What were the weak links in the Australia teams of 2001-2008?

[KP From India]

Aussies from Steve Waugh to Ponting era were almost invincible be it home or away. Very few teams like India or Eng could compete with them.
They won 3 back to back world cups and test series everywhere.
If you have to find 1/2 weak links in that team, what would it be?

 

[Proactive_]

Darren Lehmann - Genuinely weak against express pace.

Brett Lee was also a pretty mediocre Test bowler.

 

[Zahid87]

Darren Lehmann - Genuinely weak against express pace.

Brett Lee was also a pretty mediocre Test bowler.

Batting wise, people bring up a number of county legends - Stuart Law, Di Venuto, Matthew Elliot, Michael Love, etc. as players who could have played for any team, but couldnt get into the Aussie side in that period.

So lets take it as a given that they were pretty well stocked there. But bowling wise...

There was a growing dependence on McGrath and Warne.

Look at the series they played against India in 2004 - without the two of them, India managed to draw the series. They got 350 plus scores in every 1st innings. The only time they scored less than 400 in the 1st innings - they lost.

With McGrath and Warne there, I doubt they would have been able to consistently rack up such scores.

The bowlers they had as replacements were not up to the mark. MacGill is rated by the English - but lets face it, they are crap players of spin. In the aforementioned India series, he failed - took 14 wickets across 4 matches at 50. Kumble, on the other hand took 24 wickets over 3 games at 29.

The other bowlers used in that series...Bracken, Brad Williams and Brett Lee were not great test bowlers.

In the 2005 Ashes series, when McGrath went and Gillespie proved ineffective, it was left to Warne alone to try and push Australia through. Again, ultimately, it wasn't enough.

 

[Rightarmfast]

Aussies always had issues playing in subcontinent. Especially India. Even the mighty Aussies were not comfortable, especially playing spin in subcontinent.

 

[Mamoon]

Batting wise, people bring up a number of county legends - Stuart Law, Di Venuto, Matthew Elliot, Michael Love, etc. as players who could have played for any team, but couldnt get into the Aussie side in that period.

So lets take it as a given that they were pretty well stocked there. But bowling wise...

There was a growing dependence on McGrath and Warne.

Look at the series they played against India in 2004 - without the two of them, India managed to draw the series. They got 350 plus scores in every 1st innings. The only time they scored less than 400 in the 1st innings - they lost.

With McGrath and Warne there, I doubt they would have been able to consistently rack up such scores.

The bowlers they had as replacements were not up to the mark. MacGill is rated by the English - but lets face it, they are crap players of spin. In the aforementioned India series, he failed - took 14 wickets across 4 matches at 50. Kumble, on the other hand took 24 wickets over 3 games at 29.

The other bowlers used in that series...Bracken, Brad Williams and Brett Lee were not great test bowlers.

In the 2005 Ashes series, when McGrath went and Gillespie proved ineffective, it was left to Warne alone to try and push Australia through. Again, ultimately, it wasn't enough.

I think that struggling without key players should not be conflated with having weaklinks. It is obviously not surprising at all that they didn’t do well whenever Warne and McGrath were absent, but a full-strength Australia of the early to mid 2000s did not really have weak-links, and that is why they were so dominant in both Tests and ODIs.

Sure, not all of their players were world beaters, but none of them were liabilities (weak-links), which is pretty much explains their unparalleled consistency.

It is extremely hard to topple a team that has 4-5 all-time greats and 5-6 very good players, with probably 0 mediocre players.

 

[jeetu]

Aussies always had issues playing in subcontinent. Especially India. Even the mighty Aussies were not comfortable, especially playing spin in subcontinent.

RickyPonting was a weak link in India. Also Warne wasn't that effective in India. Another big factor was subpar Gilchrist in India.

 

[Zahid87]

I think that struggling without key players should not be conflated with having weaklinks. It is obviously not surprising at all that they didn’t do well whenever Warne and McGrath were absent, but a full-strength Australia of the early to mid 2000s did not really have weak-links, and that is why they were so dominant in both Tests and ODIs.

Sure, not all of their players were world beaters, but none of them were liabilities (weak-links), which is pretty much explains their unparalleled consistency.

It is extremely hard to topple a team that has 4-5 all-time greats and 5-6 very good players, with probably 0 mediocre players.

I disagree.

If you look at the way modern cricket is, you now develop a pace 'battery'.

The Aussies now have Hazlewood, Cummins, Starc, Pattinson, Siddle and to some extent Jackson Bird. Then you have players like Coulter-Nile that are in the ODI set up, and could come in to the test team when needed.

England too have been developing a pool of bowlers...Wood, Curran, Plunkett, Roland-Jones, and now Ollie Stone - so that they reduce the dependence on Broad and Anderson.

Thats what you need to be a side with no chinks in the armour. The capability of replacing players seamlessly in the case of injury or suspension. Obviously there will be first choice players...but developing the bench strength makes your team stronger.

Its the only negative I have found with that whole Australian set up!

 

[Mamoon]

I disagree.

If you look at the way modern cricket is, you now develop a pace 'battery'.

The Aussies now have Hazlewood, Cummins, Starc, Pattinson, Siddle and to some extent Jackson Bird. Then you have players like Coulter-Nile that are in the ODI set up, and could come in to the test team when needed.

England too have been developing a pool of bowlers...Wood, Curran, Plunkett, Roland-Jones, and now Ollie Stone - so that they reduce the dependence on Broad and Anderson.

Thats what you need to be a side with no chinks in the armour. The capability of replacing players seamlessly in the case of injury or suspension. Obviously there will be first choice players...but developing the bench strength makes your team stronger.

Its the only negative I have found with that whole Australian set up!

That is true for today’s cricket with three formats and a dozen leagues. However, back then, burnout/injuries were not big issues with only two formats and no franchise cricket.

 

[mastersaan10]

the other pacers beside mcgrath, and the backups as many mentioned. this is the reason for that drawn ashes series.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Very few cracks in that ATG (or GOAT) team, almost a perfect unit. But if I have to pinpoint a hole it is that they weren't able to draw some of the matches they lost, matches in which they weren't dominated and could have been drawn with more application in a roughly equal position. They always pushed for victory no matter the circumstance and sometimes when they over extended they set themselves vulnerable, best example is that 2001 Eden Gardens test where they tried to chase an unreasonable target on the final day on an increasingly difficult pitch.

That team was so aggressive, confident and result oriented that they went to crazy lengths to win matches and that allowed opponents to launch a counter attack. Quite often they narrowly escaped and hence this flaw in their cricket isn't highlighted, best example is the 2001 NZ tour of Australia. In one of the tests the Aussies made a sporting declaration giving the NZ team 270 runs to chase in some 60 overs on a flat pitch. NZ nearly pulled it off falling short by 10 runs and 4 wickets in hand. Not just was the declaration a bit too impetuous but till the end the Aussies were trying to win, they didn't switch over to defensive cricket until very late. That sense of security, fear whatever you call it was totally lacking, they were unable to foresee danger when it stared them in the face. NZ drew that 3 match series but were in a position to win an away test series against a fearsome team at the peak of its powers, imagine the brouhaha had they pulled it off. This daredevil approach was the modus operandi of that legendary team but in hindsight too reckless IMO if I can nitpick.

Also they could max play 100 odd overs in the 4th innings, either win or lose, that art of drawing after waging a long defensive battle was lost upon their brand of cricket. They almost had a sense of contempt to the idea of fighting for a draw, it was live by the sword or die by the sword for them. I remember when they narrowly drew that Old Trafford test in 2005 Ashes. Post match, Vaughan said that the biggest takeaway for the team was that for the first time he saw Aussies cheering and celebrating in the balcony/dressing room after securing a draw. Maybe that was the only instance in those 12+ years when they were genuinely pleased to get a draw.

Having said all that I am grateful to that team for changing the approach to test cricket. Before them champion teams were conservative, defensive, cautious and made more efforts to prevent the opponent's offensive capabilities than make use of their own. Teams rarely went on the offensive until they were double sure of their drawing chances. The mighty Aussies were the ones that changed ultra conservative style of test cricket to one that was bold and daring. They were probably the first team that strived to eliminate dull draws, not even the WI team of the 80s had such a mindset. Love them or hate them, as a fan it was impossible to ignore when the Baggy Greens of 1995-2008 took to the field.

P.S Incidentally as a chess follower I got the same feeling with WC GM Magnus Carlsen, more so in the 2012-2015 period, he was always in control but lost here and there in his desperation to win drawn positions. That may work against inferior quality players but against the elite it is better not to be too nettlesome.

 

[Swashbuckler]

It would have been interesting to see that Australian team play on rank turners. I think they got very balanced pitches in their SC tours (barring Wankhede 2004 where they couldn't chase 100 in the 4th innings). To a large extent heavyweights like Mcgrath, Gillespie, Ponting, Gilchrist, Langer, Hussey, etc would have been neutralized. I don't necessarily see how wrist spinners like Warne/Macgill would have out-gunned the Asian finger spinners.

 

[Zahid87]

That is true for today’s cricket with three formats and a dozen leagues. However, back then, burnout/injuries were not big issues with only two formats and no franchise cricket.

But again - I will point to those two series....

If they had developed capable bowlers...I am sure they would have won both series'. The fact is that they didn't. and players had to be brought in cold, and put in a position where Australia needed them to step up straight away in order for them to compete in the series.

In the Ashes it was Shaun Tait, brought in to support Lee and an ineffective Gillespie/Kasprowicsz. Against India, it was Brad Williams (on debut) and Nathan Bracken brought in to replace MacGrath to help bowl a side out to win a series.

Players should have been nurtured and brought in when Australia were in a position of strength - i.e. the series won, and a couple of the front line bowlers could have been rested.



To be honest, if they had realised from the outset that Brett Lee wasn't ever going to be a great test bowler, they probably wouldn't have fallen into those particular situations either....

 

[ManFan]

They had one weakness:

Batting in the fourth innings.

If you look carefully, all their famous losses during that period happened when they were chasing the game bar Headingly 2001.

Melbourne 1998, Kolkata 2001, Sydney 2003, Wankhede 2004, and Edgbaston 2005.

Almost lost at Fatullah 2006 when with 24 runs left and Ponting the last recognizable batsman, they dropped a top-edged pull shot.

Michael Vaughan put it best: “If you ask them (Aussies) to bat for a hundred overs to try and save the game, then that’s a hundred overs for us to try and take wickets”.

Believe it or not, the current Australians have shown far more iron and grit than their predecessors in the fourth innings.

 

[Ummii]

Ian Harvey, Lehmann, Andy Bichel