Is Australia Too Good?

The Australian cricket team are as frustrating as they are brilliant. Dominant for as long as many of us can remember, they have surpassed the West Indies of the 80’s and their longevity amazes us all. From Mark Taylor and Steve Waugh’s great sides of the late 90’s and early 2000’s, featuring players such as O’Donnell and Hughes in the attack, Jones and the Waugh brothers batting, to the current Ponting era. Amazingly Waugh’s side’s 16 test winning streak is now under threat just 6 years after it was set. Gone are so many, in are some super players, and improved include the skipper, Ricky Ponting. So we can all sit in amazement and watch the Aussie makeup change, but still remain dominant, almost unbeatable. Or if we support the other test nations, or even the game of cricket, we are reduced to leaning back on our chairs, and muttering to ourselves about how we wish it was the golden years still.

So the burning question on everyone’s tongue is; Are the Aussies too good? By too good, I mean that they are simply so good that action needs to be taken, as no one seems to be able to beat them. For one thing, their upcoming series against India will likely say a lot about just how good they are, India have traditionally matched up well on the Aussies, and are the team that the Australians would want least to be chasing their record against. But after so many wins in a row, many of them comprehensively, against the likes of South Africa, England and Sri Lanka – three very decent sides – can Australia be conquered? Especially at home, they are a formidable outfit.

As I asked before, as good as they are, is there a need for action to be taken? Are they truly just too good that something needs to balance the teams out? John Buchanan seems to think so, ironically just one series after he retired as coach of the team, spearheading them to all but 2 of the tests in the current streak, not to mention all the world cups and other various wins along the way, Buchanan has evidently decided that suddenly, Australia are so far ahead of the competition, that the rules of changing nations need to be relaxed, so that cricket becomes, essentially, a franchise system with the tag, ‘international cricket’ being virtually unnecessary. Personally, this writer feels that Buchanan is missing his old job and the attention, and that his idea is an absurd way to turn cricket into a money game.

Let’s face it, the only think worse than Australia’s dominance is the dominance of money in European soccer. Owners such as Chelsea’s Roman Abramovich, Manchester United’s Malcolm Glazer and Ramon Calderon (of Real Madrid) – to name just 3, could all team up to solve world hunger, poverty and fund the cures for major diseases – but instead their money goes to unbalancing the tables so much that the clubs that have players who actually want to play for their club due to locality are left struggling in lower leagues. If cricket allows itself to become a franchise system, teams such as India who have and make billions of dollars (and the turmoil that they could help solve is much closer to home than the British and Spanish managers) would dominate, leaving other countries in their wake, which was the problem in the first place. Upcoming leagues such as the Indian Premier and Cricket Leagues will emphasize the growing trend at playing for money rather than pride in a club, and perhaps even nation for those banned from participating in the ICL.

To make such a big call, such an important decision, would be fairly premature I believe, and Australia will be changing a lot over the next few years as more veterans bow out, and the search for new youngsters continue. Changing nationality rules would merely create further problems, and do little to solve the current ones. And if all else fails, at least we can see a true dominant team that has been made up of natural, home-grown, ‘organic’ talent.

Enough competition yet, John?

A few weeks ago, John Buchanan was bemoaning the lack of competition being provided by England and New Zealand. Two humbling series defeats later and the outgoing coach is having to make assurances all is well in the Aussie camp. But complacency, injuries and hitherto hidden weaknesses mean that is not the case.

Australia’s primary aim this winter was regaining the Ashes: that they achieved in spectacular fashion. Having beaten England in the arena they were notionally superior in, they inevitably thought they would be similarly subservient in the CB Series. That they were – but, after losing five games out of six, the tourists, helped by some uncharacteristically poor Australian fielding, finally awoke. Momentum finally theirs, they proceeded to upset their hosts in the finals – despite missing at least three first-choice players. A makeshift Australian squad then travelled to New Zealand for the Chapell-Hadlee series – only to suffer their first ever 10-wicket defeat and twice have seemingly impregnable scores overhauled en route to a 3-0 humiliation.

While the return of Ricky Ponting and Adam Gilchrist (albeit only for the Super Eight games) will help, Australia’s aura – and number one ranking – has been eroded in time to give hope to the other seven challengers. Andrew Symonds, Brett Lee and now Matthew Hayden, three pillars of their ODI side, will not be fit for the start of the tournament, and will each almost certainly miss the crunch game against South Africa.

Until they are fit enough to play or are withdrawn from the squad, they will occupy places that could be filled with fit replacements; and, given that squads only comprise 15 men, it would be ludicrous for Australia to keep both the injured trio and Gilchrist in the squad, hence leaving them down to 11 names for the start of the tournament. For Buchanan, it seems that nemesis is following hubris.

Areas of Australian concern:

Openers
Adam Gilchrist and the revitalised Matthew Hayden are a partnership to fear – but both will miss the game against South Africa, while Hayden must be considered a major doubt for the latter stages. Brad Haddin can be explosive but currently only averages 25, while Hayden’s probable replacement, Phil Jaques, has long proved himself as a phenomenal first-class player but has only played 6 ODIs.

Middle-order batting
At the ICC Champions Trophy, which Australia won in such imperious fashion, their middle-order was perhaps the finest in the history of the limited-overs game. Damien Martyn, a wonderful one-day accumulator, was brilliant at number four; he was followed by the adaptable Michael Clarke, the explosive Andrew Symonds and the consummate finisher Michael Hussey.

Martyn, despite his success in that tournament, retired from all cricket in December. If Symonds is out too, their middle-order will suddenly look less convincing. Their best option is probably to play Clarke at four, Hussey at five, Brad Hodge – who has twice scored unbeaten 90s against New Zealand of late but can be susceptible to the short-ball – at six and Shane Watson at seven. It’s still formidable, but lacks the experience and sheer class of four months ago.

The fifth bowler
Shane Watson is primarily a batsman; though the same could be said of Symonds, he is a highly-adaptable and experienced ODI bowler very well-suited to the Caribbean pitches. Watson, though he has much potential, may be expensive in the West Indies.

Brad Hogg
Possibly Australia’s biggest concern. Many countries will play two spinners in the West Indies; Australia may be forced to play none (save for the occasional bowling of Michael Clarke). Hogg is 37 and his idiosyncratic style appears to have been worked out by batsmen of late – he has gone for 5.9 an over in his last five games. Especially without Symonds, Australia would like a front-line spinner – but can they risk getting 20 overs from Hogg, Watson and Clarke?

Fast-bowling
Brett Lee is clearly Australia’s finest ODI bowler, a masterful exponent of the yorker with a superb temperament. He is also a sufficiently feisty batsman to play at eight, should Hogg not be in the side. Without him, Australia will have to rely on Glenn McGrath – a liability in the field of late -, the proven ODI swing of Nathan Bracken and either the much-vaunted but slightly inconsistent Mitchell Johnson or the explosive, volatile gifts of Shaun Tait. Of those, the first two could be exposed if the ball doesn’t swing or seam, while the latter two are both unproven and, as shown in recent games, potentially very expensive. Meanwhile, the probable first-choice replacement, Stuart Clark, lacks variety and control of the white ball – he has gone for five an over his ODI career.

If two from Lee, Symonds and Hayden are ruled out Australia’s World Cup side will look eminently beatable. While the batting remains excellent, serious doubts remain over the bowling attack, particularly bowling second; indeed New Zealand have already scored in excess of 330 batting last against Australia twice this year.

Would this side be good enough to retain the World Cup?

Gilchrist (Haddin for group games)
Jaques
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey
Hodge
Watson
Two from Hogg, Tait & Johnson

Bracken
McGrath