While I can see my assertion that India are the second best side in the world may be contentious, they beat one of their nearest challengers away, and, in this series, have competed far better than South Africa, England and Sri Lanka - three sides who would like to think they are second best - did with Australia in this series.

India are far from Australia's level, of course, but they have a balanced side with sound strength in depth in most areas (except openers).

__________________
third-umpire.com

Sehwag is younger than most players in the Oz team, including Hussey and Clark. As for the others, excepting Kumble, the rest are all younger than Hayden.

This cracks me up.

Whenever Australia lose , suddenly all this talk about they are going to finally fall down comes up.
Wasn't that supposed to happen in 2005? Or after Warne and McGrath's retirement?

The way I see it , these talk can have any modicum of credibility if Australia lose a series at home and it wont happen in this series. Thanks to Bucknor we are 2-1 up.

India have a great squad but they are quite old. When most of them rise to their level they form a spectacular side but this does not happen often so as much as I respect their side , its absurd to regard them even close to Australia.

The reason why Australia have been so great is not just because of Warne, McGrath, Hayden and Ponting it is because of the quality of the domestic, district and junior systems. Also the Australian lifestyle of kicking the footy and playing cricket as kids. The AIS is also a major reason why Australia has been so great. There are some brilliant young cricketers coming through the ranks at the moment and unless something dramatic happens Australia will still dominate, possibally not as much as they have in the past but they are still a long way ahead of the rest.

__________________
Bill Ponsford - The only one who could play in Bradman’s company and make it a duet.

More than that Q - they have self belief, which sadly is lacking in English cricket - Australia are winners to a large degree because they believe they will win.

Example.
McGrath knew he had Atherton as his bunny, problem for England was that so did Atherton.

Australia have lost one test, all of a sudden they are losers - don't think so: They soon recovered from 2005 which must have hurt.

__________________
Ern

You've arguably just identified this Australian side's prime weakness: what brought about their downfall in 2005 was exactly this attitude - McGrath's brilliance let them get away with refusing to show the England bowlers respect at Lords, but the naive belief that they could win no matter what led to the series-costing decision to bowl first after McGrath was ruled out of the Edgbaston Test... and no other side would have ignored Hussey, Hodge, MacGill and Watson out of some arrogant belief that the established but out of form players could be carried as they might have been against Bangladesh.

The 2005 ashes series would have been a major shock to the Australian's because they wouldnt have even concidered that they had a chance of losing. People may say that is arrogence but I call it confidence and in sport in my opinion there is no difference. If you have the opposition thinking that they are going to lose before they get on the ground you have already won.

__________________
Bill Ponsford - The only one who could play in Bradman’s company and make it a duet.

I understand your point Rachael but I don't agree, if what you say was Australias prime weakness was arrogant overconfidence - then why had they not been exposed before 2005 by a side other than England?.

IMO two factors brought down the mighty Aussie's in 2005, for a start their start players were ageing - and England had a world class eleven players that any side in history IMO would have found hard to beat.

McGrath did get five wickets at Lords, but then again so did Harmison - and it's no real surprise seeing England beat at Lords.

By 2006 Australia had picked themselves of the floor, they wiped the same with England - because they possess two qualities that England don't have.

1) Stength in depth.
2) Self belief.

I rather hoped that Rod Marsh would have got Moores job, and some of that Aussiness might have rubbed of on England.

__________________
Ern

Well try to explain why India, who many tipped to go on to great things after their famous victory over the Aussies in 2001, fell away again?
Why do India have so many ex-captains (or scapegoats if you will) in their current team?

Australia would need to have Taylor, Waugh and Border in the current team to match that feat.

Esprit de corps (team unity) is one of the crucial ingredients in Australia's success, and one that is rarely recognized.It is no co-incidence that the last time that Australia lost a series was in 2005, when their was team was suffering disharmony due to the fallout between Ponting and Warne.

You need a team to have a that works positively towards common goal to win consistently. If a team can only achieve that by being motivated by negative emotions such a revenge, jealosy, resent ect then it will never sustain. Because once that negative energy can not be directed outwards, it will inevitable turn inwards.

Watch the Indian team in the future and compare body language between Australia and India. In particular, watch the reactions if a catch is dropped, a ball is misfielded, or if the team looks like losing, or if a bowler bowls a bad over.

A team that works positively together will support each other, back each other up, give encouragement.
A team that works negatively together will turn on each other, drop their heads and fall silent, start looking for scapegoats to punish.

The same can be seen in the event of success. When a wicket is taken, does the bowler run to his team-mates to share in the success, and thus acknowledge the part the team as a whole played?
Or does he instead run away from his team-mates, or somewhat ignore them to highlight his own individual achievement?

I believe there is a lot of negative energy firing the Indian team at the moment. That will work in the short term while playing Australia, but after that? That negative energy has got to be directed somewhere...

__________________

[quote=Seamer;150136] I agree that this is a chronic problem in Indian cricket. A major unexpected and heroic victory is usually followed by a period of slide into murky depths. India's ODI results in the few years following the unexpected triumph in the 1983 World Cup are proof of this.

There is no easy explanation and a multitude of factors are involved. Going overboard with euphoria after a few victories is certainly a factor; even back in the 80s, things like every player in the World Cup winning team getting a free car or even a house was not uncommon. As a result, the team quickly lost focus and dropped standards.

Another factor is that with a few exceptions a lot of Indian crickets still come from modest backgrounds and the taste of big-time success and the temptation of high-living is too much for some of them. That is why all of see the biggest problem that Indian cricketers have - even in the games that they win: a lack of top physical fitness. I firmly believe that to get to the top and stay there, a team needs a combination of talent, determination and fitness; India have never been short in talent, rather sporadic with determination but sadly lacking in fitness.

That is true with most teams; look at the present West Indian situation. India have certainly improved in the "learning to work together" category in the past few decades. Back on the 60s for example, there were big regional differences among players of the sort that you still see in Caribbean cricket. Thankfully, that is behind us now. The present team does show some bottle - the spirited fightback to win the Perth test after the disasters in the previous game is a good example.