I think some of the people suddenly deciding this Oz attack can't be ATG status need to check a few things...
When examples of the attack failing are so rare that you can actually remember and cite each one of them... that tells you something. Like when a wicketkeeper is so good you can remember the 3 times he ever dropped one.
The draw rates in WI triumphant era... they drew an awful lot of games/series. Even that undisputed atg attack didn't roll through every team every time.
But the fact you all remember Headingly & note this one tells me this is such an anomaly it stands out.
I think it's great, cricket needs some string competition & strong performances from touring teams especially. We had little period with no clear #1 & no-one able to win overseas. Maybe things are shifting.
See, today’s result is an anomaly just as 36 all out was. Today’s result because of the general difficulty of batting out 90 overs with 8 wickets in hand etc. Not an easy feet in Test Cricket anywhere in the world.
Equally, 36 all out is an anomaly because a bit more discipline and application would have taken IND to 100-200 range.
The cruz of matter, in terms of not wanting to classify this AUS line up as an ATG, is (my opinion):
Lack of repeatability in dismissals being driven by bowlers without contributing batting errors. Pitches in AUS lead to attritional cricket and dismissals are equally often if not more often ones that could have been avoided with batting discipline or renewed concentration. This is just the direction in which AUS cricket/pitches have been moving generally.
Let’s rephrase that in a simpler manner still (overly simplistic in fact, but just for the purposes of illustrating a point). Can Cummins/Hazlewood/Starc come out in Brisbane and be 80% sure that if they bowl in a certain way to a certain batsmen they can get them out with probability > 30%?
Maybe but not 100% sure. Think they rely on orthodox bowling and areas, and also on batsmen compromising discipline or having a concentration lapse.
Compare that to say IND. I can think of at least one batsman if not more where IND can look to bowl in a certain way. Pucovski and Green. If IND bowl full on the pads or get one to straighten from off-stump they can get LBW or caught behind, respectively. Due to the technique of both these batsmen with how they defend. (Posted on the Day 1 thread when Pucovski opened about the bat coming from around the pad - let me know if you want a link. Has been picked up by commentators too now).
The point of the above example is that there is sense of some repeatability in the manner in which IND can look to take wickets. In comparison, on a general (superficial level), the AUS attack just bowls in an orthodox manner mostly with metronomic consistency and superb discipline to get batsmen to make an error. And most overseas batsmen do make the error. This is where IND has done infinitely better!