Australia - are they simply too good?

[cover drive man]

I'd like to see the competion get better a lot of teams have the potential to beat Australia.

 

[Triple Crown]

Australia has an advantage because its one of the few countries where Football is not king. Several sports all have a fairly even footing.

For example, in England, all the best athletes want to play football because the pay is so much better.

But in Australia, a top class cricketer will make as much or more money than an AFL player, Rugby League/Union player or A-League footballer.

India is another example of a country where cricket is king but its fair to say that India seems to always underperform anyway.

In NZ, everyone wants to play Rugby, its the national sport.

In the west indies football is as popular as cricket. You can be like Dwight Yorke & co and earn millions, WI cricketers earn peanuts in comparison.

But cricket is also ingrained into Australia's psyche. There's a saying that the 2nd most important person in Aust after the Prime Minister is the Australian Cricket Captain. And its very true. Australia's captains are like Monarchs. They don't chop & change them. They say in charge for years and years at a time. It creates and maintains stability upon which the sport prospers. Every kid at some point wants to play cricket for Australia.

But quite simply, the talent spotting & development of Oz cricketers is 2nd to none. The best coaches, the best facilities, very high standard club and 1st class cricket comps, and on top of that, they don't get the talent pool excessively raided by footy codes like other countries.

 

[The_Bunny]

Australia has an advantage because its one of the few countries where Football is not king. Several sports all have a fairly even footing.

For example, in England, all the best athletes want to play football because the pay is so much better.

But in Australia, a top class cricketer will make as much or more money than an AFL player, Rugby League/Union player or A-League footballer.

India is another example of a country where cricket is king but its fair to say that India seems to always underperform anyway.

In NZ, everyone wants to play Rugby, its the national sport.

In the west indies football is as popular as cricket. You can be like Dwight Yorke & co and earn millions, WI cricketers earn peanuts in comparison.

But cricket is also ingrained into Australia's psyche. There's a saying that the 2nd most important person in Aust after the Prime Minister is the Australian Cricket Captain. And its very true. Australia's captains are like Monarchs. They don't chop & change them. They say in charge for years and years at a time. It creates and maintains stability upon which the sport prospers. Every kid at some point wants to play cricket for Australia.

But quite simply, the talent spotting & development of Oz cricketers is 2nd to none. The best coaches, the best facilities, very high standard club and 1st class cricket comps, and on top of that, they don't get the talent pool excessively raided by footy codes like other countries.

A Cricket player may make more money but AFL is still far more popular with young people.....

 

[BoyBrumby]

A Cricket player may make more money but AFL is still far more popular with young people.....

Really? Do you mean in terms of interest or participation? I'd have thought cricket would've edged Aussie Rules in terms of interest at least because it's a truly national sport, whereas AFL isn't the dominant football code in 2 of the 3 biggest states (in terms of population).

 

[Ikki]

Yes, we are too good. It's simple, but hey.

 

[Matt79]

Really? Do you mean in terms of interest or participation? I'd have thought cricket would've edged Aussie Rules in terms of interest at least because it's a truly national sport, whereas AFL isn't the dominant football code in 2 of the 3 biggest states (in terms of population).

Well, its footy (either AFL or league) in winter and cricket in summer, so most kids don't choose until near the end of school tbh. Cricket has the advantage of being the only real national sport here, besides soccer which is growing but still small. In Victoria at least, AFL is king and most people care more about their footy team than the cricket. But as soon as the footy is done for the year, cricket is king.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Well, its footy (either AFL or league) in winter and cricket in summer, so most kids don't choose until near the end of school tbh. Cricket has the advantage of being the only real national sport here, besides soccer which is growing but still small. In Victoria at least, AFL is king and most people care more about their footy team than the cricket. But as soon as the footy is done for the year, cricket is king.

That's more-or-less what I meant. People in Vic may care more about their footy team, but I'd guess a fair % still take an interest in cricket & you could probably say the same thing about League fans in NSW. I'd just have thought more people took an interest in cricket across Oz than any of the football codes.

 

[Triple Crown]

At the moment cricket seems to be the only sport that truly unifies Australians however the Socceroos have really shaken things up recently, and they seem to have replaced the Wallabies as the nation's most popular national footy team.

But Aussies love cricket, and I reckon most Aussies can love the cricket AND their favourite footy team, rather than have to choose between them.

 

[Richard]

Obviously they will get worse. As you said, cricket is cyclical - each team goes through a phase of establishing its lineup, experimenting and finding the best possibly combination. Then it goes through a phase of reaping the benefits - trying out that combination against the other teams who may still be in experimental phases, while occasionally making minor changes based on performances at domestic at international level.

But, the question is - just how much worse will Australia get? And for how long? Personally, I don't think they'll decline enough to be knocked out of say, the top 3, for a very long time unless the other teams improve. While the cyclical nature of cricket may see a team like New Zealand range from 8th to 3rd - I think Australia may just find themselves ranging between ridiculously dominant and 3rd. For the very structure that Australian cricket is built on is what is makes Australian cricket so great - not a freak bunch of superbly talented players. People like Warne, McGrath, Ponting and Gilchrist do indeed fit into the latter group, however they have simply been the difference between Australia dominating and Australia just being a good team. Players like this come along quite randomly and you can't rely on them - all countries will have great, naturally talented players in them at one stage or another - but it's the development and success of players like Damien Martyn, Jason Gillespie, Darren Lehmann, Justin Langer, Michael Kasprowicz etc etc that really sets Australia apart from other countries at the moment. For you see - these players aren't "flukes" - they weren't lucky guesses, or plucked out of obscurity based on rare talent. They were just good players at first class level as a result and a product of Australia's exceptional development system at junior levels and strong, competitive first class structure. There are few flaws in the system - if you're a good player, you simply progress through all the grades right down from your local club to playing for your country. Bias is minimal, and any players with talent are generally spotted early and developed from a fairly young age. And even if not, they still manage to pop up in first class cricket and develop there. Now, just from doing a fair bit of reading, the only country that comes anywhere close to reaching Australia's professionalism in junior cricket and first class domestic structure is New Zealand - which would explain their continually good performances at international level despite having a very small player pool.

Whether you like it or not, Australia are going to keep producing the Damien Martyns and Jason Gillespies of the world by the hatful - in fact, there have been quite a few come and go recently that simply haven't got a look in who would have done just a good a job - the Hussey case backing this up perfectly. Guys like Martin Love, Brad Hodge, Andy Bichel and Simon Katich got limited opportunities but showed essentially the same. Unless other countries can find an answer to players of this calibre by improving their own lower levels structure, Australia will continue to have a very good side even at its lowest points. Losing Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist etc is always going to send a side into decline, however I feel the decline will be fairly minimal in the grand scheme of things.

I don't disagree with a word of that (except possible the implication that Martyn was a top-of-the-middle-of-the-road player - I'd not be amazed if he'd had no Test career to speak of should he have been born 3 years earlier. That's not a certainty, mind - he could perfectly possibly have done).

Never reckon Bichel would have been much of an international bowler, either. And I wait to see about Johnson, Tait et al.

But indeed - just look back in Test history and see when Australia weren't 1st or 2nd? About the only time when you could say such a thing 100% conclusively was the 1984-1988\89 period, when the side was considerably weakened by rebel-tours. The only other times might have been the mid-1950s and early 1970s, but even then it's wholly debatable.

EDIT:

Afridi imo.

and yes, I agree.

 

[Richard]

India is another example of a country where cricket is king but its fair to say that India seems to always underperform anyway.

No, it's just India's population is unreprisentative of the amount of people who actually play.

As Manan is so fond of pointing-out.

 

[The_Bunny]

That's more-or-less what I meant. People in Vic may care more about their footy team, but I'd guess a fair % still take an interest in cricket & you could probably say the same thing about League fans in NSW. I'd just have thought more people took an interest in cricket across Oz than any of the football codes.

Cricket does have the more national interest but I think Afl would just edge cricket in terms of how many peole play it a club and junior level...

Also this is Qld and Nsw Victoria I am talking about here, I'm not to sure what its like further west.

 

[Ikki]

At the moment cricket seems to be the only sport that truly unifies Australians however the Socceroos have really shaken things up recently, and they seem to have replaced the Wallabies as the nation's most popular national footy team.

But Aussies love cricket, and I reckon most Aussies can love the cricket AND their favourite footy team, rather than have to choose between them.

I think football (soccer) has the biggest participation of all sports in Australia.

 

[Prince EWS]

I don't disagree with a word of that (except possible the implication that Martyn was a top-of-the-middle-of-the-road player - I'd not be amazed if he'd had no Test career to speak of should he have been born 3 years earlier. That's not a certainty, mind - he could perfectly possibly have done).

That's my point in a way though. I never really rated Martyn much either and, a lot of the time, I was convinced that there were better players in domestic cricket that should have been in his place. Australia have had - and will continue to have - a stack of Damien Martyns to choose from if need be due to its strong grassroots and domestic structure - and he averaged 46.37. Unless the other countries can improve to a level where a Damien Martyn is not test standard, Australia will always be a very good side.

 

[Fiery]

Australia - are they simply too good?

Yes

 

[Richard]

That's my point in a way though. I never really rated Martyn much either and, a lot of the time, I was convinced that there were better players in domestic cricket that should have been in his place. Australia have had - and will continue to have - a stack of Damien Martyns to choose from if need be due to its strong grassroots and domestic structure - and he averaged 46.37. Unless the other countries can improve to a level where a Damien Martyn is not test standard, Australia will always be a very good side.

It's perfectly possible he wouldn't have been in the 1970s, 80s and 90s, though, that was what I was saying.

Of course, had he not played Darren Lehmann would have likely done so.

 

[haroon510]

There's been a lot of discussion around Australia's performance over the past 10 years and how they are simply so far in front of the nearest competition.

Do you:

a) Want to see them get worse by losing players to retirement, injury, etc
b) See the competition get better

I'm of the opinion that Australia being as good as they are is good for cricket. Why do some people think it's bad for cricket? It should surely force the competition to try and improve their game to match the Australian's; not result in comments wanting Australia to fall back into the pack.

Thoughts?

i personally admit that i have said cricket is geting boring becuase aussies are dominating the game of cricket. i havn't blamed aussies for that. what i have blamed is the other 7 or 8 top test nations. over ten years or so none of these teams have challanged aussies for a good challanging cricket game. in 2005 aussies when England were able to defeat Aussies i was pleased that circket isn't a one sided game any more. but since then it is like aussies have learned from thier mistake and dominated all the teams both in home and away.
that is what makes the game oneside to me. i don't want aussies to decline what i want is other team to improve and raise. put challanging cricket in the board and make cricket fun.

 

[Prince EWS]

It's perfectly possible he wouldn't have been in the 1970s, 80s and 90s, though, that was what I was saying.

Which really says something for the other nations. Unless they improve, they'll continue to be beaten by even the most mediocre of Australian players. Damien Martyn was nothing special - he was just a good player by Australian standards in recent times. Yet he had a very good test career, which says more for the comparative strength of Australian cricket in general compared to the other nations at the moment than anything else. And it's not just Warne, McGrath, Ponting and Gilchrist - it's the outstanding depth of players of around Martyn's quality or better that will continue to cause havoc unless other nations improve from their current state.

 

[Richard]

I know. I've tried to emphasise several times - I quite agree that Australia have been considerably superior to most teams in the same period that the bowling-attacks have been generally poor.

Nonetheless, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect other teams to improve to the level we saw for most of the 1970s, 80s and 90s, given that we saw it for most of the 1970s, 80s and 90s. When, however, is a question no-one can answer right now.

As long as things stay as they currently are, Australia will indeed be superior by a large margin. And even if they get back to how they were not so long ago, Australia will almost certainly still be either atop the tree or 2nd.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Obviously I'd prefer for the rest of the world to catch up, but that's really wishful thinking, as for a start the modern game is far too heavily weighted in favour of batsmen, and I think that's showing with the dearth of quality bowlers.

We do need for things to even up, but realistically that's not going to happen without a weakened Australian team.

I've been a massive fan of cricket since I was a boy - I've seen the original beige brigade play in the WSC, I've watched Paddles destroy opposition lineups, I was there at the 1992 World Cup, I've belched up statistics by the hatful over my life, but this dominance by Australia is killing my love for cricket, pure and simple.

 

[Fiery]

Obviously I'd prefer for the rest of the world to catch up, but that's really wishful thinking, as for a start the modern game is far too heavily weighted in favour of batsmen, and I think that's showing with the dearth of quality bowlers.

We do need for things to even up, but realistically that's not going to happen without a weakened Australian team.

I've been a massive fan of cricket since I was a boy - I've seen the original beige brigade play in the WSC, I've watched Paddles destroy opposition lineups, I was there at the 1992 World Cup, I've belched up statistics by the hatful over my life, but this dominance by Australia is killing my love for cricket, pure and simple.

McGrath and Warne have gone, Hayden and Gilchrist wont be round long and neither will Ponting (hopefully). Then we'll see a more even playing field for sure.