Australian Batting vs English Batting

[Cliff-UK]

re aussie batsmen - are they great or have they been exposed as flawed after all.

Originally Posted by Seamer

I think the series has to go to it's full conclusion before we can say that really. As i said, we should wait for the full series to run it's course before drawing hasty conclusions or the batsmen we wrote off may end making us look rather silly.

that's all very well, mate. You're perfectly right - but, well, we like uninformed speculation, don't we? it's the best kind. and speculation about the aussie batsmen's prowess is amusing. At least it is for us who've been on the receiving end for so long.

[Beny]

Aussie batsmen have proven themselves against the same bowling attacks as the english batsmen have faced... i.e if the Aussies are overated with averages of 50+, what does that make the English batsmen who have averages of 35-46, not including Strauss and Bell.

[Cliff-UK]

Originally Posted by Beny

Aussie batsmen have proven themselves against the same bowling attacks as the english batsmen have faced... i.e if the Aussies are overated with averages of 50+, what does that make the English batsmen who have averages of 35-46, not including Strauss and Bell.

Yeah, I agree - but the argument is not that the Australian batsmen are better than the English. It is are they great or not. If you look back through the thread, I ask whether their averages are artificially high because of the fact the bowling standards have been poor. Basically, taking up kim Hugfhes' point in the Australian newspaper, I believe.
Allan Border and Viv Richards were greats and averaagfewd 50+ are these boys just as good.

Also, it doesn't necessarily correspond that the same can be said for other test playing countries - they HAVE had to play world class bowlers over the past few years - Australian ones.

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Cliff-UK

Yeah, I agree - but the argument is not that the Australian batsmen are better than the English. It is are they great or not. If you look back through the thread, I ask whether their averages are artificially high because of the fact the bowling standards have been poor. .

On this point i can see what you are getting at Cliff. Hayden's 380 vs a weak Zimbabwea obviously artificialy boosts a guys average. But so does Bell's 200 runs not out vs Bangledesh. And the tiny fields of the sub-continent inflates the Indians batting averages. Averages in themselves are pretty meaningless and do not tell the full story ever.
So on this point i agree
But i do not agree on the Aussie batsmen being over-rated because their record has been compiled against all nations both home and away (save Bangledesh) and all of them have been winners in the process. To say the Aussie batsmen are over-rated is in fact selling the English bowlers short. They have not allowed the Aussies to reach their potential because they are at the top of their game, have succesfully utitised helpful bowling conditions and have employed good tactics to expose weaknesses - which ALL batsmen have to a certain degree.
The reason i say we have to wait to the end of the series is because all the current Aussie bats have had to deal with situations like this in the past and have overcome them. If they cannot overcome them and lose the series, i would still not say they were over rated. I would rather say that the English bowlers have been under-rated and that the Aussie bats finally met their match, but this would not detract from their past performances in my mind

[Cliff-UK]

Originally Posted by Seamer

I would rather say that the English bowlers have been under-rated and that the Aussie bats finally met their match, but this would not detract from their past performances in my mind

I tend to think the Aussie powers are fading - only the perspective of a few years will kake the view cleaer on thesethings. it's too early to say whether the English bowlers turn out to be great. Though Richie Richardon in the papers here yesterday compared them to Holding and Roberts, Garmer, Ambrose and Walsh.
I suppose none of us really knows. As they say they can only play against the players around at the time.

Any batsmen in a formidable team may do better than if he was in a poor one. I guess we can say the same of Viv Richards - what a team he was in. Would he have been quite as effective playing for England? I had never reconsidered the small pitches argument on the Asian batsmen. They are beautiful bats but that little cricket ground factor may add five or six to their averages.

(I suppose I see Allan Border over 120 or more tests in what for a long time was a poor side - of course in developed into the great side - as the true all-time great of the recent Aussie past. I think he and Greg Chappell are just a notch or two higher than the current bunch. and that is not to detract from the current Aussie side. Personally, maybe it was cos i was a boy at the time and cricket was new to me, but Greg Chappell - especially on the leg side was just sheer grace and class.)

[greg]

It will be interesting to see what happens to the Aussie batting line up over the next couple of years because they will need to make changes before the Ashes battle in Australia.If England's attack is causing so many problems now then what will happen when the Aussies are all 2 years older and a bit slower on their feet?I'm not saying they need to change it entirely but certainly 2 names spring to mind as players who could struggle again (Hayden,Katich).

[Cliff-UK]

Originally Posted by greg

It will be interesting to see what happens to the Aussie batting line up over the next couple of years because they will need to make changes before the Ashes battle in Australia.If England's attack is causing so many problems now then what will happen when the Aussies are all 2 years older and a bit slower on their feet?.

Absolutely - Basically our team will be two years better, and their's will be two years worse. And ours is already better. I think the Aussies now know that. I think in this series, their swagger has gone, they have lost their confidence, they know England are better. and they're gonna lose cos they think they half expect to.

[greg]

I wouldn't say that England are a better side than Australia yet.They could be but the Aussies will come back hard in the last 2 games and i think the series will be drawn 2-2.Whatever happens the Aussies know they underestimated England and they also know they will have a heck of a fight on in Australia in 2 years time.

[Cliff-UK]

Originally Posted by greg

I wouldn't say that England are a better side than Australia yet.They could be but the Aussies will come back hard in the last 2 games and i think the series will be drawn 2-2.Whatever happens the Aussies know they underestimated England and they also know they will have a heck of a fight on in Australia in 2 years time.

Yeah - I think I'm a bit excited perhaps. But I don't mind sticking my neck out. I thoguth beforeethe serries began England would win 3-1.
Of course the Aussies are an incredible team. And it remains a pleasure to watch them. But I do think they've now lost at least some confidence. And at this level, at this incredible intensity, confidence is vital. England have it.

In two years' time, I think the pendulum will have swung further. The Australians will always produce good cricketers. But the new crop should already be in the team, and with the exception of Clarke, it doesn't seem to be. What un-Australian conservatism in not picking Hussey. And keeping Gillespie in the team and Tait out of it for so long. Gilespie has been poor since day one of their tour.

It is utterly fascinating cricket. Wonderful sport. A battle of wills and skills. A clash of the titans. This is the best series for decades. Possibly ever.

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by greg

It will be interesting to see what happens to the Aussie batting line up over the next couple of years because they will need to make changes before the Ashes battle in Australia.

For sure greg. The Aussies have been a victim of their own success which is why we have such an aging side. It is very hard to drop players when the side is winning well and the players are succeeding. The challenge that England is throwing up, ironically, is perhaps what will save Australia from a massive fall in the future. The cracks are appearing but fortunately we have quality in the wings - we just needed a pretext to make the change and now we have it.
We actually have good options to replace most of the current crop and i look forward to the next few years. We will drop back to the pack but will still be very competitive. Warne will be impossible to replace, but unless he gets injured, he will likely still be playing and bowling well in two years. McGrath will be hard to replace, but not irreplacable. We have a better option to Gilchrist in Haddin and i hope to see Gilchrist hand the gloves up before the Ashes down under. The rest can be easily replaced with younger, better options. The end of this generation of players will not mean the end of Australia being at the top. The first and most important change we have to make is the selection panel.