Disagree totally about the 86-7 side, they were a shambles and were beaten by almost everyone. Great on paper, but they didn't gel at all. A few great changes, which were needed apparently because of attitude problems, and starting to play like a team turned them round massively for .89 the rest is history. Our side wasn't great either, Beefy was very much in his portly state, People like Richards and Small never had great careers other then that series. Yet we were well led and performed well.
Anyway this Oz side is better then 82-3, by miles and we managed to **** that one up. Denigrating this achievement isn't really necessary IMHO
I'd argue that there weren't really great changes.
Most of that Aussie team in 86 - 87 ended up playing significant roles in future Ashes victories. They had Border, Dean Jones, Boon, Marsh, Steve Waugh as batsman. And bowlers like Merv, McDermott, Bruce Reid, Lawson.
The only significant changes in '89 were Mark Taylor and the return of Alderman who'd done well in English conditions in '81.
And Border toughening up (Captain Grumpy).
The thing about the 86 - 87 Ashes is that neither team was good enough to win a series against West Indies, who were the best team in the world. And Pakistan were probably ahead of both England and Australia as well.
Whereas now, there isn't a stand out dominant team like the West Indies in the 80s or the Aussies in the 90s/00s.
Disagree totally about the 86-7 side, they were a shambles and were beaten by almost everyone. Great on paper, but they didn't gel at all. A few great changes, which were needed apparently because of attitude problems, and starting to play like a team turned them round massively for .89 the rest is history. Our side wasn't great either, Beefy was very much in his portly state, People like Richards and Small never had great careers other then that series. Yet we were well led and performed well.
Anyway this Oz side is better then 82-3, by miles and we managed to **** that one up. Denigrating this achievement isn't really necessary IMHO
Remember that England had been blackwashed 5 - 0 in early '86 and then managed to lose series to both New Zealand and India in the summer of '86.
I'd argue that there weren't really great changes.
Most of that Aussie team in 86 - 87 ended up playing significant roles in future Ashes victories. They had Border, Dean Jones, Boon, Marsh, Steve Waugh as batsman. And bowlers like Merv, McDermott, Bruce Reid, Lawson.
The only significant changes in '89 were Mark Taylor and the return of Alderman who'd done well in English conditions in '81.
And Border toughening up (Captain Grumpy).
The thing about the 86 - 87 Ashes is that neither team was good enough to win a series against West Indies, who were the best team in the world. And Pakistan were probably ahead of both England and Australia as well.
Whereas now, there isn't a stand out dominant team like the West Indies in the 80s or the Aussies in the 90s/00s.
I think that this cycle of being terrible-good-great-world champions-terrible-good etc... is a common occurance in sport, especially English sport. England and australian cricket have both experienced it over the decades. England's rugby team experience the same. It's only England's football team that never seem to follow the pattern but I like professional football is a different entity compared to other sports.
Disagree totally about the 86-7 side, they were a shambles and were beaten by almost everyone. Great on paper, but they didn't gel at all. A few great changes, which were needed apparently because of attitude problems, and starting to play like a team turned them round massively for .89 the rest is history. Our side wasn't great either, Beefy was very much in his portly state, People like Richards and Small never had great careers other then that series. Yet we were well led and performed well.
Anyway this Oz side is better then 82-3, by miles and we managed to **** that one up. Denigrating this achievement isn't really necessary IMHO
This ozzie team has less potential than the 86-7 vintage which produced the nuclei of the #1 world beating team.
Our side went downhill thereafter until Gooch got a grip on things. History.
So I'll get excited if/when we get to the 50 over WC final. :cool:
Remember that England had been blackwashed 5 - 0 in early '86 and then managed to lose series to both New Zealand and India in the summer of '86.
I'd argue that there weren't really great changes.
Most of that Aussie team in 86 - 87 ended up playing significant roles in future Ashes victories. They had Border, Dean Jones, Boon, Marsh, Steve Waugh as batsman. And bowlers like Merv, McDermott, Bruce Reid, Lawson.
The only significant changes in '89 were Mark Taylor and the return of Alderman who'd done well in English conditions in '81.
And Border toughening up (Captain Grumpy).
The thing about the 86 - 87 Ashes is that neither team was good enough to win a series against West Indies, who were the best team in the world. And Pakistan were probably ahead of both England and Australia as well.
Whereas now, there isn't a stand out dominant team like the West Indies in the 80s or the Aussies in the 90s/00s.
Well Dean Jones was one of those players ditched for attitude problems, Boon improved when he was at 3, and Waugh was a shadow of himself at the time, didn't score a ton for a while at the start of his career, it wasa nucleus, but they were a bit poor, getting beaten by the likes of New Zealand, and not able to beat India at home.
BTW couldn't care less if we get to a 40-over WC final, means as much as the 20/20, to me.
Well Dean Jones was one of those players ditched for attitude problems, Boon improved when he was at 3, and Waugh was a shadow of himself at the time, didn't score a ton for a while at the start of his career, it wasa nucleus, but they were a bit poor, getting beaten by the likes of New Zealand, and not able to beat India at home.
BTW couldn't care less if we get to a 40-over WC final, means as much as the 20/20, to me.
I suppose Jones didn't do himself any favours by giving himself the nickname 'The Legend' Aren't you supposed to be given a nickname by someone else.
They were beaten at home by New Zealand but that was a team featuring the great Richard Hadlee (I think he got 9 in an innings in one match).
They did struggle to beat India at home but they'd also managed to tie a test in India with Jones getting a double hundred.
Waugh did score a few nineties against the great Windies team some months before the Ashes. I suppose he was more of an all rounder in that Ashes series and I think he did score some fifties in 86/87 (?).
What the Aussies did, was identify a group of players and stick with them. They'd seen something.
Watching the highlights of 86/87 on ESPN Classic, it's amazing how many Aussie wickets were thrown away at Melbourne - you've got Botham with a belly and a bad back managing to get wickets with average bowling.:eek:
I suppose Jones didn't do himself any favours by giving himself the nickname 'The Legend' Aren't you supposed to be given a nickname by someone else.
They were beaten at home by New Zealand but that was a team featuring the great Richard Hadlee (I think he got 9 in an innings in one match).
They did struggle to beat India at home but they'd also managed to tie a test in India with Jones getting a double hundred.
Waugh did score a few nineties against the great Windies team some months before the Ashes. I suppose he was more of an all rounder in that Ashes series and I think he did score some fifties in 86/87 (?).
What the Aussies did, was identify a group of players and stick with them. They'd seen something.
Watching the highlights of 86/87 on ESPN Classic, it's amazing how many Aussie wickets were thrown away at Melbourne - you've got Botham with a belly and a bad back managing to get wickets with average bowling.:eek:
Agree with all you say really, it's a similar thing that England have done now, but it was a work in progress at the time, and they weren't very good.
Yeah, that five-for has to be one of the great golden-arm performances, quite hilarious, Gladstone didn't bowl that much better for his five.
Agree with all you say really, it's a similar thing that England have done now, but it was a work in progress at the time, and they weren't very good.
Yeah, that five-for has to be one of the great golden-arm performances, quite hilarious, Gladstone didn't bowl that much better for his five.
When I was a youngster, I could never understand why England didn't build on that series win. But maybe for some players: Small, Athey, Richards, that was their peak.
Botham never scored another century, Gatting never won another test match.
Enjoy your time in the sun England. We will be back. (Let's hope it's sooner rather later).;)
I disagree. You only have a small population so I find it unlikely that you will ever reach the heights of the 90's and early 2000's. Plus interest in cricket is declining in Australia. I hope England dominate the next 10-20 years but I can't see it. I think India will be the dominant team.
there was a young australian spinner who played a few games within the last year i think but has since disappeared but cant think of his name any help guys? it was a funny sounding name i think.
there was a young australian spinner who played a few games within the last year i think but has since disappeared but cant think of his name any help guys? it was a funny sounding name i think.
Jason Krejza?
Though he was a couple of years back.
Nathan Hauritz has been more of regular so perhaps him?
I disagree. You only have a small population so I find it unlikely that you will ever reach the heights of the 90's and early 2000's. Plus interest in cricket is declining in Australia. I hope England dominate the next 10-20 years but I can't see it. I think India will be the dominant team.
Yes we do have a small population and that makes it so great when we beat nations with much larger populations. Australian cricket is in a bit of a funk ATM after dominating the cricket world for years, (it really was boring winning ALL the time) we now have come back to the pack and we lose some games. :)Have the English team been knighted yet.:p
Clarke will be under real pressure if he's skipper as he's been struggling for runs. Although he's been seen as the heir apparant for a while now there's been suggestions the job would go to Brad Haddin.
Lol, punters finger hurts, Kawaja bats at 3 and Doug the rug is recalled. Their selectors have given up even trying to pick a decent side. I can't wait to see if they have the bottle to play their spinner on what is usually a turner ??
I'd be tempted for us to drop Colly and play Monty assuming Sydney is the usual turner.
I disagree. You only have a small population so I find it unlikely that you will ever reach the heights of the 90's and early 2000's. Plus interest in cricket is declining in Australia. I hope England dominate the next 10-20 years but I can't see it. I think India will be the dominant team.
But they had a smaller population when they were winning the Ashes in the sixties!
I don't buy this population argument - otherwise England, with a larger population, should've won more Ashes series.
If he's not in the Aussie World Cup Squad (don't know the feeling there) I'd expect a quiet press release shortly after the end of the Tournament.
I think this Aussie team is better than the 86/87 one.
A number of players in that team ‘came good’ but it would be interesting to read assessments of them (and others in the team who disappeared) in 1986 and 1990.
Steve Waugh had played a number of Tests but had a very poor record. At that time you’d have said he was a fill in medium pace bowler who got a few runs now and then. Marsh and Boon had been around a while but done nothing. Greg Matthews might get few runs but his bowling was moderate (actually, that stayed the same). Merv Hughes looked a very ordinary pace bowler at that time.
Of that team Greg Ritchie, Chris Matthews and Bruce Reid were amongst those thought likely to be top players.
The benefit then, over now, that it was a much younger team and had time to grow.
The current team, certainly in the batting, has good record but is ageing badly – and that’s the major issue.
I very much doubt Ponting, Hussey and Katich will be around for the 2013 Ashes. Clarke has a recurrent back problem that could easily see him retiring earlier than he otherwise might (like what happened with Atherton). Hughes has obvious technical issues – a hopeful Test batsman who struggles to play the lifting ball into the ribs (as he does) may be in for a short career. The top 5 in that series could be anything.......
Haddin is 33 – Paine is in place though.
Bowling is the huge issue with this team. Hilfenhaus and Siddle are, to my mind decent ‘English’ style seamers – but ours are better. Johnson, well he bowls superbly every few tests but otherwise is awful. He can’t be expected to play much in that case. Harris – looked decent but 31 and injury prone. Young seamers – Peter George and not much else that stands out.
Spinners – . Hauritz is their best one but no more than steady (think Peter Such – but maybe not quite as good) and anyway recently threw the toys big style. Someone mentioned Krejza – he played in one the leagues in the south of England not that long ago. I understand it was a surprise to players in that League when he made the Test team. Smith is a net bowler at the moment.
My Aussie contacts have been saying for a while that they were worried as to the players coming through in all facets. Not a great crop. Look at some who have come to County Cricket recently and been poor (ask Worcestershire about Doug the Rug’s stint – and prepare for strong language - or Gloucestershire about a couple they were told were really good in the 2009 season:eek:).
England on the other hand:
Firstly we have a strong and wise selector/team management group. They have been prepared to identify young talent before they were quite ready but elevate them and let them develop at the top level (Cook, Broad, Finn, maybe Morgan) and don’t get fooled by a poor run of form. They are prepared to accept ‘characters’ with talent (KP, Swann) who, in the past may have ruffled feathers and not ‘played like we did in the old days’ (cough ..... Ray Illingworth .....cough).
I wouldn’t be surprised if they ‘stand down’ Collingwood this summer (still in the OD squad and ready if needed for the Test side). Morgan may be next on the block although I’m still not quite sure of him in the longer form. I might like Hildreth of Somerset, and don’t be shocked to see Bopara in the frame – he’s a talent though maybe not yet a Test no 3. The likes of Denly and Lyth are certainly talented as are a host of younger players. Stokes, Vince, Hales, Taylor, Bairstow, Buttler and Northeast provide an impressive crop all around 20 years old.
Only Tremlett and Anderson are even near 30 amongst the quicks. Finn may now be brought along a little slower under Fraser’s wing at county level which is not a bad thing and I suspect in a couple of years will be a very fine bowler. Broad will just get better in all areas of the game (he’s a fine bowler now – and with a little luck could have taken 8+ wickets in Australia before the injury). I’ve said on here before that Bresnan is underrated. He can swing and cut the ball either way and bowls at a pretty decent pace. He is also the kind of bowler a captain loves as will put in the hard spells. Amjad looks promising and likes of Woakes & Harris are developing nicely – if one of them could get their batting to “Test number 7” standard I’d be very happy.
Swann, Monty and Rashid - hopefully putting the requested work in - give plenty of depth in the spin department.
I can’t recall in nearly 40 years of watching the game a time when England had as much strength, depth and potential.
Lol, punters finger hurts, Kawaja bats at 3 and Doug the rug is recalled. Their selectors have given up even trying to pick a decent side. I can't wait to see if they have the bottle to play their spinner on what is usually a turner ??
I'd be tempted for us to drop Colly and play Monty assuming Sydney is the usual turner.
Their selections are so conservative, they must have someone in better form than Bolly surely ?
Could Flo' and co. be that decisive ? I'd be surprised if they pick Monty unless the pitch resembles something subcontinent.
Comments
I'd argue that there weren't really great changes.
Most of that Aussie team in 86 - 87 ended up playing significant roles in future Ashes victories. They had Border, Dean Jones, Boon, Marsh, Steve Waugh as batsman. And bowlers like Merv, McDermott, Bruce Reid, Lawson.
The only significant changes in '89 were Mark Taylor and the return of Alderman who'd done well in English conditions in '81.
And Border toughening up (Captain Grumpy).
The thing about the 86 - 87 Ashes is that neither team was good enough to win a series against West Indies, who were the best team in the world. And Pakistan were probably ahead of both England and Australia as well.
Whereas now, there isn't a stand out dominant team like the West Indies in the 80s or the Aussies in the 90s/00s.
Remember that England had been blackwashed 5 - 0 in early '86 and then managed to lose series to both New Zealand and India in the summer of '86.
I'd argue that there weren't really great changes.
Most of that Aussie team in 86 - 87 ended up playing significant roles in future Ashes victories. They had Border, Dean Jones, Boon, Marsh, Steve Waugh as batsman. And bowlers like Merv, McDermott, Bruce Reid, Lawson.
The only significant changes in '89 were Mark Taylor and the return of Alderman who'd done well in English conditions in '81.
And Border toughening up (Captain Grumpy).
The thing about the 86 - 87 Ashes is that neither team was good enough to win a series against West Indies, who were the best team in the world. And Pakistan were probably ahead of both England and Australia as well.
Whereas now, there isn't a stand out dominant team like the West Indies in the 80s or the Aussies in the 90s/00s.
This ozzie team has less potential than the 86-7 vintage which produced the nuclei of the #1 world beating team.
Our side went downhill thereafter until Gooch got a grip on things. History.
So I'll get excited if/when we get to the 50 over WC final. :cool:
when he left, the bowling looked slightly toothless. what happened to stuart clarke? a mcgrath replica
Well Dean Jones was one of those players ditched for attitude problems, Boon improved when he was at 3, and Waugh was a shadow of himself at the time, didn't score a ton for a while at the start of his career, it wasa nucleus, but they were a bit poor, getting beaten by the likes of New Zealand, and not able to beat India at home.
BTW couldn't care less if we get to a 40-over WC final, means as much as the 20/20, to me.
I suppose Jones didn't do himself any favours by giving himself the nickname 'The Legend'
They were beaten at home by New Zealand but that was a team featuring the great Richard Hadlee (I think he got 9 in an innings in one match).
They did struggle to beat India at home but they'd also managed to tie a test in India with Jones getting a double hundred.
Waugh did score a few nineties against the great Windies team some months before the Ashes. I suppose he was more of an all rounder in that Ashes series and I think he did score some fifties in 86/87 (?).
What the Aussies did, was identify a group of players and stick with them. They'd seen something.
Watching the highlights of 86/87 on ESPN Classic, it's amazing how many Aussie wickets were thrown away at Melbourne - you've got Botham with a belly and a bad back managing to get wickets with average bowling.:eek:
Agree with all you say really, it's a similar thing that England have done now, but it was a work in progress at the time, and they weren't very good.
Yeah, that five-for has to be one of the great golden-arm performances, quite hilarious, Gladstone didn't bowl that much better for his five.
When I was a youngster, I could never understand why England didn't build on that series win. But maybe for some players: Small, Athey, Richards, that was their peak.
Botham never scored another century, Gatting never won another test match.
http://celebheaven.freepowerboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=123&t=551
.
I disagree. You only have a small population so I find it unlikely that you will ever reach the heights of the 90's and early 2000's. Plus interest in cricket is declining in Australia. I hope England dominate the next 10-20 years but I can't see it. I think India will be the dominant team.
Damn, looks like they might get someone in might be able to bat.
Jason Krejza?
Though he was a couple of years back.
Nathan Hauritz has been more of regular so perhaps him?
Yes we do have a small population and that makes it so great when we beat nations with much larger populations. Australian cricket is in a bit of a funk ATM after dominating the cricket world for years, (it really was boring winning ALL the time) we now have come back to the pack and we lose some games. :)Have the English team been knighted yet.:p
I'd be tempted for us to drop Colly and play Monty assuming Sydney is the usual turner.
But they had a smaller population when they were winning the Ashes in the sixties!
I don't buy this population argument - otherwise England, with a larger population, should've won more Ashes series.
Do you reckon it's his doing, or Cricket Australia quietly shifting him aside without having to sack him during an Ashes series?
What's the betting that sometime between January and August (when Aus play their next Test series) Ponting will "decide" to retire?
I think this Aussie team is better than the 86/87 one.
A number of players in that team ‘came good’ but it would be interesting to read assessments of them (and others in the team who disappeared) in 1986 and 1990.
Steve Waugh had played a number of Tests but had a very poor record. At that time you’d have said he was a fill in medium pace bowler who got a few runs now and then. Marsh and Boon had been around a while but done nothing. Greg Matthews might get few runs but his bowling was moderate (actually, that stayed the same). Merv Hughes looked a very ordinary pace bowler at that time.
Of that team Greg Ritchie, Chris Matthews and Bruce Reid were amongst those thought likely to be top players.
The benefit then, over now, that it was a much younger team and had time to grow.
The current team, certainly in the batting, has good record but is ageing badly – and that’s the major issue.
I very much doubt Ponting, Hussey and Katich will be around for the 2013 Ashes. Clarke has a recurrent back problem that could easily see him retiring earlier than he otherwise might (like what happened with Atherton). Hughes has obvious technical issues – a hopeful Test batsman who struggles to play the lifting ball into the ribs (as he does) may be in for a short career. The top 5 in that series could be anything.......
Haddin is 33 – Paine is in place though.
Bowling is the huge issue with this team. Hilfenhaus and Siddle are, to my mind decent ‘English’ style seamers – but ours are better. Johnson, well he bowls superbly every few tests but otherwise is awful. He can’t be expected to play much in that case. Harris – looked decent but 31 and injury prone. Young seamers – Peter George and not much else that stands out.
Spinners –
My Aussie contacts have been saying for a while that they were worried as to the players coming through in all facets. Not a great crop. Look at some who have come to County Cricket recently and been poor (ask Worcestershire about Doug the Rug’s stint – and prepare for strong language - or Gloucestershire about a couple they were told were really good in the 2009 season:eek:).
England on the other hand:
Firstly we have a strong and wise selector/team management group. They have been prepared to identify young talent before they were quite ready but elevate them and let them develop at the top level (Cook, Broad, Finn, maybe Morgan) and don’t get fooled by a poor run of form. They are prepared to accept ‘characters’ with talent (KP, Swann) who, in the past may have ruffled feathers and not ‘played like we did in the old days’ (cough ..... Ray Illingworth .....cough).
I wouldn’t be surprised if they ‘stand down’ Collingwood this summer (still in the OD squad and ready if needed for the Test side). Morgan may be next on the block although I’m still not quite sure of him in the longer form. I might like Hildreth of Somerset, and don’t be shocked to see Bopara in the frame – he’s a talent though maybe not yet a Test no 3. The likes of Denly and Lyth are certainly talented as are a host of younger players. Stokes, Vince, Hales, Taylor, Bairstow, Buttler and Northeast provide an impressive crop all around 20 years old.
Only Tremlett and Anderson are even near 30 amongst the quicks. Finn may now be brought along a little slower under Fraser’s wing at county level which is not a bad thing and I suspect in a couple of years will be a very fine bowler. Broad will just get better in all areas of the game (he’s a fine bowler now – and with a little luck could have taken 8+ wickets in Australia before the injury). I’ve said on here before that Bresnan is underrated. He can swing and cut the ball either way and bowls at a pretty decent pace. He is also the kind of bowler a captain loves as will put in the hard spells. Amjad looks promising and likes of Woakes & Harris are developing nicely – if one of them could get their batting to “Test number 7” standard I’d be very happy.
Swann, Monty and Rashid - hopefully putting the requested work in - give plenty of depth in the spin department.
I can’t recall in nearly 40 years of watching the game a time when England had as much strength, depth and potential.
Their selections are so conservative, they must have someone in better form than Bolly surely ?
Could Flo' and co. be that decisive ? I'd be surprised if they pick Monty unless the pitch resembles something subcontinent.
You cant take away my right to state it.