best batsman on the planet, Jones didn’t make it to 95, mark Waugh hadn’t debuted yet.
Alderman would retire within 18 months, Whitney would play his last test within 2 years, so would Marsh Lawson would retire at the end of it.

The bare bones were there as certainly border started what the later captains finished but there was a lot that needed to happen.

 

[Pippen94]

Waugh had never hit a test century until 89. Boon was 3-4 years off becoming, briefly, the best batsman on the planet, Jones didn’t make it to 95, mark Waugh hadn’t debuted yet.
Alderman would retire within 18 months, Whitney would play his last test within 2 years, so would Marsh Lawson would retire at the end of it.

The bare bones were there as certainly border started what the later captains finished but there was a lot that needed to happen.

So what?? Was Mark Waugh much better than Jones?? Were Hughes, McDermott & Reid less fearsome than Refiell & Julian?? Waugh was better in 95 but Boon was declining. Border was among top ranked batsmen into early 90's.
Man for man it's pretty even between sides. 1993 is even closer. If you think there was seismic shift your wrong

 

[melanChronic]

We retained the ashes with a test still to play. Put it however you like but I doubt many teams will be up and about and eager after they claimed the main goal only about 3 days earlier. Retaining the ashes in England is a win.

Don't agree with this at all, and I reckon the carry on about merely retaining the Ashes reflected a weakening/lowering of standards by both the team and the general public that just wouldn't have happened 10-20 years ago.

 

[PhatBoy]

So what?? Was Mark Waugh much better than Jones?? Were Hughes, McDermott & Reid less fearsome than Refiell & Julian?? Waugh was better in 95 but Boon was declining. Border was among top ranked batsmen into early 90's.
Man for man it's pretty even between sides. 1993 is even closer. If you think there was seismic shift your wrong

You’re right, you’re dead right. The 1300 wickets that were about to arrive didn’t change anything.

 

[Santana]

This doco shown on The Weekly last night sums up Australian cricket.

Imagine watching the weekly...

Here's a pic to sum up NZ cricket...

 

[Pippen94]

You’re right, you’re dead right. The 1300 wickets that were about to arrive didn’t change anything.

How many wickets did McGrath have in 1995??
Lost 11,000 runs for border

 

[magpiemaniac44]

Don't agree with this at all, and I reckon the carry on about merely retaining the Ashes reflected a weakening/lowering of standards by both the team and the general public that just wouldn't have happened 10-20 years ago.

Possibly but I’d classify going overseas and retaining the trophy a win, if India drew this series they would act as if they won and completed the mission. In my opinion had England previously had the Ashes going into the 2019 series we’d see a completely different performance from Australia in the fifth test.

 

[PhatBoy]

How many wickets did McGrath have in 1995??
Lost 11,000 runs for border

Yes and Gained 12000 at the end of the year with Ponting.

Like any mediocre side, the late 80s Australian side had its share of world class players. It also had huge gaps and some of the guys that WERE world class, like Reid for example, missed more matches than they played. The skeleton of the side was there. What made it better was filling the gaps. It’s not hard to work out.

 

[PhatBoy]

Possibly but I’d classify going overseas and retaining the trophy a win, if India drew this series they would act as if they won and completed the mission. In my opinion had England previously had the Ashes going into the 2019 series we’d see a completely different performance from Australia in the fifth test.

They did that before and they got derided for it

 

[Pippen94]

Yes and Gained 12000 at the end of the year with Ponting.

Like any mediocre side, the late 80s Australian side had its share of world class players. It also had huge gaps and some of the guys that WERE world class, like Reid for example, missed more matches than they played. The skeleton of the side was there. What made it better was filling the gaps. It’s not hard to work out.

You really don't know cricket. You can pick apart many of the post 1995 teams the same way. Windies tour had Julian & Blewett.
The Taylor & Slater partnership fell apart soon after & Australia's top order was rubbish for a period. Blocker Wilson, Gavin Robertson, Simon Cook.
Where is gap in 89 team apart from Trevor Hohns (who won test in that series)??

 

[PhatBoy]

You really don't know cricket. You can pick apart many of the post 1995 teams the same way. Windies tour had Julian & Blewett.
The Taylor & Slater partnership fell apart soon after & Australia's top order was rubbish for a period. Blocker Wilson, Gavin Robertson, Simon Cook.
Where is gap in 89 team apart from Trevor Hohns (who won test in that series)??

What? Slater and Taylor continued to open until Taylor retired in 98-99.

Blewett went into the West Indies series on the back of consecutive hundreds in his first and second test.

Don’t start throwing your weight around with phrases like ‘you don’t know cricket’ when you’ve literally tried to cast shade on another test team because they ‘don’t care about test cricket that much’ when the most seismic shift in Australian cricket history came courtesy of some of its greatest test players giving up test cricket to play for Kerry Packer.

And don’t confuse the team that won in 1995 for the one that would dominate cricket in a fashion no one had ever seen before five years later.

 

[Pippen94]

What? Slater and Taylor continued to open until Taylor retired in 98-99.

Blewett went into the West Indies series on the back of consecutive hundreds in his first and second test.

Don’t start throwing your weight around with phrases like ‘you don’t know cricket’ when you’ve literally tried to cast shade on another test team because they ‘don’t care about test cricket that much’ when the most seismic shift in Australian cricket history came courtesy of some of its greatest test players giving up test cricket to play for Kerry Packer.

And don’t confuse the team that won in 1995 for the one that would dominate cricket in a fashion no one had ever seen before five years later.

Slater was dropped in 1996 & Taylor went through extended slump. Pair reunited in 1998. There was long quest for Boon's replacement at 3 which was Ponting but only after 2000 some time. Actually 1989 top order & batting overall more solid.

Ppl site 1995 because that's when Australia beat the West Indies but side pretty regular for years. 1989 side had few weaknesses

 

[PhatBoy]

Slater was dropped in 1996 & Taylor went through extended slump. Pair reunited in 1998. There was long quest for Boon's replacement at 3 which was Ponting but only after 2000 some time. Actually 1989 top order & batting overall more solid.

Ppl site 1995 because that's when Australia beat the West Indies but side pretty regular for years. 1989 side had few weaknesses

In hindsight it had few weaknesses.
At the time Taylor was unproven.
He’d debuted the summer before from memory.
Waugh was unproven and without a test hundred.
McDermott didn’t play the ashes.
Alderman had taken 42 wickets in his debut series in 1981.
He took 44 wickets in the 8 years between that and the 89 Ashes.
Boon averaged in the 30s.
Hohns was the latest on a sequence of very average spinners and averaged nearly 40 in first class cricket. He would be significantly upgraded on a few years later.

Some of those holes would be filled DURING that Ashes series. It wasn’t a great side though. It achieved something great and set the platform
For what would come

 

[Trojan90]

This doco shown on The Weekly last night sums up Australian cricket.

I think it sums up the ABC. Bunch of nerds who probably never touched a cricket ball.

 

[RobsJourney]

Statistically better than every other test playing nation by some margin

didn’t we even flog a World 11 ?

Yeah during the golden era we did, right towards the end. The six day super test and we dominated. That's how good we were.

 

[Pippen94]

Yeah during the golden era we did, right towards the end. The six day super test and we dominated. That's how good we were.

Directly after losing 2005 ashes

 

[Gethelred]

No they didn’t. They drew 2-2. Australia hasn’t won a series in England since 2001. That includes the series they played against Pakistan over there.


Sri Lanka’s win loss ratio is awful but they’ve at least won a series overseas in the last five calendar years.

IIRC, didn't Australia win in NZ in 2016? 2 test series, 0-2. Both tests played in 2016, so it'd fall within the last 5 calendar years.