Aussie Cricket
-
@Siam said in Aussie Cricket:
@hydro11 because 1 Perrera innings of about an hour does nothing to explain the Australian ODI team team stinking up the joint since Feb 2017
They lost 4-1 at home last summer and took a game off SA and India making that 4-2, so they managed 1 win per series on home conditions for 2 summers (3wins from 11at home). They got hammered everywhere overseas AND on some days they had their best bowlers and batsmen.
For a country with all that cricket IP and advanced cricketing institutions, the winning history ; the last 2 years performances are more than just Davey having a brain explosion with sandpaper.
But sure, there's nothing unexpected in Australian cricket performances on home soil that can't be explained by noting 2 innings by a Sri Lankan in a losing game in another country
Australian cricket has never seen any value in a "close" loss
There are a couple of factors why Australia tends to do poorly in one day cricket at the moment.
One - they are very reliant on a few players. Their best test bowling fast bowlers are Starc, Hazlewood and Cummins. Their best ODI quicks are Starc, Hazlewood and Cummins. We play 2-3 test series and we know for every series we can bring in a fit Wagner. The Aussies play five home tests and then their quicks are tired. Like last summer when they destroyed England in the Ashes and then, as you say, lost a relatively meaningless series 4-1. The troika were great in the Ashes but shit in the ODIs.Meanwhile Anderson and Broad could just go home.
To put this into perspective, post 2015 World Cup Starc has played 34 ODI's, Hazlewood 31 and Cummins 30. Boult has played 46 and Southee 43 in that time. In that time New Zealand have played 68 ODIs, 27 against South Africa, India and England. Australia have played 66 ODIs in that time but 40 against those three teams. Of those 40 games against those 3 top teams, Cummins has played 17 times, Starc 14 and Hazlewood 11. Of New Zealand's 27 games against the top 3, Boult has played 20 and Southee 23.
The point of all that is Australia look worse than they are if you just look at results. Their problem in a bowling sense is because their quicks are always tired from tests. They don't have a Bracken or a Faulkner or any other ODI specialist. Australia also play more tests and more games against the top teams. Even though they play the top teams more, their best bowlers are often absent from those games. Of course there are other factors like Zampa under-performing.
Obviously much of this is Australia's fault. They don't have the depth and CA schedules too much ODI cricket and proceeds to pick poor squads which are always going to get butchered.Having said that, in the World Cup Australia will have their top bowlers. Australia are at $6 (3rd favourites), we are $9 (5th favourites). There are good reasons for that.
The batting is another story and another long post. In short, the BBL is now way too long and takes up too much oxygen. There are other factors too, of course. Australia's batting has been weak and held up by a few players since 2010.
-
@hydro11 said in Aussie Cricket:
@Siam said in Aussie Cricket:
@hydro11 because 1 Perrera innings of about an hour does nothing to explain the Australian ODI team team stinking up the joint since Feb 2017
They lost 4-1 at home last summer and took a game off SA and India making that 4-2, so they managed 1 win per series on home conditions for 2 summers (3wins from 11at home). They got hammered everywhere overseas AND on some days they had their best bowlers and batsmen.
For a country with all that cricket IP and advanced cricketing institutions, the winning history ; the last 2 years performances are more than just Davey having a brain explosion with sandpaper.
But sure, there's nothing unexpected in Australian cricket performances on home soil that can't be explained by noting 2 innings by a Sri Lankan in a losing game in another country
Australian cricket has never seen any value in a "close" loss
There are a couple of factors why Australia tends to do poorly in one day cricket at the moment.
One - they are very reliant on a few players. Their best test bowling fast bowlers are Starc, Hazlewood and Cummins. Their best ODI quicks are Starc, Hazlewood and Cummins. We play 2-3 test series and we know for every series we can bring in a fit Wagner. The Aussies play five home tests and then their quicks are tired. Like last summer when they destroyed England in the Ashes and then, as you say, lost a relatively meaningless series 4-1. The troika were great in the Ashes but shit in the ODIs.Meanwhile Anderson and Broad could just go home.
To put this into perspective, post 2015 World Cup Starc has played 34 ODI's, Hazlewood 31 and Cummins 30. Boult has played 46 and Southee 43 in that time. In that time New Zealand have played 68 ODIs, 27 against South Africa, India and England. Australia have played 66 ODIs in that time but 40 against those three teams. Of those 40 games against those 3 top teams, Cummins has played 17 times, Starc 14 and Hazlewood 11. Of New Zealand's 27 games against the top 3, Boult has played 20 and Southee 23.
The point of all that is Australia look worse than they are if you just look at results. Their problem in a bowling sense is because their quicks are always tired from tests. They don't have a Bracken or a Faulkner or any other ODI specialist. Australia also play more tests and more games against the top teams. Even though they play the top teams more, their best bowlers are often absent from those games. Of course there are other factors like Zampa under-performing.
Obviously much of this is Australia's fault. They don't have the depth and CA schedules too much ODI cricket and proceeds to pick poor squads which are always going to get butchered.Having said that, in the World Cup Australia will have their top bowlers. Australia are at $6 (3rd favourites), we are $9 (5th favourites). There are good reasons for that.
The batting is another story and another long post. In short, the BBL is now way too long and takes up too much oxygen. There are other factors too, of course. Australia's batting has been weak and held up by a few players since 2010.
It wasn't that long ago though that it seemed Australia could field three different world class teams and still win everything. There does seem to have been a marked drop off in their standards, particularly fielding as well as the obvious batting, India have just looked so much more hungry in the field in the test and one dayersand aren't giving their wickets away
-
@Nevorian said in Aussie Cricket:
@hydro11 said in Aussie Cricket:
@Siam said in Aussie Cricket:
@hydro11 because 1 Perrera innings of about an hour does nothing to explain the Australian ODI team team stinking up the joint since Feb 2017
They lost 4-1 at home last summer and took a game off SA and India making that 4-2, so they managed 1 win per series on home conditions for 2 summers (3wins from 11at home). They got hammered everywhere overseas AND on some days they had their best bowlers and batsmen.
For a country with all that cricket IP and advanced cricketing institutions, the winning history ; the last 2 years performances are more than just Davey having a brain explosion with sandpaper.
But sure, there's nothing unexpected in Australian cricket performances on home soil that can't be explained by noting 2 innings by a Sri Lankan in a losing game in another country
Australian cricket has never seen any value in a "close" loss
There are a couple of factors why Australia tends to do poorly in one day cricket at the moment.
One - they are very reliant on a few players. Their best test bowling fast bowlers are Starc, Hazlewood and Cummins. Their best ODI quicks are Starc, Hazlewood and Cummins. We play 2-3 test series and we know for every series we can bring in a fit Wagner. The Aussies play five home tests and then their quicks are tired. Like last summer when they destroyed England in the Ashes and then, as you say, lost a relatively meaningless series 4-1. The troika were great in the Ashes but shit in the ODIs.Meanwhile Anderson and Broad could just go home.
To put this into perspective, post 2015 World Cup Starc has played 34 ODI's, Hazlewood 31 and Cummins 30. Boult has played 46 and Southee 43 in that time. In that time New Zealand have played 68 ODIs, 27 against South Africa, India and England. Australia have played 66 ODIs in that time but 40 against those three teams. Of those 40 games against those 3 top teams, Cummins has played 17 times, Starc 14 and Hazlewood 11. Of New Zealand's 27 games against the top 3, Boult has played 20 and Southee 23.
The point of all that is Australia look worse than they are if you just look at results. Their problem in a bowling sense is because their quicks are always tired from tests. They don't have a Bracken or a Faulkner or any other ODI specialist. Australia also play more tests and more games against the top teams. Even though they play the top teams more, their best bowlers are often absent from those games. Of course there are other factors like Zampa under-performing.
Obviously much of this is Australia's fault. They don't have the depth and CA schedules too much ODI cricket and proceeds to pick poor squads which are always going to get butchered.Having said that, in the World Cup Australia will have their top bowlers. Australia are at $6 (3rd favourites), we are $9 (5th favourites). There are good reasons for that.
The batting is another story and another long post. In short, the BBL is now way too long and takes up too much oxygen. There are other factors too, of course. Australia's batting has been weak and held up by a few players since 2010.
It wasn't that long ago though that it seemed Australia could field three different world class teams and still win everything. There does seem to have been a marked drop off in their standards, particularly fielding as well as the obvious batting, India have just looked so much more hungry in the field in the test and one dayersand aren't giving their wickets away
If I go through the Australian World Cup winning teams, most of their players were good in all formats.
1999: Only Moody and Bevan weren't up to test cricket.
2003: Bevan and Hogg with Bichel and Symonds being marginal.
2007: Bracken, Hogg and Tait.Australia at their best had a similar team in all formats. They played a lot less cricket back then. I don't think you can be an Australian international in all three formats and play IPL. Some of them are trying to do this though.
The big difference is the batting depth just isn't there for the Aussies right now. There aren't guys in the shield averaging 50 consistently for seasons who can't get a look in. I don't know where they have all gone. I suggest the lure of T20 leagues hasn't helped them out.
The other point I will make is look at the U-19 World Cups:
- 2010 - Australia 1st, NZ 7th
- 2012 - Australia 2nd, NZ 4th
- 2014 - Aus 4th, NZ 10th
- 2016 Aus Did Not Compete, NZ 12th
- 2018 Aus 2nd, NZ 8th
So it seems the Aussies are still producing a lot more talent than us at the youth level. It just hasn't shown through in international cricket yet (if indeed it will).
-
-
I wonder if the BBL is having an adverse affect on the Aussie ODI team. Over the last few seasons they seem to have picked quite a few blokes predominantly on the back of BBL form, typically for short stints. This has to have an affect on the stability of the side.
-
@hydro11 said in Aussie Cricket:
@Siam said in Aussie Cricket:
@hydro11 The point of all that is Australia look worse than they are if you just look at results.
Jesus Christ
Do you want to raise some counter points?
Only one: Cricket Australia's problems run a bit deeper than not having Starc, Hazlewood and Cummins available for every fucking game!
Your argument suggests if they play those three all the woes (like losing 8 of the last 11 home ODIs!) go away.
I'm reminded a bit of Tana led player responsibilities that Ted talked about. A shift in culture away from the steep old hierarchy to a more inclusive (sorry couldn't think of a better word) set up that typifies the culture today.
Cricket Aus looks too similar to Aus rugby in that the pathways to the top and the performances are tinkered with by chopping and changing personnel and pr spin. The amount of vocally disgruntled players and administrators are struggling to cope with comflicting "win at all costs " and " win the public back".
CA is starting to resemble the ARU in the execution of their vision, got more money but.
Again, these problems run far deeper than Australia has only 5 class players and when they don't play it's NOT unexpected that they lose 80 odd percent at home, which is the extent of your enlightenment.
But by all means mention Boult and Southee again in an analysis of 2 years poor fundamental cricket by the Canary yellows 😀
-
@Siam said in Aussie Cricket:
@hydro11 said in Aussie Cricket:
@Siam said in Aussie Cricket:
@hydro11 The point of all that is Australia look worse than they are if you just look at results.
Jesus Christ
Do you want to raise some counter points?
Only one: Cricket Australia's problems run a bit deeper than not having Starc, Hazlewood and Cummins available for every fucking game!
Your argument suggests if they play those three all the woes (like losing 8 of the last 11 home ODIs!) go away.
I'm reminded a bit of Tana led player responsibilities that Ted talked about. A shift in culture away from the steep old hierarchy to a more inclusive (sorry couldn't think of a better word) set up that typifies the culture today.
Cricket Aus looks too similar to Aus rugby in that the pathways to the top and the performances are tinkered with by chopping and changing personnel and pr spin. The amount of vocally disgruntled players and administrators are struggling to cope with comflicting "win at all costs " and " win the public back".
CA is starting to resemble the ARU in the execution of their vision, got more money but.
Again, these problems run far deeper than Australia has only 5 class players and when they don't play it's NOT unexpected that they lose 80 odd percent at home, which is the extent of your enlightenment
That's hardly the extent of my point.
- I am heavily critical of what Australia have done with the BBL.
- I point out it is Australia's fault for not having depth.
- I have repeatedly pointed out that Australia have produced two top quality batsmen since about 2010. One of those is Warner who is just a basher, the other is Smith who has an unorthodox technique.
- I have consistently criticised their selectors. You have a 22 year old who takes a break from cricket for mental health issues and they go and pick him in the test team! How crazy is that? The continual selection of Mitch Marsh.
I don't know what this means: 'performances are tinkered with by chopping and changing personnel and pr spin.' If Australia's problems are just selecting the right players, they will be easy to fix.
I don't think Cricket Australia is in a comparable position at all to Australia Rugby. If we look at Australia in recent under 20 World Cups, their results there mirror the national team. Australia just don't have the talent and their best athletes are playing other sports. Cricket doesn't have that same competition problem. They are still producing the young players. Their problem is that they haven't developed enough of them into all round cricketers.
-
@shark said in Aussie Cricket:
I wonder if the BBL is having an adverse affect on the Aussie ODI team. Over the last few seasons they seem to have picked quite a few blokes predominantly on the back of BBL form, typically for short stints. This has to have an affect on the stability of the side.
Yes, the schedule is the problem.
The domestic 50 over comp runs for 4 weeks and finishes in mid October. This forces them to pick on BBL form.
-
@Duluth said in Aussie Cricket:
@shark said in Aussie Cricket:
I wonder if the BBL is having an adverse affect on the Aussie ODI team. Over the last few seasons they seem to have picked quite a few blokes predominantly on the back of BBL form, typically for short stints. This has to have an affect on the stability of the side.
Yes, the schedule is the problem.
The domestic 50 over comp runs for 4 weeks and finishes in mid October. This forces them to pick on BBL form.
Isn't our domestic structure the same? The one day domestic final was something like December 2nd. Yet we don't re-select a squad every season based heavily on domestic T20 form like Australia seem to do of late. We have a core which plays year on year, a bunch of fringe squad members and then maybe one or two new guys each season. Australia pick guys on BBL form for a series and then cast them aside, never able to form a stab core. And when I say core I mean 8-10 guys.
-
@hydro11 said in Aussie Cricket:
@Siam said in Aussie Cricket:
@hydro11 said in Aussie Cricket:
@Siam said in Aussie Cricket:
@hydro11 The point of all that is Australia look worse than they are if you just look at results.
Jesus Christ
Do you want to raise some counter points?
Only one: Cricket Australia's problems run a bit deeper than not having Starc, Hazlewood and Cummins available for every fucking game!
Your argument suggests if they play those three all the woes (like losing 8 of the last 11 home ODIs!) go away.
I'm reminded a bit of Tana led player responsibilities that Ted talked about. A shift in culture away from the steep old hierarchy to a more inclusive (sorry couldn't think of a better word) set up that typifies the culture today.
Cricket Aus looks too similar to Aus rugby in that the pathways to the top and the performances are tinkered with by chopping and changing personnel and pr spin. The amount of vocally disgruntled players and administrators are struggling to cope with comflicting "win at all costs " and " win the public back".
CA is starting to resemble the ARU in the execution of their vision, got more money but.
Again, these problems run far deeper than Australia has only 5 class players and when they don't play it's NOT unexpected that they lose 80 odd percent at home, which is the extent of your enlightenment
That's hardly the extent of my point.
- I am heavily critical of what Australia have done with the BBL.
- I point out it is Australia's fault for not having depth.
- I have repeatedly pointed out that Australia have produced two top quality batsmen since about 2010. One of those is Warner who is just a basher, the other is Smith who has an unorthodox technique.
- I have consistently criticised their selectors. You have a 22 year old who takes a break from cricket for mental health issues and they go and pick him in the test team! How crazy is that? The continual selection of Mitch Marsh.
I don't know what this means: 'performances are tinkered with by chopping and changing personnel and pr spin.' If Australia's problems are just selecting the right players, they will be easy to fix.
I don't think Cricket Australia is in a comparable position at all to Australia Rugby. If we look at Australia in recent under 20 World Cups, their results there mirror the national team. Australia just don't have the talent and their best athletes are playing other sports. Cricket doesn't have that same competition problem. They are still producing the young players. Their problem is that they haven't developed enough of them into all round cricketers.
@NTA latest thoughts on this ?
-
So I think it's clear that the production line is doing fine. But the emerging player's skills are far greater than the performances they're putting out.
So where's the disconnect?I know some state players and years ago they warned of the effects of changing state 2nd XI to under 23s
All that talent and only 11 spots per state, then what about all the hundreds of players there or there abouts, (the amount of club cricketers that would be first class players in NZ is noticeable)?
The stories I heard were that the 2nd teams older guys taught heaps to younger ones about the profession. Exactly like we know happens in clubs all over where you learn the game and all the periphery from the old hands.
This gives more polish and job knowledge to learners and creates a better end product, as well as separating the wheat from the chaff.
I'm sure our Mitre 10 cup does the same for NZ rugby.
The IP of players on the fringe of the elite is invaluable. It's the same steady development process and principle that produces Hussey North Voges and even Lyon. You get new players to the top team that know their game (and have life experiences).The Australian performances for 2 years haven't really been described as strongly professional - frequent batting collapses are a telling indictment. You learn professionalism from the experienced guys and preferably on the job.
Not saying 2nd Xl is the whole cure but it's another variable in the underperforming question.
I think Sutherlands reign (and that's what it was!) put financial corporate well being in front of the traditional strengths of mateship and culture in Aus cricket.
Too busy counting the money while nobody watered the tree
-
@shark said in Aussie Cricket:
@Duluth said in Aussie Cricket:
@shark said in Aussie Cricket:
I wonder if the BBL is having an adverse affect on the Aussie ODI team. Over the last few seasons they seem to have picked quite a few blokes predominantly on the back of BBL form, typically for short stints. This has to have an affect on the stability of the side.
Yes, the schedule is the problem.
The domestic 50 over comp runs for 4 weeks and finishes in mid October. This forces them to pick on BBL form.
Isn't our domestic structure the same? The one day domestic final was something like December 2nd. Yet we don't re-select a squad every season based heavily on domestic T20 form like Australia seem to do of late. We have a core which plays year on year, a bunch of fringe squad members and then maybe one or two new guys each season. Australia pick guys on BBL form for a series and then cast them aside, never able to form a stab core. And when I say core I mean 8-10 guys.
Problem is that the BBL has now encroached onto February. The BBL is good but it should be a quick competition and it should wrap up before the kids are back in school. New Zealand isn't immune - there have been talks to reduce the Plunkett Shield down to 8 games per season per team.
-
As an example to this: the ODI squad was picked without a single domestic 50 over game being played, because of the scheduling. BBL is a massive cash cow for CA and so they will continue to milk it.
On the longer forms: why would our domestic players with a bit of talent worry about making the Test side via Sheffield Shield, when they can make a very handy living playing T20 the world over? It is similar to rugby in that regard: bloke has to make a living, and the window for glory at national / international level is very small and crowded with undeserving dickheads, run by a pack of bean counters.
Fuck that. I'd go play in the Bangladesh Bash n Crash for 2 months and get paid what I might get if they haven't already given it all to Warner.
-
Kurtis Patterson got added to the Aussie Test squad after two unbeaten centuries vs Sri Lanka
The contenders in Australia's unsettled batting line-up
As they prepare to take on Sri Lanka, only three Australia batsmen - Marcus Harris, Usman Khawaja, and Travis Head - have their places locked in. Kurtis Patterson's late call-up puts him above those in the run for the other places
-
@Siam said in Aussie Cricket:
Too busy counting the money while nobody watered the tree
It's not that they didn't water the tree, it's that they chose to do it with Coke instead of actual water. They bet the house on a risky high performance model (led by Greg Chappell and Pat Howard) and on current evidence it has failed badly.
They decided to emphasise junior pathway models, and give preference to youth and potential over experience. That strategy, in theory, should pay dividends in the mid-long term. Well we're now firmly in the mid term and the cupboard is bare, apart from a few decent quicks.
I think the ODI issue also relates to the confused place of ODI cricket in Australia right now - we have the Matador Cup which runs for a month in September-October, and then we go into long form cricket, then BBL. Our 50-over team is now a mix of test specialists and T20 guys - a bits-and-pieces unit who can win on their day but in reality aren't that suited to ODI cricket.
The other factor is that despite the form slump you mention Siam, nobody here really gives a fuck. ODI is now the thing you play after a test series, but before the 20/20s.
It also doesn't help that India are absolute guns at it, too.
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Cricket:
@Siam said in Aussie Cricket:
Too busy counting the money while nobody watered the tree
It's not that they didn't water the tree, it's that they chose to do it with Coke instead of actual water. They bet the house on a risky high performance model (led by Greg Chappell and Pat Howard) and on current evidence it has failed badly.
Not Coke,
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Cricket:
They decided to emphasise junior pathway models, and give preference to youth and potential over experience. That strategy, in theory, should pay dividends in the mid-long term. Well we're now firmly in the mid term and the cupboard is bare, apart from a few decent quicks.
And, once you break a model, it's bloody hard to get old hands re-interested in the game. Aus Cricket used to have a conveyor belt of talent that was just ridiculous. Now, it's the odd gem, rather than a sustained cohort. It's a bloody crime against cricket I reckon
-
@barbarian nice one Barb. Really good points
They have done an admirable job with kids. From Milo cricket to Weet-Bix now Woolworths BBL (the curmudgeon in me spots a retail/branding hijack on kids but such is the way) so the seedlings are there.Still surprised Hohns and vegan Greg have a job, I notice their latest shiney new cure all has been added, largely on the back of a non official warm up with contrived declarations (as an aside England warmed up in the Windies with an innings that featured 18 wickets!)
How come we made a Latham, a watling and a Nicholls while Aus went through a Renshaw, burns, Ferguson, head, marsh, agar, etc etc?
There's a serious bottleneck in the production line
