Why does no one point a finger at Australia's domestic structure after a series of defeats?

[Shafi]

Title saying it all.
Series loss to India 1-2
Series loss to Sri Lanka 0-3
Series so far with Bangladesh 0-1.
If we lose to England, Australia or NZ every body will point finger to our poor domestic structure and demand of sack coaching stuffs and captain.
Your opinion please

 

[Gilly]

Probably because Australia have a strong domestic structure.

 

[R0H1T]

Title saying it all.
Series loss to India 1-2
Series loss to Sri Lanka 0-3
Series so far with Bangladesh 0-1.
If we loose to England, Australia and NZ every body will point finger to our poor domestic structure and demand of sack coaching stuffs and captain.
Your opinion please !!!!!

The one's pointing fingers aren't outsiders, generally the former Pak greats themselves say this, maybe as an excuse after a loss.

Aus domestic cricket is in pretty good shape, though not as good as it was once, so there's very little need to belittle them.

 

[ToeCrusher2]

Title saying it all.
Series loss to India 1-2
Series loss to Sri Lanka 0-3
Series so far with Bangladesh 0-1.
If we loose to England, Australia and NZ every body will point finger to our poor domestic structure and demand of sack coaching stuffs and captain.
Your opinion please !!!!!

Why do you care about the australians so much? The australians will themselves point fingers when they feel the results are not coming.

 

[MMHS]

I think, still it's the best system & the competition structure is the best to filter top players at the highest tier. It had been same like 1990s & 2000s, when Aussies could have formed 2 teams & those two could have ended playing WC finals - Test or ODI.

I think, what has changed in AUS cricket is that due to introduction of T20, their FC wickets have changed drastically - most are drop in wickets, almost identical & absolute batting roads. Still AUS is almost unbeatable at home or familiar conditions, but their players are not learning to adopt tough batting conditions. It's not only spin, they struggled big time in English swing or against SAF seem on green tops.

I don't think it's a problem of domestic structure (here, by structure, I mean how the teams are formed & players are filtered), rather it's a problem of how the players are developed for all condition, which may be a failure of overall cricket ecosystem. They'll crush Poms in next Ashes at home & will do the same to IND next summer, already has done that to PAK.

 

[Chief Destroyer]

I think, still it's the best system & the competition structure is the best to filter top players at the highest tier. It had been same like 1990s & 2000s, when Aussies could have formed 2 teams & those two could have ended playing WC finals - Test or ODI.

I think, what has changed in AUS cricket is that due to introduction of T20, their FC wickets have changed drastically - most are drop in wickets, almost identical & absolute batting roads. Still AUS is almost unbeatable at home or familiar conditions, but their players are not learning to adopt tough batting conditions. It's not only spin, they struggled big time in English swing or against SAF seem on green tops.

I don't think it's a problem of domestic structure (here, by structure, I mean how the teams are formed & players are filtered), rather it's a problem of how the players are developed for all condition, which may be a failure of overall cricket ecosystem. They'll crush Poms in next Ashes at home & will do the same to IND next summer, already has done that to PAK.

Their FC wickets are the opposite of test wickets.

Nothing is changed. They just don't have the same talent pool in batting they once had. Their bowling depth is arguably as good as it's ever been.

 

[Chrish]

Have they already lost the 2nd game ?

 

[MMHS]

Their FC wickets are the opposite of test wickets.

Nothing is changed. They just don't have the same talent pool in batting they once had. Their bowling depth is arguably as good as it's ever been.

Only pace bowling - not much in spin department. Also, I am sure they use the drop down wicket in FC now and T20 leagues has taken the best 2 months of FC season.
[MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION]

 

[UN talkz]

why shud we be worried about their domestic structure.... we better have a look at our own domestic system

 

[R0H1T]

I think, still it's the best system & the competition structure is the best to filter top players at the highest tier. It had been same like 1990s & 2000s, when Aussies could have formed 2 teams & those two could have ended playing WC finals - Test or ODI.

I think, what has changed in AUS cricket is that due to introduction of T20, their FC wickets have changed drastically - most are drop in wickets, almost identical & absolute batting roads. Still AUS is almost unbeatable at home or familiar conditions, but their players are not learning to adopt tough batting conditions. It's not only spin, they struggled big time in English swing or against SAF seem on green tops.

I don't think it's a problem of domestic structure (here, by structure, I mean how the teams are formed & players are filtered), rather it's a problem of how the players are developed for all condition, which may be a failure of overall cricket ecosystem. They'll crush Poms in next Ashes at home & will do the same to IND next summer, already has done that to PAK.

You're exaggerating, quite clearly!

SA say hi.

No they won;t & you can bet on it!

 

[Chrish]

Yeah can't really say Aus are unbeatable at home at this point, can we?

A young/ inexperienced SA side without Steyn and ABDV just destroyed them; forcing them to take desperate measures.

 

[Convict]

Because this is a Pakistani forum with three or four Australian posters.

On Australian forums there is a lot of navel gazing.

 

[Convict]

Only pace bowling - not much in spin department. Also, I am sure they use the drop down wicket in FC now and T20 leagues has taken the best 2 months of FC season.

[MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION]

Twenty20 has taken up two whole months in the middle.

A notable issue is that the internationals pretty much play no domestic cricket and also that domestic cricketers are now playing underage junior cricket and going through pathways instead of the traditional method that generations of cricketers went through before.

Drop in wickets are used at Adelaide Oval, MCG and the SCG but it must be noted that Victoria only play like half their home games at the MCG.

 

[MMHS]

You're exaggerating, quite clearly!

SA say hi.

No they won;t & you can bet on it!

I think, AUS A was pretty much as strong as any other team between 1998 to 2007. Both making Final - there comes "could have ended" - none can guarantee that. But, you have no idea how good that Aussie generation was.

Let me give just couple of examples - on the eve of 2003 WC, Warne got banned & two other players by the name of Jason Gillespe & Shane Watson had to withdraw - still Aussies went on to win every match by quite some margin & their biggest strength was that one of the replacement player (Andy Bichel), was one of the best players. Still that team couldn't accommodate Hodge, Hussey, Law, Clarke & McGill, while Langer, Michel Slater (!!!!) & Kasprowich were considered Test specialist.

In 2007, they went on to win again every match, and it's not CT trophy like 5/6 matches - from NZ in 1999 to PAK in Colombo of 2011, that Aussie side won probably 30 consecutive matches. In that 2007 WC, they missed Brett Lee - Shaun Tait, made that up.

Regarding the coming Ashes & IND tour - I should have added one disclaimer, if their 1st choice pacers are available & remains fit; which wasn't the case in previous generation. I think, it was 1998 Ashes, for some reason Warne missed the entire home series & I heard BBC's analysis that, this was a golden chance ...... McGill took probably 29 wickets in that series!!!! THat luxury isn't there for sure.

 

[R0H1T]

I think, AUS A was pretty much as strong as any other team between 1998 to 2007. Both making Final - there comes "could have ended" - none can guarantee that. But, you have no idea how good that Aussie generation was.

Let me give just couple of examples - on the eve of 2003 WC, Warne got banned & two other players by the name of Jason Gillespe & Shane Watson had to withdraw - still Aussies went on to win every match by quite some margin & their biggest strength was that one of the replacement player (Andy Bichel), was one of the best players. Still that team couldn't accommodate Hodge, Hussey, Law, Clarke & McGill, while Langer, Michel Slater (!!!!) & Kasprowich were considered Test specialist.

In 2007, they went on to win again every match, and it's not CT trophy like 5/6 matches - from NZ in 1999 to PAK in Colombo of 2011, that Aussie side won probably 30 consecutive matches. In that 2007 WC, they missed Brett Lee - Shaun Tait, made that up.

Regarding the coming Ashes & IND tour - I should have added one disclaimer, if their 1st choice pacers are available & remains fit; which wasn't the case in previous generation. I think, it was 1998 Ashes, for some reason Warne missed the entire home series & I heard BBC's analysis that, this was a golden chance ...... McGill took probably 29 wickets in that series!!!! THat luxury isn't there for sure.

Oh I have a very good idea, I watched India & Aus play every match in 2003 WC, the tri series in India same year & the tri series in Aus 2004.

India made a big mistake by not picking Laxman for the WC, probably paid for it too. Then you go on to say that their next 11 would beat any other side in tests or ODI for a period of 8 years? Hello we held them to a draw in Aus, the side was not full strength but only Mcgrath was missing, Warne was banned. Aus also beat an understrength India in 2004 in India, DRS would've made that series a lot more interesting! They've lost nearly a dozen series either side of that 2004 victory.

Can;t say much how 2007 Aus would've fared as we didn;t face them, nor did Pak but then we beat them again at home (ODI) in 2008 tri series. They were without Mcgrath & Tait, Watson wasn;t available or dropped IIRC.

Aus, as good as they've been, have fared poorly in India. I pointed this out in the other thread, they lost 5 tests in Asia last decade, all against the same side. Lost 7 games in a row since 2008 Nagpur test, before the Pune game, that was their first win in ~13 years. They've won 9 tosses out of 10 tests they've played in India, since 2010, won just one game! Without McWarne Aus have been thrashed in India, even with them it took a minor miracle to win a full test series in nearly 40 years, the Chennai test could've gone either way but I'd say we were in the driver's seat with all 10 wickets intact!

I'm pretty sure Aus would never dominate a full strength India in India, tests or ODI, with the former going India's way & the latter in Aus favor.

 

[MMHS]

Oh I have a very good idea, I watched India & Aus play every match in 2003 WC, the tri series in India same year & the tri series in Aus 2004.

India made a big mistake by not picking Laxman for the WC, probably paid for it too. Then you go on to say that their next 11 would beat any other side in tests or ODI for a period of 8 years? Hello we held them to a draw in Aus, the side was not full strength but only Mcgrath was missing, Warne was banned. Aus also beat an understrength India in 2004 in India, DRS would've made that series a lot more interesting! They've lost nearly a dozen series either side of that 2004 victory.

Can;t say much how 2007 Aus would've fared as we didn;t face them, nor did Pak but then we beat them again at home (ODI) in 2008 tri series. They were without Mcgrath & Tait, Watson wasn;t available or dropped IIRC.

Aus, as good as they've been, have fared poorly in India. I pointed this out in the other thread, they lost 5 tests in Asia last decade, all against the same side. Lost 7 games in a row since 2008 Nagpur test, before the Pune game, that was their first win in ~13 years. They've won 9 tosses out of 10 tests they've played in India, since 2010, won just one game! Without McWarne Aus have been thrashed in India, even with them it took a minor miracle to win a full test series in nearly 40 years, the Chennai test could've gone either way but I'd say we were in the driver's seat with all 10 wickets intact!

I'm pretty sure Aus would never dominate a full strength India in India, tests or ODI, with the former going India's way & the latter in Aus favor.

That AUS side lost to SRL as well in SRL, like Lloyd's WI lost 1 series in 18 years - in NZ. In fact, they needed couple of outstanding innings to beat us in a Test in 2005. But, overall, that Aussie generation had 20-25 players who could have made any team in world. Since, 1970s, AUS had poo series in Asia, definitely in IND, which was broken by that AUS side. Now, they'll be dominated in Asia, but, we'll definitely wait to see if IND can match 2-1 in AUS; that 4-0 is probably balanced in both sides.

 

[R0H1T]

That AUS side lost to SRL as well in SRL, like Lloyd's WI lost 1 series in 18 years - in NZ. In fact, they needed couple of outstanding innings to beat us in a Test in 2005. But, overall, that Aussie generation had 20-25 players who could have made any team in world. Since, 1970s, AUS had poo series in Asia, definitely in IND, which was broken by that AUS side. Now, they'll be dominated in Asia, but, we'll definitely wait to see if IND can match 2-1 in AUS; that 4-0 is probably balanced in both sides.

That Aussie side didn;t lose to SL in SL, it was a youngish side without Gillespie & Waugh after they collided in the first(?) test, back in 1999.

Again you;re exaggerating, their rise coincided with fall of WI, SA & to a lesser extent Pak. Outside of McWarne tell me any other bowler in that squad better than Donald, Pollock, Walsh, Ambrose, Wasim or Waqar?

This was similar to the rise of WI in the 70's with a fall in fortunes of Aus & SA being banned. Of course it's not their fault that other teams were rebuilding, but when you say that Aus could make 2 top teams & still beat every other team out there, you're going against logic & history!

 

[MMHS]

That Aussie side didn;t lose to SL in SL, it was a youngish side without Gillespie & Waugh after they collided in the first(?) test, back in 1999.

Again you;re exaggerating, their rise coincided with fall of WI, SA & to a lesser extent Pak. Outside of McWarne tell me any other bowler in that squad better than Donald, Pollock, Walsh, Ambrose, Wasim or Waqar?

This was similar to the rise of WI in the 70's with a fall in fortunes of Aus & SA being banned. Of course it's not their fault that other teams were rebuilding, but when you say that Aus could make 2 top teams & still beat every other team out there, you're going against logic & history!

I think, more than anything, that AUS side was complete. It had every elements of a cricket team to overcome tricky situations. I put it this way - take out the top 2, Aussies had Gillespee, McGill, Lee, Clarke, Kasprowich; do the same for other teams; you'll understand.

Also, in batting, their batting started from No. 7 - Gilly, Lee, Warne, Gillespe. This is after the top 6 has tired down the bowling for say 302/6 at a RR of 4. On top of that, they had unbelievable catching unit - at least half a dozen match I can recall, Aussies won, simply because someone took couple of blinders to turn the game on it's head.

I think, you misunderstood my post - even the top AUS side lost a series in IND & SRL (injury I understand, but they didn't win the other 2 Tests to level the series. In fact, if I am not wrong, SRL was denied a Test win by rain in that series); but it doesn't count on head to head basis. You have to think it like this way - make an AUS A sometimes in 2002, and play 20 series home & away. I am almost certain, AUS & AUS A would have ended at definitely 1 & 2 or 3, over a 4 years period. Similarly, Lloyd's team lost the 1983 Final - that's one off; but if you count home, away & neutral ODI results for an hypothetical AUS A side between 2000 to 2004; again, top 2 Aussie sides could have ended in top 3.

I give you a counter argument, which you won't like - in 2002, IND lost a 7 match ODI series in NZ 6-1, or 5-2; then lost Test series 2-0; add to that PAK losing a home series to ZIM & IND losing one Test at Harare in 2000 or around. These are balancing factors for average to good team - just like Aussies lost 3-0 in SRL, & can lose 2-0 in BD, but they did make the series 2-1 in IND, who has won 3-0 in SRL & could have won all 3 by innings without getting all-out once.

It's a hypothetical scenario - you have to look at the bench strength of that AUS side and imagine their 2nd XI playing 50 Tests & 100 ODI in 4 years. In think, in 1997 WSC, AUS, AUS A & ENG participated - and AUS A made the final over Poms.

 

[Sirris]

Well, it's because their series defeat isn't a result of an over-reliance of TTF. Nor do they seem to recycle same bunch of players over and over again or carry along dead wood for too long. They have a systematic approach to the game which is clear and obvious.

 

[Sirris]

When your domestic structure can not seemingly deliver a better batsman than Umar Akmal or a better bowler than Rahat Ali, then yes you should question it.

The Australians do not have any such troubles. They are not desperately conducting "young talent hunt" every other month and it's obvious why.