Xeluan

Greg Chappell has stated that he believes that Australia's dominance is ruining cricket. Here is the article.

Now, the other day, Sri Lank needed 190 of 38 overs (or something close to it) to beat NZ. They ended up at 1/70 odd not even trying. Australia, in that situation, would of had a go. And there in lies the difference. Australians will go for the win no matter what. Of course they have a great team but they back themselves. It can backfire though usually they win.

The Windies are another example. They gave up before the 3rd test even started by using a pitch that had nothing for the bowlers. As long as teams do not try and take the game to Australia then they will suffer. Success may not come overnight but I say that being bold and brash in approach to tactics like Australia is the way for other teams to improve.

Note that England by appointing Rod Marsh as a selector have this idea in mind.

Cutter

And I'm sure there were those who bemoaned the Windies dominance in the '70's and early '80's.

That said, the fact is that ever since around the mid-'80's (around the time we won our first World Cup) Australia has taken an ultra professional attitude towards cricket. The team has strived to improve itself in every area and is not content to rest on it's laurels.

It was Australia who pioneered the fielding tactics that are commonplace today. It's difficult to believe now, in an era when fielders injure themselves slamming into advertising hoardings, but not all that long ago it was inconceivable to get green on your whites!

Australia's Test tactics (particularly with declarations) has become increasingly aggresive. They will happily declare an innings, leaving their opponents an achievable win target, and hope their bowlers can pressure the batters enough that they make mistakes. Not all that long ago, you wouldn't dream of declaring unless you were absolutely certain you'd at least draw the game.

In short, the rest of the world was content to sit back and play the gentlemanly, amateurish, lazy Sunday afternoon style of game. Australia decided they wanted to win everytime they walked out on the field.

The rest of the world will catch up, they're already taking steps to do so. But if they'd recognised what was happening earlier than they did, and taken steps then to emulate Australia's example, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

One last thought. This sort of thing happens all the time in all sports. Short term, it might be a little damaging, but long term I believe it ultimately makes the sport better as other teams improve so that they can knock the top team off their perch.

Xeluan

One thing that could ruin Australia's run is having senior players staying on well into their 30s. If they are playing well fine however, it could mean that younger players may not get a chance till they themselves are their 30s (Lehmann for example).

Australia I think needs to blood some younger players when the oppurtunity presents itself. I think Shane Watson was one they had their eye on but his bowling let him down. I think Michael Clarke will benefit from the tour especially that he has taken Martyn's place in the one day squad. Though I really think Clarke deserves a crack a test. Not to discredit Maher but such gambles need to be taken.

Bowling wise Lee and Gillespie have shouldered the attack well in McGrath's absence. Hauritz may prove to be a capable offie but another leggie is needed (Cameron White?). MacGill though will last some years. He isn't as "bowled" out as Warney.

Ponting though could ecplipse Waugh as a captain though. He has matured well and when Steve calls it quits will do a great job.

Celsus

No of course not! It's the fact that it's a mind-numbing, slow-paced, formulaic, repetitive game played over several days by ponces in funny outfits that does that. Oh and a math professor couldn't figure out what all those numbers and charts are about.



/end standard complaint about cricket

BigBlue2

That is codswallop. It is not up to Australia to lower their standards, it is up to other teams to raise their own standards.

Indeed. And the reason Australia go for the win is because they have confidence in themselves, both individually and as a team.

As New Zealand proved in 2001/2002 when Australia had to fight like crazy to draw the series. The other team that summer, South Africa, soiled their pants at the very mention of Australia and as a result they got hammered. Australia are not invincible but they are very, very good in all aspects of the game and if you let them psych you out, you will lose.

Harpy

You Aussies may be good at cricket but see how you get on against England at football....

kwigibo

The fact is that most of our current team grew up during the west indian dominance, and Waugh had to play against them. So it seems that all this is likely to accomplish is to spur on the youngsters all over the world to knock off the top dogs in 10 years time.

BigBlue2

Pretty well, I'd say.

kwigibo

I'm almost certain the poms can still probably beat us at darts, and, um, foxhunts or something...

BigBlue2

The 4th Test looked like a contest until Hayden and Langer put on 171 without loss. I'm betting on a 2nd Innings total of around 450 which should be enough for a win.