Posts and words Comments
Loading ...
By Will 3 years ago, mid-November Add your comment below
Weather permitting, at some stage on Monday Australia will beat Sri Lanka, probably by a large margin. It’s becoming an annual trend, re-discussing Australia’s dominance and why it is hurting the game so much. But I’m not going to bother mentioning India and Pakistan’s one-day series, which interests me not a lot, so let’s go round in circles and debate why you think (or not) Australia are killing the game.
The sadness of Australia continuing to raise the bar in Test cricket means the foundation of the game is becoming less and less relevant in more countries as the Twenty20 phenomenon multiplies the excitement in shorter forms of the game.
This is even so in Australia, which has the strongest tradition of Test cricket with England. If Australia was playing a one-day or Twenty20 match at the Gabba it would have sold out long ago.
But modest crowds of little more than 15,000 on the first three days, followed by just 7629 yesterday amid showers, left many empty seats among the 40,000 at the recently redeveloped, world-class Gabba.
This is despite one Queenslander, Mitchell Johnson, making his Test debut and another, Andrew Symonds, playing his first Test at the Gabba, not to mention Matthew Hayden, as Ponting and his men try to extend their winning streak to record levels.
Victory here will give Australia 13 in a row since South Africa hung on for a draw in Perth almost two years ago. It is the second-longest winning streak in history, behind the 16 in a row Steve Waugh’s side set from October 1999 to March 2001.
Australians in defence of their juggernaut will point to the all-conquering West Indians of the 70s and 80s, and they’d have a point. But was the void so great as it is now? And were they, as we are now, so flummoxed as to a solution?
Tags: australia, dominance, sri lanka in australia, test-cricket, west-indies |
Oh come on Will – it’s not even a whole test into the post ‘Warne/McGrath’ era.
Australia are, and will remain, a very strong side – but without two of the best five bowlers EVER, at some stage they will start having problems bowling sides out twice, and/or keeping good batting line ups in check.
This current test is against a below strength SL side on a home ground that has perennially been a graveyard for tourists.
Pose the question again in a years time.
Is Australia’s dominance killing Test cricket, or the reluctance of national bodies to host it, or is it that the rest of the national sides just aren’t good enough?
This Gabba Test has been pretty piss poor attended, but there was at least a crowd. Compare that to the South Africa vs New Zealand Test match that was played out to a near-empty stadium in Johannesburg. You would have to stretch a pretty long bow to blame Australia for that.
And Australia’s dominance IS good for the game- it (should) motivate the other nations to lift their game, just as the West Indies did in the 1980’s.
It was just 12 months ago that an Ashes series was played in Australia to sell-out stadiums. You might think that was a once off, but if England make a better fist of things in 2009 I think that the 2010-11 Ashes will be played out to packed houses again.
And no one doubts that 2009 will be played to full houses in England.
The point that Conn is missing is that apart from Ashes series, Test cricket has never had much of a hold on the masses in Australia. But people did come along to see the great West Indies sides, and if another nation were to be the top dog, Australian crowds would turn out to see them.
But Australian crowds never have, and never will, turn out in large numbers to see not very competitive teams from the subcontinent get six of the best from a still strong Australian team.
Only two years ago we were all trumpeting how “Test Cricket is alive and well” – why? – England beat Australia. They worked bloody hard at every single aspect of the game (on and off the field) had a tremenndous run, and won the Ashes. But, then what? It couldn’t be sustained. Australia need not be as dominant as they are right now, but as Scott says, it (should) be motivating others (as it did England, albeit too briefly) to do something about it.
One of the major obstacles to that solution (“others doing something about it”) seems to be as much the off-field “politicing”, egos, agendas and corruption that gets in the way. (refer: West Indies, Pakistan, India and now even Sri Lanka).
With a consistant and sustained effort, in all aspects of development, administration, training and professionalism in these areas, Australia’s dominance will not last forever.
Wait too, until the now Warne and McGrath-less Australians are facing say, India, with Tendulka on 150 not out, the score at 2 for 300, 40 degree weather in January and three days to go – this will be when the true indication of that loss will start to show.
Interesting points. Are Australians (Stu and Scott) worried about the future? Mitchell looks to have it all, and Clark’s irritatingly accurate…who’s next? Who, for example, do you have lined up for the 2009 Ashes (which, in case I need remind you, is just one English summer away!)
Fascinating time for England, incidentally. Their renaissance for the 2005 Ashes began in the 2003-04 winter, then they had that brilliant summer in 2004. So, by those very dodgy parallels, the 2009 Ashes begins next month in Sri Lanka.
Oh. Dear.
Hilfenhaus is next, that’s who!
If we (Australia) get pulled back to the pack soon by honourable means, I won’t be complaining. We’ve had a great run, and there are pleasures in a bear market too – Captain Grumpy-style bloody-mindedness, occasionally winning against the odds, supporting the underdog without cognitive dissonance kicking in.
Nobody thought McGrath was going to be a wicket taking machine when he started out.
Who knows what the likes of Johnson or Hilfenhaus may turn into? Fingers crossed. 
Tests have never been as well attended as the shorter games. But whenever a genuine contest is in the offing, the crowds will come.
Spot on those commenters who point out that Straya is without W&M and only playing a so-so Sri Lanka. Let’s wait a while.
As a counter-point, and not at all a bitter gripe: England winning the Ashes in 2005 was a fluke.
Australia without Warne: Stuart McGill is no Warne… but about as close as you can get. Australia without McGrath: Stuart Clark is pretty darn good and Brett Lee has definitely matured from the bounce-bounce-bounce mentality he had a few years back.
The key weakness in Australia’s test side is the batting. Sure, Clarke, Jacques and Hussey all made centuries, but on the flattest, easiest wicket with the likes of Fernando and Vaas being totally ineffective. Jacques looked anything but confident, and the unorthodox nature of his shots could be a hinderance rather than the novelty that Australia hopes for. If they insist on bringing back Shane Watson (anyone remember him?), then that’s another batting slot lost.
what planet are you on raxar? Australia’s weakness is the … batting? Bet every other team on your planet would like to have that sort of weakness.
May I suggest that all the other Test playing nations, stop playing Australia, until Australia reaches their standard.
Regarding who’s next, then on form (and as a proud West Australian) I have to say Steve Magoffin. 15 wickets at 18 ain’t bad.
I think the search for a spinner will be the real problem. Cullen’s not had good form since his debut year, Cullen (the other one I mean) is, as pointed out, a frog-in-the-blender, and the less said about Cameron White the better. Heal (another Warrior) is looking okay at the moment- but the one I can’t get enough of is Queensland’s Daniel Doran- a leggie who’s a specialist no. 10 batsman who only bowls once the opposition’s posted 500! No one ever said that selectors can’t be creative.
It’s a kind of pointless argument. Australia are the best in world cricket and that is that.
I heard a story that the amount of sports played in schools in Australia is incredible and if this is true it can’t but help filter through to the national level.
Can any Aussie enlighten me on the hours per week given over to sport in Australian schools. In England it is typically no more than 3-4 hours per week.
The crowds for the test matches could be increased by lowering the entrance fee though its the same sorry story the whole world round in all sports. The stadiums would rather have a small crowd paying a high price than a large crowd just paying a minimum.
Well, hopeless gambler, I used to teach at a special sports school (yep, each state has a number of these, in the public system – and the private schools are all sports mad) that had PE pretty much every day, as well as a lot of the kids playing at district or state level after school/on weekends, and many playing for school sides. We also kicked them out an hour earlier on Wednesdays so they could play in a inter-school comp. Even non-specialist schools do that last, and many now specialise in at least one sport in their PE departments. Still, we do complain about kids not doing enough – the whole Playstation/obese kids rant, which has some currency. I guess the ‘problem’ is that the conditions are good for sport all year ’round – outdoors! – so most kids are somewhat active. Think about this: kids spend their lunch and recess breaks outside, generally being fairly active, every day. They may not be participating in organised sport (in fact, they rarely are), but they are active.
And Will: Why blame us? Surely it’s up to the rest of you to lift your game? That’s how we responded to the Windies. You managed it for one series- but I suspect you’ll have a decent crack again next year. Consistent application is the key – others should be emulating us, not complaining about our strengths.
13th Man, thanks for your answer. It makes sense in a way with the weather being better and if the schools are encouraging sport that can’t be a bad thing for the health of the nation and the health of cricket.
Another point as to why Australians are better at cricket could be the way club cricket is organised. A friend who I had played with in England spent some time in Australia and he told me that some club games take place over two weekends with one side batting one week and then the other the next.
I’m sure if this is prevalent then it could only help players at that level and that in turn would improve the game from the bottom up.
Yeah, as much as it bores me to see one-sided matches and Australia so dominant (the SA vs NZ Test was a lot worse!), it seems a little churlish to blame Australia for being too good. Other sides have to up their game. Also, sports pundits want to analyse something to death far too soon. It’s one Test. Let’s see how things play out.
hopeless gambler,
its not just sport in school or organized sport here. Every afternoon and weekend, you can find people, adults and kids, at my local oval ( has tennis courts, bowling nets and swings for little kids as well) running or kick a ball or playing tennis. There is always a father (and sometimes a mother) with his children, throwing a cricket ball to them, in some corner, if not actually practicing in the nets. And this encourages others to go there – its a social centre. It’s part of everyday life, even if everyone is supposed to be overweight.
Steve, I never thought of Aussies as being overweight – just damned good at sports!
I think you make a good point about the social side and in England with the weather we probably miss that side of it.
We had a strong local cricket team in the early 1990’s and part of the reason was the whole social side. The wifes got involved and brought their kids and some of those kids are decent players now.
But times have changed and things like the change in working hours (plenty of people work in the service industry these days and can’t play Saturdays -me included), the internet, computer games and TV all have an effect.
Kids who used to be bored on a Saturday afternoon and come to cricket can find other things to do now.
Will,
I thought it was everyone else who was killing the game. In other sports, players and teams who do poorly are usually chastised to improve, or dropped. But not Cricket! Here, they are excused as not being able to cope with those nasty Aussies who are bringing the game into disrepute by playing well.
Perhaps the problem is attitudes like yours. Next you’ll be telling us it’s not fair and you won’t play if they don’t stop it, nyah, nyah.
Why not just ban Australia? Then Will and the English can feel good about themselves again.
And Will ( an Malcom Conn and someone Richard from the ICC who agrees), how does Aussie dominance affect matches between other nations? Can NZ now blame Oz for being diced by SA?
I’m sure 13th man is right about the conditions at the school he worked at, but that sounds pretty unusual. I would have thought most Australian schools have at most an afternoon each week – 3 hours or so – for compulsory PE or sport. Of course, voluntary sport pracs around school hours and playing on weekends would be additional to that (for those who participate).
hopeless gambler, Australians are the fifth most obese bunch in the developed world, and our rate of increase is faster than that of the Americans. Our elite sports performance is bolstered by funding and sophisticated talent-spotting, but community sport is unfortunately much more hit and miss (notwithstanding good weather and a pro-sport culture).
btw John Buchanan has weighed in on this issue:
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/australia/content/current/story/319712.html
His solution – to spread second-rung Aussies through other teams – comes across to me as a dingbat piece of annoying condescension from left field. You might as well rename Australian state teams after other countries. More interesting, surely, would be to encourage Australian state teams to have at least two foreigners apiece…
Perhaps it is time to introduce a handicap system into the sport – although some might say on-day internationals provide such a handicap.
I don’t think it would be so wrong for teams to start with 50 on the board or the Aussies to be 2-0 at start of play.
It would certainly add a bit of excitement and even if Australia lost they would be the moral victor if they beats the spreads.
I think John Buchanan’s idea’s a stupid one. Franchising will do nothing to encourage the development of cricket in other countries, and it may well lead to companies playing each other, not countries.
I also think a handicap is a bad idea. The winning team should be victorious because they played better than the other team. Having to make 50 runs less, or to take 8 wickets instead of 10, means that the winning team on the day doesn’t have to be the best one.
It’s banning beer ( and animals, beach balls and fireworks) from matches that is killing the game, not excellence.
The onus is on the other teams to lift their standards and raise them to Australia’s level. I hope and pray that the others don’t pull Oz down. I have been watching the ongoing Indo-Pak series and that is when I realized the difference in standards between Oz & the rest of the world. Having said that, I hope when we (Indian) visit Aus later in the year, we’ll put up a good fight in the tests like the one we did last timeïŠ
Some one says that Aussies playing subcontinent teams that are not competitive… well I hope the recently concluded Aus-India series has shattered that myth, unless the commentor is an Ostrich,with head firmly in sanddunes.
Also, Aus has been beaten at home in a decade only on two occassions- both against India.
India lost the series 2-1 which is I think a respectable result under the circumstamnces and against an undoubtedly superior side. Two of the four matches were more exciting than any ODI game in recent times with the game ready to go either way(Sidney and Adelaide) . The 4th game saw India and Aus at par, with no one a clear dominant- infact, I saw Australia scoring under 2.5runs per over in an innings after a long time, so it was a kind of a brownie point for India.India almost matched in Aus in the run rate througout the series, which is a deviation from the norm.
Overall, I think the great cricketing rivalry is no more the Ashes, but the Border-gavaskar Trophy.
Personally, I think England never recreated the magic of 2005 Ashes triumph because they never got back that bowling combination and rythm. I feel the Ashes victory was achieved largely because England for the first time in a long itme had Bowling attack that could get 20 Aussie wickets in 5 days.After the Ashes , we havent quite seen the same fiery attack.
The Corridor (a cricket blog) is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS)
The Corridor (a cricket blog) All content © 2004-2010 Will Luke. All Rights Reserved.
None of the views or opinions offered on this site reflect those of my employers, Cricinfo Ltd and ESPN International
| 