In the early 2000s, did you ever wonder about whether Aussie dominance would ever end?

[Slog]

Tomorrow Australia will most likely lose the Perth test to the Saffers. And what is more interesting is that this will be the THIRD time in a row that the Australians will lose the Perth Test to South Africa. And if this depleted South Africa side manages to win the series it will be an unprecedented third time in a row that the South Africans will manage to win an away series in Australia. Only once has this happened before and that was the great West Indies side of the 80s and early 90s

For someone who grew up watching cricket in the 1990s and 2000s this is scarcely believable. Watching cricket in those days I always had this idea at the back of my mind that Australian cricket dominance was eternal and would never end.

Can you really blame me? When you saw guys like Mike Hussey, Kasprowicz, Brad Hodge, McGill, Stuart Clarke, Haddin and before that Hayden and Martyn struggle to break into the first team but play the touring teams in practice matches and absolutely smash them one would just shudder at their strength in depth. I used to marvel at the reserves which they had and just looking at that I felt that this Australian dominance in cricket was something that would go on forever.

Case in point. From 1992/93 to 2008/09, Australia went 28 series undefeated at home. And what's really mind boggling is that they won all these series apart from 3. This is why I rate the 2-1 victory of Graeme Smith's side in 2008/09 so highly. That changed everything. From that series, Australia lost 3 of the 7 series (including that one.) That was almost inconceivable to think of earlier.

And now there is a good chance that South Africa may notch up another series win if things go well and that is truly remarkable. How cricket has changed...None of Pakistan, India or Sri Lanka have ever won a series in Australia. And if there ever was a chance it has to be this time!

 

[ahmedwaqas92]

I started following cricket from 1997 and that was apparently when it all came together for the Aussie side and they became this invincible / unbeatable team for almost the next whole decade.

The thing is that the success of that ATG Australian side was actually a mirror of how strong their system was and the superior Shield Cricket that particularly backed that system. I'll try to give a reference point to this argument:

Very recently I was listening to a podcast, this episode that I was listening to was recorded right after Pakistan blanked Australia in the U.A.E 2014 tour.

The host and the guest while dissecting the reasons for the series loss, contemplated on how the selection policy and other matters, have changed dramatically on how Australia cricket functions today as compared to yesteryear.

Guys like Stuart Mcgill, Langer and later blokes like Hussy etc etc had to score a billion runs and take truck loads of wickets to actually get to don the baggy green and now you have blokes like Marsh running around who would literally not even make A sides for Australia in the 90s. These are the reasons why Australian test teams are not dominating teams that are conditioned to playing on familiar tracks / decks.

However, that does not mean that Asian sides would get it easier now. Australia are good enough actually to blank Asian teams in their home without much effort and I would be surprised if any other result is achieved down under this coming summer.

On point, in order for Australia to start their cricketing invincibility, they need to take inspiration from the policies and procedures that laid the groundwork of that amazing era in from the 90s to the mid 2000s and then take it from there. It's not a coincidence that their decline as a dominating force in cricket started when crappy global T20 leagues appeared left, right and center.

P.S. If Aussies would've stuck to how they used to make people grind in domestics before making it to the test arena, Maxwell and Bailey wouldn't have ever debuted for the country I guess.

 

[MMHS]

Yes, and this was expected, nothing new.

What happens in every team sports is that once a great team is formed, it's always followed by a generation gap. That Aussie side, more or less had 15 players with 100+ Test; means for almost a decade & half period, it was only about 15/16 players holding on to their spots.

Temporary slums wasn't new in AUS cricket. After the wonderful generation of Trumper, Hill, Armstrong, Gregory, MacCartney; AUS had a poor decade between 1924 to early 30s. Then again after Miller, Harvey, Benaud, Davidson; Aussies had a poor decade in early 60s to 70s. Once the seniors retorted in 1983; for next 5/6 years AUS was actually the bottom team in world, apart from SRL.

However, this time things might be a bit different. Every previous time, within few years time, next batch of outstanding cricketers carried the legacy because the cricket was the top game then. Best talents used to go for a cricket career & being a Test cricketer was the highest honour in Australian sports. I am sure, among Herb Elliot, Dawn Fraser, Rod Lever, Emerson, Greg Norman & other sports greats, Bradman was & is highest respected. But, now cricket is a dying sports there - I am not sure if the Aussies can overcome the generation gap this time.

Eventually, cricket will survive as a South Asian game - that too because we are absolute rubbish in other major global games - Football, Basketball, Tennis, Volleyball, Rugby.....

 

[desirous of desire]

Yes, and this was expected, nothing new.

What happens in every team sports is that once a great team is formed, it's always followed by a generation gap. That Aussie side, more or less had 15 players with 100+ Test; means for almost a decade & half period, it was only about 15/16 players holding on to their spots.

Temporary slums wasn't new in AUS cricket. After the wonderful generation of Trumper, Hill, Armstrong, Gregory, MacCartney; AUS had a poor decade between 1924 to early 30s. Then again after Miller, Harvey, Benaud, Davidson; Aussies had a poor decade in early 60s to 70s. Once the seniors retorted in 1983; for next 5/6 years AUS was actually the bottom team in world, apart from SRL.

However, this time things might be a bit different. Every previous time, within few years time, next batch of outstanding cricketers carried the legacy because the cricket was the top game then. Best talents used to go for a cricket career & being a Test cricketer was the highest honour in Australian sports. I am sure, among Herb Elliot, Dawn Fraser, Rod Lever, Emerson, Greg Norman & other sports greats, Bradman was & is highest respected. But, now cricket is a dying sports there - I am not sure if the Aussies can overcome the generation gap this time.

Eventually, cricket will survive as a South Asian game - that too because we are absolute rubbish in other major global games - Football, Basketball, Tennis, Volleyball, Rugby.....

you made me depressed

 

[Convict]

Yes, and this was expected, nothing new.

What happens in every team sports is that once a great team is formed, it's always followed by a generation gap. That Aussie side, more or less had 15 players with 100+ Test; means for almost a decade & half period, it was only about 15/16 players holding on to their spots.

Temporary slums wasn't new in AUS cricket. After the wonderful generation of Trumper, Hill, Armstrong, Gregory, MacCartney; AUS had a poor decade between 1924 to early 30s. Then again after Miller, Harvey, Benaud, Davidson; Aussies had a poor decade in early 60s to 70s. Once the seniors retorted in 1983; for next 5/6 years AUS was actually the bottom team in world, apart from SRL.

However, this time things might be a bit different. Every previous time, within few years time, next batch of outstanding cricketers carried the legacy because the cricket was the top game then. Best talents used to go for a cricket career & being a Test cricketer was the highest honour in Australian sports. I am sure, among Herb Elliot, Dawn Fraser, Rod Lever, Emerson, Greg Norman & other sports greats, Bradman was & is highest respected. But, now cricket is a dying sports there - I am not sure if the Aussies can overcome the generation gap this time.

Eventually, cricket will survive as a South Asian game - that too because we are absolute rubbish in other major global games - Football, Basketball, Tennis, Volleyball, Rugby.....

The alleged death of cricket in Australia is much talked about but not really backed.

 

[Adil_94]

as a kid i didnt think Aussies would ever decline. but my dad always said he thought that about WI they looked unbeatable. But as u get older u realise sporting dynasties cant go on forever eventually the greats get old n retire and often the follow up generation cant match that level. Liverpool had 15 16 years of dominance during the 70s and 80s and by 1990 they had 18 league titles 4 European Cups the next best team had 9 league titles thats how dominant they were. Yet Man United overtook them domestically. They had 20 yrs of dominance under Fergie and now they are struggling after him. All teams go through peaks and troughs. A country like Aus wont ever end up like WI because of their strong domestic structure they will remain dominant at home at least.

 

[cricket_cfa]

that was a special team with skillful tough players specially warne and mcgrath. Once mcgrath and warne went the team became vulnerable...much like pakistan when wasim past his prime pakistan team just never appeared that good

 

[Hasan123]

It was always going to end but always thought they would still be dominate. The way they struggle in the subcontinent is a joke and there current test team is very poor other than Warner, Smith,Starc, Hazelwood.


They lost many of there great players in a short time span. It was never going to be easy to replace players of that quality, they may never another spinner like warne again or another wicketkeeper like Gilly again.

 

[AamchiMumbaikar]

I always thought Brazil was going to win all foootball world cups. Maybe soccer is dying a slow death in Brazil they don't have any talented players now apart from overrated Neymar.

 

[AlphaFighter]

Not really. The exit of Warne, Mcgrath and Gilchrist changed everything. Now the Australian economy rates had gone through the roof and instead of dismissing teams cheaply, they were now having to settle for getting teams out for minimum 300 on a good bowling day.

You should compare Ponting's captaincy from 2002 to 2007 and from 2007 to 2011, there is a huge difference. Steve Waugh gave the guy a hospital pass literally. In 2008 when the defeats started to pile up, all commentators criticized him saying he is still setting fields for Mcgrath and Warne, not understanding that he does not have the same quality of bowlers anymore.

 

[MMHS]

The alleged death of cricket in Australia is much talked about but not really backed.

May not be apparent now, but if we stick to PP, may be 10-15 years later we'll talk again. For the time being, you are right, I won't argue.

 

[anuk]

The alleged death of cricket in Australia is much talked about but not really backed.

[MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION] i saw these viewership numbers for the first 3 days of 2016 and 2015 tests (metro only)


2016 vs SA
Day 1 - Thursday
Session 1 - 373,000
Session 2 - 569,000
Session 3 - 832,000

Day 2 - Friday
Session 1 - 413,000
Session 2 - 544,000
Session 3 - 701,000

Day 3 - Saturday
Session 1 - 450,000
Session 2 - 549,000
Session 3 - 677,000


2015 vs NZ
Day 1 - Friday
Session 1 - 520,000
Session 2 - 782,000
Session 3 - 1.05m

Day 2 - Saturday
Session 1 - 841,000
Session 2 - 957,000
Session 3 - 961,000

Day 3 - Sunday
Session 1 - 775,000
Session 2 - 879,000
Session 3 -1.09m

the numbers are almost half what they were last season

 

[Thivagar]

Nope, thought they'd be forever good.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

That Aus team was one of the most efficient teams ever. It's unfair to compare them with current lot.

They will be back with a bang in next few years.

Also, they might win the next world cup as well.

 

[GLORY OF '92]

That team was invincible. They slaughtered us so easily it was horrible.

 

[Slog]

That team was invincible. They slaughtered us so easily it was horrible.

The ease with which they used to do that was scary

Like there was an extended period of time we just couldn't touch them

 

[GLORY OF '92]

The ease with which they used to do that was scary

Like there was an extended period of time we just couldn't touch them

Guess that's why Leeds 2010 and UAE 2014 were so cathartic.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Teams like New South Wales used to be better than all other international teams. Australia A or even B would smash most international teams. It's sad to see so many mediocre players coming out of Australia since the last one decade.

Can't understand how is Marsh batting at #6. He is a tailender virtually.

 

[The_Odd_One]

The ease with which they used to do that was scary

Like there was an extended period of time we just couldn't touch them

They demolished Pakistan in Pakistan in 1998. I think won all tests and ODIs and that Pakistani team was almost ATG Pakistani team.

 

[GLORY OF '92]

Teams like New South Wales used to be better than all other international teams. Australia A or even B would smash most international teams. It's sad to see so many mediocre players coming out of Australia since the last one decade.

Can't understand how is Marsh batting at #6. He is a tailender virtually.

Australia A of those days would be comfortably number 1 now.

 

[MMHS]

They demolished Pakistan in Pakistan in 1998. I think won all tests and ODIs and that Pakistani team was almost ATG Pakistani team.

ODI Series was won 3-0 by the visitors.

Won only 1 Test out of 3 - first one. That too, helped by couple of drops at 27/3 (which would have made it 57/5, - later both batsmen got hundreds) & they were happy to preserve 1-0 lead at Karachi by batting at 2.6 rate in throughout the Test. This is all after PAK decided to play 2nd Test (from 0-1 down at home), on a wicket that produced scores like AUS - 600/4 & 300/4; PAK - 570 - with Shoaib, Zahid & Saqui in the team & GURU Miandad was bullish that his team had "countered" the Aussie attack.

You have to trust me in some cases - one such is the following : "If PAK's home Tests were played in PAK, with their groundsmen having their dynamic hands on the wickets, by now PAK would have been 6th or 7th in Test ranking".

 

[Markhor]

I remember often when we toured Australia, even the Shield sides could thrash us in the warm-up matches.

You go back and look at those Shield team XIs or the A teams in those tour matches and you see the incredible depth they had.

 

[Slog]

Australia A of those days would be comfortably number 1 now.

haha in the 90s there was this quadrangular series where Aus and Aus A were 2 of the 4 teams.

Guess which two teams made the final

 

[Slog]

I remember often when we toured Australia, even the Shield sides could thrash us in the warm-up matches.

You go back and look at those Shield team XIs or the A teams in those tour matches and you see the incredible depth they had.

Yeah thats what i mentioned in OP. There were so many top players not even getting in.

Looking at those teams you felt that their dominance would be eternal

For eg in the 1999 tour, Pak played a tour game and the top 5 for the side was:

Hayden
Langer
Katich
Hussey
Campbell (dunno who he is)

these were guys not making the sides )

 

[Suleiman]

The 2004 tour to Aus was where reality really hit me as to how wide the gulf between us and the top sides had become compared 6 or 8 years back from there.

 

[Junaids]

[MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION] i saw these viewership numbers for the first 3 days of 2016 and 2015 tests (metro only)


2016 vs SA
Day 1 - Thursday
Session 1 - 373,000
Session 2 - 569,000
Session 3 - 832,000

Day 2 - Friday
Session 1 - 413,000
Session 2 - 544,000
Session 3 - 701,000

Day 3 - Saturday
Session 1 - 450,000
Session 2 - 549,000
Session 3 - 677,000


2015 vs NZ
Day 1 - Friday
Session 1 - 520,000
Session 2 - 782,000
Session 3 - 1.05m

Day 2 - Saturday
Session 1 - 841,000
Session 2 - 957,000
Session 3 - 961,000

Day 3 - Sunday
Session 1 - 775,000
Session 2 - 879,000
Session 3 -1.09m

the numbers are almost half what they were last season

It's too short a time to draw any conclusions.

Let me point out, however, that the Adelaide Day/Night Test broke every record in Australia just 11.5 months ago - the final day was watched by 3.34 million viewers.

The Pink Ball Test at Adelaide smashed to smithereens the ratings for both T20 and 50 over cricket last summer. The lesson seems to be that viewers will watch Test cricket if it's at night and if there is a balance between bat and ball.

 

[Dark Magician]

Yeah thats what i mentioned in OP. There were so many top players not even getting in.

Looking at those teams you felt that their dominance would be eternal

For eg in the 1999 tour, Pak played a tour game and the top 5 for the side was:

Hayden
Langer
Katich
Hussey
Campbell (dunno who he is)

these were guys not making the sides )

Campbell played test cricket for Zimbabwe. He was very good. Unfortunately not good enough for Aussies.

 

[Chrish]

1 match and swords are out.. anyways Oz have beat SA inbtheir backyard as well in last two tour. So cuts it both ways

While I didnt expect SA to win this match or series they know how to win here. So there is a "I have done it before" mental edge here

They will slaughter Pakistan and England next year

 

[ahmedwaqas92]

1 match and swords are out.. anyways Oz have beat SA inbtheir backyard as well in last two tour. So cuts it both ways

While I didnt expect SA to win this match or series they know how to win here. So there is a "I have done it before" mental edge here

They will slaughter Pakistan and England next year

1 match ?? Are you serious ?? Mate you lot get obliterated in Asia worse than Zimbabwe and West Indies who are proper minnows in the longer form of the game. Added to this your inability to play anywhere other than flat beds down under isn't looking any pretty at the moment.

Winning at home should be the bare minimum in these times and if you're loosing the plot at your own back yard then something somewhere is seriously wrong !! Case in point, we lost the third test against West Indies and I consider that as an unsuccessful tour.

 

[Chrish]

1 match ?? Are you serious ?? Mate you lot get obliterated in Asia worse than Zimbabwe and West Indies who are proper minnows in the longer form of the game. Added to this your inability to play anywhere other than flat beds down under isn't looking any pretty at the moment.

Winning at home should be the bare minimum in these times and if you're loosing the plot at your own back yard then something somewhere is seriously wrong !! Case in point, we lost the third test against West Indies and I consider that as an unsuccessful tour.

lol my lot?

Anyways you are right they can only win series on flat track like those previous two tours in SA..

Now do I need to refresh your memory on how other tems have done on the same flat SA tracks?

 

[Slog]

1 match and swords are out.. anyways Oz have beat SA inbtheir backyard as well in last two tour. So cuts it both ways

While I didnt expect SA to win this match or series they know how to win here. So there is a "I have done it before" mental edge here

They will slaughter Pakistan and England next year

ofcourse they are a very strong side still and will win more series than they will lose

but its undeniable that the unbeatable aura they had is shattered

 

[Chrish]

ofcourse they are a very strong side still and will win more series than they will lose

but its undeniable that the unbeatable aura they had is shattered

Unbeatable aura was gone right after all those players retired..

At one point I was fearing for their cricket like they would become next Windies. Lucky for them they did recover somewhat

Those dark times are approaching again with their trouble of opener and middle order. But the strength of their domestic will ensure they will continue to be dominant in home conditions

 

[JaDed]

No but looking at West Indies team one can say anything was to be expected?

 

[amit]

I knew Australia would decline. The same ATG Aussie team lost to India in 2001 and failed to beat India even at their own home in 2003-04

West Indies declined and Australia is also declining the same way. But unlike West Indies, Australia look like they will have another period of domination as cricket, especially test cricket is very strong there

 

[Slog]

I knew Australia would decline. The same ATG Aussie team lost to India in 2001 and failed to beat India even at their own home in 2003-04

West Indies declined and Australia is also declining the same way. But unlike West Indies, Australia look like they will have another period of domination as cricket, especially test cricket is very strong there

a few series here and there dont matter

they did beat india in india in 2004

 

[Kakar]

It was expected that the other teams would catch up but they have gone down more than expected. They have a very strong domestic system so I always believed that new players would be ready to take place of any of those retiring.

 

[soso_killer]

Around 2006.
We dominated a full strength Australian side in their back yard. No team has ever done that.
In the first Test it required a match saving double ton from Brad Hodge.
The second Test we missed Kallis, but it still required a 10 wicket partnership between Hussey and McGrath to take the game away from us.
We dominated the 3rd Test and had to declare on both innings to force a result due to rain. It took a brilliant chase from Ponting to win that game.
We lost 2-0, but were hardly dominated. Dropped catches and losing key moments or key sessions are what cost us the series.
Usually teams get blown away over there. We've never went to Australia with the likes of Warne, McGrath, Gillespie and Lee being rested when available unlike some sides.

 

[jeetu]

While Australia was certainly dominant , they were not quite invincible. Especially when it comes to touring India. They pretty lost tests in every Indian series. Also it was impossible to replace Warne. At the time Australia could find great fast bowlers in future , but replacing a world class spinner is something else.

West Indies on the other hand seemed impossible to beat till early 90's , they were still getting batsman like Lara. Bowlers like Ambrose , Walsh , Bishop.

 

[szrana007]

Around 2006.
We dominated a full strength Australian side in their back yard. No team has ever done that.
In the first Test it required a match saving double ton from Brad Hodge.
The second Test we missed Kallis, but it still required a 10 wicket partnership between Hussey and McGrath to take the game away from us.
We dominated the 3rd Test and had to declare on both innings to force a result due to rain. It took a brilliant chase from Ponting to win that game.
We lost 2-0, but were hardly dominated. Dropped catches and losing key moments or key sessions are what cost us the series.
Usually teams get blown away over there. We've never went to Australia with the likes of Warne, McGrath, Gillespie and Lee being rested when available unlike some sides.

That same team whitewashed SA 3-0 in the return series.

 

[soso_killer]

That same team whitewashed SA 3-0 in the return series.

yes, still doesn't change the fact that we've dominated them in their backyard since that series.

 

[coy0607]

not really, they had a ATG combination but everyone gets old / retires

but they have such a great domestic system, they keep producing talent, and will always be amongst the top teams

 

[szrana007]

yes, still doesn't change the fact that we've dominated them in their backyard since that series.

My point was that SA only started to beat Oz, after Oz had become weakened due to retirement of their legends ( Warne Mcgrath etc.). England (2005) and India (2001) were able to beat Oz at their peak, but SA always suffered humiliating losses at Australia's hands.

 

[Jan Sher]

Good thread.

Well, we were so immersed under the rule of this team, romanticism of our very own players like Akram, Anwar, Akhtar, Saqlain, Waqar, that it was impossible to think beyond them. There are times when you get carried away, and forget that every thing will meet its end, but, after those things are long gone, then you realise that yes they are indeed gone. Such was that time.

 

[Mamoon]

Yes, but it was difficult to put a timeframe on it, and I think their decline in 2007-2008 came a bit earlier than most excepted.

Personally speaking, I thought Gilchrist, Hayden, Martyn and Symonds would be around for a bit longer and Ponting's steep decline after 2008-2009 was a bit shocking as well.

At 32, he was the best batsman in the world in 2006 but around the age of 34-35, he was not the same player at all when he should still have been at his peak.

 

[Slog]

Yes, but it was difficult to put a timeframe on it, and I think their decline in 2007-2008 came a bit earlier than most excepted.

Personally speaking, I thought Gilchrist, Hayden, Martyn and Symonds would be around for a bit longer and Ponting's steep decline after 2008-2009 was a bit shocking as well.

At 32, he was the best batsman in the world in 2006 but around the age of 34-35, he was not the same player at all when he should still have been at his peak.

Around 2006 guys like Stuart Clark came in and he did amazing which pointed to the amazing strength in depth

And then there were guys like Ryan Harris, Tait, Callum Ferguson, Phil Hughes, Sean Marsh, Jacques, Watson, Symonds and some others who weren't in first eleven but did wel in whatever chances they got

Also guys like Clarke, Mitchell Johnson, Haddin, Lee, Hilfenhaus were either in their peak or just entering so there seemed to be enough talent to make it seem like the dominance would stay. And to be fair asides from the Saffer loss and Ashes losses they were still doing very very well till 2011 atleast.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Around 2006 guys like Stuart Clark came in and he did amazing which pointed to the amazing strength in depth

And then there were guys like Ryan Harris, Tait, Callum Ferguson, Phil Hughes, Sean Marsh, Jacques, Watson, Symonds and some others who weren't in first eleven but did wel in whatever chances they got

Also guys like Clarke, Mitchell Johnson, Haddin, Lee, Hilfenhaus were either in their peak or just entering so there seemed to be enough talent to make it seem like the dominance would stay. And to be fair asides from the Saffer loss and Ashes losses they were still doing very very well till 2011 atleast.

The major problem with Australian cricket is that most of the world class players debuted and retired at around the same time. Clarke was the last of that line and Australia is really missing an experienced middle order batsman. I think their bowling is still doing fine.

 

[soso_killer]

My point was that SA only started to beat Oz, after Oz had become weakened due to retirement of their legends ( Warne Mcgrath etc.). England (2005) and India (2001) were able to beat Oz at their peak, but SA always suffered humiliating losses at Australia's hands.

in 2006 we dominated them in their backyard. Hence it wasn't shocking that it was SA who ended their 16 year home dominance.
Australia generally never humiliated us, dominating in terms of results yeah, they tended to win key sessions or back end partnerships with the tail. Ironically this is something we're beating them at.
The last time we were beaten black and blue by Australia was in 2001.
We should have drew a series in 98 in Australia but for about 10 dropped catches.
We've always pushed Australia very hard

 

[Mamoon]

Around 2006 guys like Stuart Clark came in and he did amazing which pointed to the amazing strength in depth

And then there were guys like Ryan Harris, Tait, Callum Ferguson, Phil Hughes, Sean Marsh, Jacques, Watson, Symonds and some others who weren't in first eleven but did wel in whatever chances they got

Also guys like Clarke, Mitchell Johnson, Haddin, Lee, Hilfenhaus were either in their peak or just entering so there seemed to be enough talent to make it seem like the dominance would stay. And to be fair asides from the Saffer loss and Ashes losses they were still doing very very well till 2011 atleast.

Ponting's captaincy got exposed somewhat when the big guns like McGrath, Warne, Gilchrist, Martyn, Hayden, Langer etc. left the scene.

He was not able to get the best out of the young players and failed to inspire them. I think Clarke was a superior captain to Ponting and would have led the 2007-2010 team better than Ponting.

 

[marlonbrowndo]

Clarke was a superior tactician than Ponting but I would still have Ponting captain my side

 

[Cryin Out Loud]

Everything changes. Remember that and you'll not be caught unawares.

I saw the Windies of the 80s. After that, the Aussie decline did not surprise me.

 

[tyron_woodley]

While Australia was certainly dominant , they were not quite invincible. Especially when it comes to touring India. They pretty lost tests in every Indian series. Also it was impossible to replace Warne. At the time Australia could find great fast bowlers in future , but replacing a world class spinner is something else.

West Indies on the other hand seemed impossible to beat till early 90's , they were still getting batsman like Lara. Bowlers like Ambrose , Walsh , Bishop.

this is correct. India always flattened them at home. People talk about how india drew vs australia at their peak because mcgrath and warne missed 2 tests. Warne was a non factor vs india. Like he would have changed the outcome. Mcgrath I agree would be deadly in aussie conditions.

in the 04 series which india lost, the only one we lost in a long time was cause tenda and ganguly missed a couple of matches too.

 

[ManFan]

Even the central player in that team, Shane Warne, knew it was only a matter of time before it ended.

If you look at his interview from his time in exile at Hampshire in late 2003, he states that it is only a matter of five years before the Australian era of complete dominance ends.

And in 2008, in the Border-Gavaskar series, the first cracks of the Australian team opened and it was a downfall henceforth.

 

[Savak]

I was just amazed at how Ponting's stats declined from 2008 onwards when all the great players left.

 

[Robert]

I was just amazed at how Ponting's stats declined from 2008 onwards when all the great players left.

No Hayden and Langer to build a platform for him, so he was exposed to the new ball more often. And he went on a couple of years too long.

 

[Ted123]

That Australian team was great only till McGrath and Warne were there.

 

[Savak]

No Hayden and Langer to build a platform for him, so he was exposed to the new ball more often. And he went on a couple of years too long.

More than that, he also knew there would be no Gilcrhist down the order to blast a quick hundred to rescue the team from 100/5. Its a totally different ball game to bat at no 3 when you know you have many great players down the order to come after you and when you are coming in at no 3 where the entire team and batting line up totally depends on you as the main batsman. This is why Ponting's legacy and reputation went down for me and why i hold Inzamam in very high regard

 

[Savak]

Brad Hodge made an interesting point in an interview which sums up the crux of the problem with the Australian side especially in test cricket. Back in the 90's and early 2000's, a player having talent and potential was not enough, you really had to grind it and deliver consistent performances over a period of years and seasons to be considered for selection for Australia

However now days domestic players in Australia are now being picked on talent and potential regardless of whether you have the body of performances in domestic cricket over a number of years and seasons to justify selection and he criticized Cricket Australia for giving importance to big bash performances for test match selection.

I think he is definitely spot on

 

[Slog]

Brad Hodge made an interesting point in an interview which sums up the crux of the problem with the Australian side especially in test cricket. Back in the 90's and early 2000's, a player having talent and potential was not enough, you really had to grind it and deliver consistent performances over a period of years and seasons to be considered for selection for Australia

However now days domestic players in Australia are now being picked on talent and potential regardless of whether you have the body of performances in domestic cricket over a number of years and seasons to justify selection and he criticized Cricket Australia for giving importance to big bash performances for test match selection.

I think he is definitely spot on

It’s a circular argument

Back in the 90s and early 2000s these domestic performers had to grind out in Shield cricket for years because their path to the national team was blocked by performing legends in the national team. Nowadays a lot of the players in the national team are inconsistent that the selection committee has to actively look for players who could potentially replace them and deliver better results. Due to this young domestic performers are given chance early.

Guys like Michael Hussey couldn’t break into the national team for years due to players ahead of him whereas today an early 2000s Hussey would walk into the Aussie team