The Ashes 2006/07: the Sydney Test Thread - Day Four

[Milo]

I don't remember it that way, maybe I'm wrong. I seem to remember they were in dreadful trouble in the first test conceding a big first innings deficit and really could have lost that if it wasn't for a really good batting performance second innings. You might call that easy. The second test they should have lost anyway. The third test I seem to remember they would have lost if it wasn't for Katich coming in at 80-5 and turing the test match around with Langer.

It was very good to see Australia show they were able to win difficult test matches (after losing in India and struggling on their previous tour to Sri Lanka which they did lose)

Sri Lanka away are a joke. I totally agree with you there, but you should not take the Sri Lanka tour so lightly in my opinion.

[draexem]

Originally Posted by Milo

I don't remember it that way, maybe I'm wrong. I seem to remember they were in dreadful trouble in the first test conceding a big first innings deficit and really could have lost that if it wasn't for a really good batting performance second innings.

It always seems to happen that way. I remember in a recent tour of New Zealand when Australia were constantly behind in the first innings, before they dug themselves out of trouble and spanked New Zealand in the 2nd. In fact, it happens fairly frequently. In fact, you may not know this not living in Australia, but what you just said is one of the two most frequently heard phrases said by Australia's opponents over the last 7 or 8 years. The other one being "We really had Australia on the back foot at 6/70, but we just couldn't get the 7th/8th/9th wicket". If Australia was in trouble everytime they've conceded a big first innings lead, it would mean that they'd have been in trouble for the majority of series they've played for the last decade, including games against Bangladesh. Australia play just as hard as they need to, I thought the complete and utter spanking Australia gave Sri lanka in the 2nd innings would have given it away.

Originally Posted by Milo

The second test they should have lost anyway.

The second test was the only close test of the series. I don't think they deserved to lose, though.

Originally Posted by Milo

The third test I seem to remember they would have lost if it wasn't for Katich coming in at 80-5 and turing the test match around with Langer.

Yes, yes, Australia has lots of batsmen capable of standing up, nothing new. Katich is actually considered one of the worst batsmen to represent Australia in the last 7 years.

Originally Posted by Milo

It was very good to see Australia show they were able to win difficult test matches (after losing in India and struggling on their previous tour to Sri Lanka which they did lose)

Yes, back in 1999, you're going back a ways. But then, Ranatunga, kaluwitherana and De Silva are long gone, Vaas is older and mediocre, and Sri Lanka have pretty much descended toa laughing stock.

Originally Posted by Milo

Sri Lanka away are a joke. I totally agree with you there, but you should not take the Sri Lanka tour so lightly in my opinion.

Of course not. However, you should expect to win there, there's no excuse in losing to Sri Lanka as they are now. They have Sangakarra and Jayawardene as capable bats, and they have Murali with the ball. Even Jayasuriya has only managed an average of 20 in his last 13 tests.

[draexem]

Just a little extra point. Australia declared in the 2nd innings of the first test 8 down for 512 (before bowling Sri lanka out for 150 and winning the game by 197). At one stage they were 450 with only 3 wickets down. If they wanted to, they could have batted to 700 easily. It was hardly a contest.

[Milo]

I agree with much of what you say. This was the reason why Australia were so useful. They were able to stand up and fight and somebody would pull them out of trouble. They didn't ALWAYS do it though.

The big difference I see now is that the personnel are different. Gilchrist's ability to turn a test around is getting less and less, Warne's runs (when needed) were often vital. The fact that, in the past, Australia got into trouble and someone stood up is a concern for this team though. Garner, Marshall and Holding often got runs when needed. It didn't mean that Bishop and Ambrose would score when the same problem arose.

I really think that to expect the replacements to show that they are similar cricketers (in ability and spirit) to those retiring is really hoping for the best. You simply can't replace Warne and McGrath. At least it makes for exciting cricket.

[Milo]

Originally Posted by draexem

Just a little extra point. Australia declared in the 2nd innings of the first test 8 down for 512 (before bowling Sri lanka out for 150 and winning the game by 197). At one stage they were 450 with only 3 wickets down. If they wanted to, they could have batted to 700 easily. It was hardly a contest.

They wouldn't have bowled Sri Lanka out in the first innings without Warne from memory. That pitch on days 2-4 was a road and Australia were indebted to Warne that they were still in the game. MacGill was no substitute.

JUST CHECKED. Warne sealed the win in the second innings. I was wrong. He sealed the win. Macgill will not be able to emulate this.

[draexem]

Originally Posted by Milo

The big difference I see now is that the personnel are different. Gilchrist's ability to turn a test around is getting less and less, Warne's runs (when needed) were often vital.

Yeah, Gilchrist will be a big loss, it means that the top order will need to take a little more responsibility and stop throwing away their wicket. Sometimes I think the top order would take the fact that they could bat down to number 10 for granted. However, Clark will take Warne's place in the batting line up and can slog a few, MacGill will take McGrath's spot as Australia's bunny, and Johnson has a FC batting average of 24. So, runs will still be contributed down the order, but they'll miss Gilchrist's innings, definately. Haddin is still more than capable of contributing, with a FC average of high 30's which is acceptable.

Originally Posted by Milo

I really think that to expect the replacements to show that they are similar cricketers (in ability and spirit) to those retiring is really hoping for the best. You simply can't replace Warne and McGrath. At least it makes for exciting cricket.

Warne and McGrath are irreplaceable (Warne much more so then McGrath), but Australia still have some great cricketers coming in, so we're not going to suddenly become a poor side.

Originally Posted by Milo

They wouldn't have bowled Sri Lanka out in the first innings without Warne from memory. That pitch on days 2-4 was a road and Australia were indebted to Warne that they were still in the game. MacGill was no substitute.

3 of Warne's 5 wickets were batsmen 8,10 and 11. Real big contribution there.

Originally Posted by Milo

JUST CHECKED. Warne sealed the win in the second innings. I was wrong. He sealed the win. Macgill will not be able to emulate this.

MacGill took 4 wickets in the second innings. Australia will be fine. What it means is that the pitch was a spinners paradise and Hogg and MacGill will still be able to run through Sri Lanka with few problems. EDITL Granted, not as cheaply if Warne was there, but they should still bowl them out cheaply.

[draexem]

Oh, and Australia's 3-0 victory in Sri lanka was without the services of one Glenn McGrath.

[Milo]

We'll wait and see how Australia get on. I'm not as convinced of the replacements ability as you are. I'm really not expecting Macgill (regardless of his record) to be that good, I'm not sure he can get too many top order batsmen. I remember the talk about Australia's replacements (Bracken and Williams) when India came to Australia and they (along with MacGill) were shown to be far from up to it. During the 2005 Ashes, it was clear that McGrath was missed (Kasprowicz and Gillespie showed they coldn't shoulder the burden), yet somehow we now are expected to believe Tait, Johnson etc will just fit in. I'm not even sure that Clark can lead the attack - much depends on whether Lee can remain consistent.

[draexem]

Originally Posted by Milo

We'll wait and see how Australia get on. I'm not as convinced of the replacements ability as you are. I'm really not expecting Macgill (regardless of his record) to be that good, I'm not sure he can get too many top order batsmen. I remember the talk about Australia's replacements (Bracken and Williams) when India came to Australia and they (along with MacGill) were shown to be far from up to it. During the 2005 Ashes, it was clear that McGrath was missed (Kasprowicz and Gillespie showed they coldn't shoulder the burden), yet somehow we now are expected to believe Tait, Johnson etc will just fit in. I'm not even sure that Clark can lead the attack - much depends on whether Lee can remain consistent.

I'm not hyping up Australia's replacements, I'm attempting to show that they're good enough to beat the 5th best test team at home, that's all. I'm not sure that Australia will have what it takes to beat England at home in 2009, or to beat Pakistan at home in 2008, they'll be tough tours. But to win in Sri Lanka (if they were to play them next year in Sri Lanka), Australia's pace attack, spin duo (MacGill and Hogg) and batting line up should be easily enough.

MacGill's usually fine against top order batsmen. He gets more top order batsmen than Warne does, in my opinion. If you're in doubt, just look up his stats. I mean, his last innings against SA he took 3 batsmen. But then again, SA are questionable against spin so I don't know if that means anything. He's had one bad year in the however many he's played at test level.

And Tait won't need to fit in until Lee retires. And it wasn't so much that Kasprowicz and Gillespie couldn't shoulder the burden, but they were shown to be past it as bowlers. They were getting tonked around with MGrath still there to lead them. (Just before the ASHES tour, Gillespie averaged 50 with the ball in New Zealand). Also, Clark led the pace attack in South Africa with success. But I agree that Johnson will definately not fit right in. He's in for a tough couple of years. I hope he comes through the other side. However, he'll have a bit of a cushy introduction. Since last years ASHES series Lee's averaging 26 with the ball, and Clark is still doing well, so if they keep up that form, Johnson's debut will be easier.