Can Aussie Cricket stop its slide?
- Thread starter Deepak
- Start date
The thing about australia over the last 15 years is they had no weak players (or maybe just a couple max) in the side at any one time.
though theyve only had two real greats in that time i.e ponting, macgrath
some of the rest that ppl say are great in fact werent eg
hayden (great for a year), warne, gilchrist, lee, symonds etc
what they were though were good players.
the best allround team,
only as strong as your weakest player.
Basically u can guarantee one of them would score a century, take 5 wickets etc.
i.e if the greats dont do the magic one of the good players will.
contrast with with all the other countries where the mantle rested on 2-3 players + if they were having an off day then the team was basically stuffed.
SA looks very similar at the moment, the wickets/runs seem to be shared around well (yes there are about 3-4 weak players though)
One thing we kept on hearing though, has been proven to be a myth
whilst australia was the best team in the world the second best was australiaA(B)
though theyve only had two real greats in that time i.e ponting, macgrath
some of the rest that ppl say are great in fact werent eg
hayden (great for a year), warne, gilchrist, lee, symonds etc
what they were though were good players.
the best allround team,
only as strong as your weakest player.
Basically u can guarantee one of them would score a century, take 5 wickets etc.
i.e if the greats dont do the magic one of the good players will.
contrast with with all the other countries where the mantle rested on 2-3 players + if they were having an off day then the team was basically stuffed.
SA looks very similar at the moment, the wickets/runs seem to be shared around well (yes there are about 3-4 weak players though)
One thing we kept on hearing though, has been proven to be a myth
whilst australia was the best team in the world the second best was australiaA(B)
check their records, the stats dont add up to greatness
warne - bowling - test 25.41 ODI 25.73 neither great esp when a lot of the wickets were tailenders, unlike say macgrath who averaged 21.64 (mainly from the top order)
gilchrist - batting - test ave 47.60, ODI ave 35.89 also neither great
perception is often different to reality, granted both were good + esp in the case of warne memorable but their onfield exploits werent esp amazing.
remember also neither had to play against the best side in the world (australia) which helped their averages prolly -2/-3 for the bowling and +2/+3 for the batting
its the same with rugby (or most sports) if youre surrounded by good players u tend to look good as well.
(this formloss for oz) is good for the sport, look at the tennis with nadal/federer, its brilliant the anticipation whenever these 2 get into the final is immense, contrast this with federer ~4years ago when u knew it was gonna be over in 3 sets.
btw I think the english are gonna do bad in the Caribbean, though the bookmakers got it at
WI:$3.40 eng:$2.00 draw:$3.25
Last edited by a moderator:
Gilchrist was a great player, an all time great player. Warne wasn't. he was regularly thrashed by everyone in the Indian team for as long as he played them. Just because he got loads of wickets against a few teams doesn't make you great. You need to perform well against all teams.
I wanna know how clarke got to be man of the match!!!!
not the best captaining + his cautious batting meant they ended up with 30-40runs fewer than they should of (nearly as bad a decision as the rugbyleague worldcup man of the match last year).
I see india have now moved ahead of oz to be 2nd in the oneday rankings
england vs WI, england are actually doing better than I expected, I predicted an easy win for the windies.
not the best captaining + his cautious batting meant they ended up with 30-40runs fewer than they should of (nearly as bad a decision as the rugbyleague worldcup man of the match last year).
I see india have now moved ahead of oz to be 2nd in the oneday rankings
england vs WI, england are actually doing better than I expected, I predicted an easy win for the windies.
27/7 you can always rely on england to entertain, thats why I support them
on course to score their lowest score ever which is 45 scored 122 years ago!!!
I dont know why ppl were picking england to easily win the series, theyve only got a couple of good players but theyve got heaps of absolute stinkers in the team, + like I say about cricket the team strength lies not with how many good players youve got, its minimizing the number of your crap players.
Their selection is just as bad a nz's, there are players that are their cause of reputation or are mates with the 'ppl'. But have to be dropped after scoring eg 3,6,12,0,3,25,5,8,0
+ just when u think finally theres no way the selectors can justify their inclusion they get 120! (redemption) of course after that theyre back to scoring like 5,4,8,0,0,21,6
its not all bad for english sport they won the rugby sevens here in wellington 19-17 after trailing 0-17
proud english supporter.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/765366a29607.html
on course to score their lowest score ever which is 45 scored 122 years ago!!!
I dont know why ppl were picking england to easily win the series, theyve only got a couple of good players but theyve got heaps of absolute stinkers in the team, + like I say about cricket the team strength lies not with how many good players youve got, its minimizing the number of your crap players.
Their selection is just as bad a nz's, there are players that are their cause of reputation or are mates with the 'ppl'. But have to be dropped after scoring eg 3,6,12,0,3,25,5,8,0
+ just when u think finally theres no way the selectors can justify their inclusion they get 120! (redemption) of course after that theyre back to scoring like 5,4,8,0,0,21,6
its not all bad for english sport they won the rugby sevens here in wellington 19-17 after trailing 0-17
proud english supporter.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/765366a29607.html
