SA Footy

Is the Australian test side too good for the game as a whole? The whole idea is gathering momentum as the side chalks up another easy victory.
Australias test record is umatched, but when you look closer at their home record and compare that to the home record of other nations is becomes clear that Australia are simply in a different strata.
The following are home records in Test cricket since 2000
44 Played 35 Won 2 Lost 17.5 Win:loss ratio Australia
56 played 31 Won 12 Lost 2.58 Win:loss ratio England
42 Played 25 Won 10 Lost 2.50 Win:loss ratio Sth Africa
42 Played 24 Won 10 Lost 2.40 Win:loss ratio Sri Lanka
32 Played 14 Won 7 Lost 2.00 Win:loss ratio India
30 Played 14 Won 8 Lost 1.75 Win:loss ratio Pakistan
29 Played 11 Won 10 Lost 1.10 Win:loss ratio New Zealand
39 Played 10 Won 14 Lost 0.71 Win:loss ratio West Indies

I think we'll come back to the field a bit now that Warnie and Ooh Aah are gone

We'll find it that bit harder to bowl teams out twice

Having said that, our batting just doesn't seem to miss a beat. New guys seem to come in and pick up where their predecessors left off

It's great!

I'll wait until we play the Indians. IMO if we are too good than excellent. I can remember the bad days of the late 80's and getting flogged by the great West Indies etc etc. If we are the best then let the others catch us.
After the Indian test series it'll show more accurately how we've covered Martyn, Langer, Warne & McGrath. Still not convinced re MacGill and at best he only has a year or two left in him, Lee was very good and bowled with considerable control, Jaques very nervous but looks great once started, and well Huss & Clarke just took off where they left it...
Next big call will be the keepers role. Gilchrist will be a VERY hard one to replace...

I think we'll begin to see some more competitive Test match cricket now that McGrath and Warne are gone. Starting with the India series.

Windies lost one Test series (away to NZ) between 76 and 94-95, when we beat them there. Since 94-95 in just over a decade as the best, we've still lost an Ashes series, away in India, away in Sri Lanka in another series and tied a couple.

I agree we are maybe more dominant now at home, than Windies ever may have been, but I think we can still come back to the field on the road, particulary now the two great bowlers are gone.

As long as we don't ever lose a series to South Africa, while I'm alive, I'll be okay.

SJABC wrote:Next big call will be the keepers role. Gilchrist will be a VERY hard one to replace...

Not a problem, Haddin will step in for 3-4 years and then Ronchi will take over....

After his last effort v Qld he will have had his named underlined.....not a bad keeper and bats like Gilchrist does, long term he is the man.....

A year ago i thought Hartley but Ronchi has lept a few places in the cue over the past 12 months.

1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:

SJABC wrote:Next big call will be the keepers role. Gilchrist will be a VERY hard one to replace...

Not a problem, Haddin will step in for 3-4 years and then Ronchi will take over....

After his last effort v Qld he will have had his named underlined.....not a bad keeper and bats like Gilchrist does, long term he is the man.....

A year ago i thought Hartley but Ronchi has lept a few places in the cue over the past 12 months.

Correct Haddin will be the man, but IMO Gilchrist is a bigger loss to Australia then any other previous keeper and Langer or Martyn.

The BIG thing is a decent spinner, there are no real good prospects going around, but then again Warnie was a shock pick and look where he ended up !!

Martyn is no trouble to replace at all. He was a handy player but a dime a dozen in Australian cricket IMHO. Look at the side now. Martyn at his best would not displace any of the middle order.

Langer can also be replaced but he is tougher to cover than Martyn. Jaques will be more than adequate though.

McGrath will be very tough to cover. We will feel his loss more against India than Sri Lankans. He is one of the best fast bowlers of all time and as much as people say Clark is playing his role the fact remains that Clark isn't anywhere near the same class as Glen McGrath. Having said that an improved contribution across the board with the quick men will go a long way to alleviating the extra pressure put on by McGrath's loss.

Warne cannot be replaced. I personally feel privileged to have lived in an era where i got to see him play. Unfortunately there isn't much video coverage of Bradman but the future generations will get plenty of Warne. What a player he was. It is unfair to expect Warne like performances from the spinners from now on but inevitably comparisons will be made. I feel for MacGill cos he is a superb bowler in his own right but he was just born at the wrong time.

In summary Australia could continue to be as dominant without Martyn, Langer and McGrath but losing Warne is the big problem.

rod_rooster wrote:Martyn is no trouble to replace at all. He was a handy player but a dime a dozen in Australian cricket IMHO. Look at the side now. Martyn at his best would not displace any of the middle order.

Langer can also be replaced but he is tougher to cover than Martyn. Jaques will be more than adequate though.

McGrath will be very tough to cover. We will feel his loss more against India than Sri Lankans. He is one of the best fast bowlers of all time and as much as people say Clark is playing his role the fact remains that Clark isn't anywhere near the same class as Glen McGrath. Having said that an improved contribution across the board with the quick men will go a long way to alleviating the extra pressure put on by McGrath's loss.

Warne cannot be replaced. I personally feel privileged to have lived in an era where i got to see him play. Unfortunately there isn't much video coverage of Bradman but the future generations will get plenty of Warne. What a player he was. It is unfair to expect Warne like performances from the spinners from now on but inevitably comparisons will be made. I feel for MacGill cos he is a superb bowler in his own right but he was just born at the wrong time.

In summary Australia could continue to be as dominant without Martyn, Langer and McGrath but losing Warne is the big problem.

Like he said.

Gilchrist is in the McGrath league in terms of difficulty to replace.

rod_rooster wrote:Martyn is no trouble to replace at all. He was a handy player but a dime a dozen in Australian cricket IMHO. Look at the side now. Martyn at his best would not displace any of the middle order.

Langer can also be replaced but he is tougher to cover than Martyn. Jaques will be more than adequate though.

McGrath will be very tough to cover. We will feel his loss more against India than Sri Lankans. He is one of the best fast bowlers of all time and as much as people say Clark is playing his role the fact remains that Clark isn't anywhere near the same class as Glen McGrath. Having said that an improved contribution across the board with the quick men will go a long way to alleviating the extra pressure put on by McGrath's loss.

Warne cannot be replaced. I personally feel privileged to have lived in an era where i got to see him play. Unfortunately there isn't much video coverage of Bradman but the future generations will get plenty of Warne. What a player he was. It is unfair to expect Warne like performances from the spinners from now on but inevitably comparisons will be made. I feel for MacGill cos he is a superb bowler in his own right but he was just born at the wrong time.

In summary Australia could continue to be as dominant without Martyn, Langer and McGrath but losing Warne is the big problem.

Great Post

rogernumber10 wrote:

rod_rooster wrote:Martyn is no trouble to replace at all. He was a handy player but a dime a dozen in Australian cricket IMHO. Look at the side now. Martyn at his best would not displace any of the middle order.

Langer can also be replaced but he is tougher to cover than Martyn. Jaques will be more than adequate though.

McGrath will be very tough to cover. We will feel his loss more against India than Sri Lankans. He is one of the best fast bowlers of all time and as much as people say Clark is playing his role the fact remains that Clark isn't anywhere near the same class as Glen McGrath. Having said that an improved contribution across the board with the quick men will go a long way to alleviating the extra pressure put on by McGrath's loss.

Warne cannot be replaced. I personally feel privileged to have lived in an era where i got to see him play. Unfortunately there isn't much video coverage of Bradman but the future generations will get plenty of Warne. What a player he was. It is unfair to expect Warne like performances from the spinners from now on but inevitably comparisons will be made. I feel for MacGill cos he is a superb bowler in his own right but he was just born at the wrong time.

In summary Australia could continue to be as dominant without Martyn, Langer and McGrath but losing Warne is the big problem.

Like he said.

Gilchrist is in the McGrath league in terms of difficulty to replace.

The biggest problem with replacing Gilchrist is not the actual wicket keeping duties. At his own admission he is not the best gloveman of all time. He works very hard on it but there are better glovemen around.

Gilchrist's asset is his batting and leadership. What he can do with a bat is just incredible and almost impossible to think of replacing. Most keepers can bat a little but nowhere near what Gilly can do. No batsmen can do what Gilly can do let alone a keeper/batsman. Brad Haddin is a superb batsman though and i think he could potentially play Test cricket even if he wasn't a keeper. He will be Gilchrist's replacement no doubt but despite the fact that Haddin is possibly a better batsman that any other keeper in Australia's Test cricket history (other than Gilly) he will still struggle to fill the void left by the great Adam Gilchrist.

rogernumber10 wrote:
Like he said.

Gilchrist is in the McGrath league in terms of difficulty to replace.

i think Ronchi will surprise he has 3 100s and 5 50s averages a tick under 40, with a 1st class strike rate of 88. Not saying he will be as good as Gilchrist but his loss won't be felt as much as Warnes or McGraths IMO. FWIW I think we can almost cover McGraths loss (not totally though) but as others have said Warne will prove irreplacable

1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:

rogernumber10 wrote:
Like he said.

Gilchrist is in the McGrath league in terms of difficulty to replace.

i think Ronchi will surprise he has 3 100s and 5 50s averages a tick under 40, with a 1st class strike rate of 88. Not saying he will be as good as Gilchrist but his loss won't be felt as much as Warnes or McGraths IMO. FWIW I think we can almost cover McGraths loss (not totally though) but as others have said Warne will prove irreplacable

You are right. We can't totally cover the loss of McGrath, we can't totally cover the loss of Gilchrist (when it happens) but we can go a long way towards covering them. Warne is the only one we can't cover. Maybe in 100 years we might find someone almost as good.

The retirement of Warne doesn't mean that Australia will lose more test matches, it means that Australia will draw more test matches.

regards,

REB

The following stats can be looked at to say that our batsmen are far superior or is it our bowlers that have brough the opposition batsmen down
This is the ave run difference between Aussie batsmen and overseas batsmen by position since 2000
57.14 Aus 29.44 inter +27.7 Openers
69.74 Aus 32.90 inter +36.84 Number 3
44.83 Aus 43.25 inter +1.59 Number 4
56.49 Aus 35.38 inter +21.11 Number 5
46.28 Aus 22.92 inter +23.36 Number 6
46.02 Aus 26.86 inter +19.16 Number 7
20.11 Aus 12.19 inter +7.92 Numbers 8-11

This gives the Australians an avergae 189 more runs every innings

The things that jump out at me are
* Ricky Ponting averaging more than double his opposition number 3s
* The superior start our opening batsmen give Australia
* The depth of Australia, compare our nos. 8-11 vs overseas no. 6, and our number seven batsmen averages more than ANY overseas position

Ranking the current and recently retired group of Aust batsmen in our all-time lists in terms of averages and run scored makes it seem like we have been witness to a golden age. Are they that good in comparison to players of the past or have the opposition dropped off the pace?

We could debate it for hours I don't know the answer

How would:

Hayden
Langer
Ponting
M Waugh
Hussey
S Waugh

have gone vs Marshall, Ambrose, Garner, Holding ????

Don't know other than their averages would definitely have been lower

How would Greenidge, Haynes, Richards and Lloyd have gone against McGrath, Warne and Co?

Sean wrote:How would Greenidge, Haynes, Richards and Lloyd have gone against McGrath, Warne and Co?

I think the Windies best side from the late 70's to mid 80's would have just shaded any Australian team from early 90's to today.

GWW wrote:

Sean wrote:How would Greenidge, Haynes, Richards and Lloyd have gone against McGrath, Warne and Co?

I think the Windies best side from the late 70's to mid 80's would have just shaded any Australian team from early 90's to today.

My money is on Australia (not because of blind patriotism for all things green and gold) but for the simple fact of SK Warne, Australian bowlers who were barely half as good as Warne got wickets against them (admitedly only at Sydney) but Warne proved he could get wickets everywhere (Adel, Bris, Melb and Syd).

The Windies of the 80s had a real wekaness against quality spin bowling for example in India in 87-88 they only drew the test series 1-1 (IIRC Hirwani the leggie broke Massies record for best figures on debut (16-136) in that series). The year before against pakistan they only drew the series 1-1 (they were skittled for 53 chasing 240 to win the 1st test) and I recall them being down 0-2 in Pakistan in teh early 90s only to draw the series 2-2.

Nup agaisnt quality spinners that side struggled hence why I think the Australian side of the mid to late 90s & 00s would shade the Windies side of the 80s. Especially when you consider teh quality of our batting (Ponting, the Waughs, Hayden, Slater etc) and our quality fast bowlers McGrath, Gillespie, Fleming, Lee etc.

Hey it would be a great contest but I'd think more often than not we'd get the chocolates

Sean wrote:How would Greenidge, Haynes, Richards and Lloyd have gone against McGrath, Warne and Co?

Not as good as they did

However it was always the Windies bowlers that were their strength

It was not a rare thing for the Aussie teams of that era to bowl them out for a reasonable score. Thing was, most times they would bowl us out for 1/2 as many runs.

That would be the trick - scoring against their bowlers - regardless of how well Warney went against their batsmen.