|
|
Post by weststigersbob on Apr 16, 2020 7:43:14 GMT
Turns out we sucked at Brisbabe in the 90s 1990-91: defeated England by 37 runs 1991-92: lost to West Indies by 12 runs 1992-93: lost to West Indies by 7 runs 1993-94: defeated South Africa by 48 runs. 1994-95: defeated Australia A by 34 runs. 1995-96: lost to West Indies by 14 runs. 1996-97: lost to West Indies by 7 wickets. 1997-98- lost to South Africa by 5 wickets. 1998-99- lost to England by 7 runs. 3 won, 7 lost, and one of the three wins was against the B Team. Just poor. During that period though, I think Australia was a very ordinary ODI side. They were poor at the ‘92 WC, and won a couple of close ones in the 96 WC before being hammered on the final. It took Australia literally a decade to move on from tactics that won them the 1987 WC and persisted for years with players whose games were not suited to ODI cricket in the 90’s (Geoff Marsh, Mark Taylor, David Boon, Ian Healy). In the end, it was more the absolute brilliance of certain players that won them games, more so than any tactical nous - not that either Steve Waugh nor Ricky Ponting (or to be fair Australia’s coaches Marsh or Buchanan) were well known for their tactical ability.
|
|
|
|
Post by hoskotafe3 on Apr 16, 2020 10:02:53 GMT
If you look at Australia's heroes in those games it illustrates your pount quite well: Dean Jones' 145 in the 1990 game. In 1991 the game was gone at 8-164 chasing 215 and Peter Taylor (a very under rated ODI player) single handedly dragged the team to needing 13 off 7. 1992 it was Mark Waugh who got Australia within 7. Jones was the hero again in 1993 with 98 against the Saffers. In 1994 it was McGrath with 4 wickets. In 1995 it was Ponting who nearly dragged Australia to a win chasing 231. In 1996 waugh again made a hundred destined to be eclipsed first by Lara and then by Carl Hooper in a successful chase of 284. In 1998 they were just flogged. 1999 was nearly one of those brilliant Michael Bevan rescue missions from 5-48 chasing 140 odd for victory. Always a specialist playing a lone hand.
Personally I found the 90s WSC's far more entertaining than the 00s. Got pretty redundant watching Australia dominate both touring teams every year. Not their fault, but it was quite boring. Turns out best of 5 series are even worse though...
|
|
|
|
Post by weststigersbob on Apr 16, 2020 10:33:24 GMT
I heard until the early 00’s, at home Australia used to always bat first - solely because they believed other sides couldn’t bat under lights because they didn’t bat under lights at home. Over 20 years of tactical brilliance centred on day night cricket. Shockingly, as your table suggests, Australia didn’t do too well in day games (primarily at Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide) even with the advantage sometimes of playing on Sunday day, when their opponents played Friday night. You’d have thought someone would’ve picked up on this....
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Apr 16, 2020 21:44:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Apr 17, 2020 16:56:21 GMT
If you look at Australia's heroes in those games it illustrates your pount quite well: Dean Jones' 145 in the 1990 game. , what a player. So for my Cobbers down under, enjoy - even if he was run out early  > Some more Deano >
|
|
|
|
Post by hoskotafe3 on Apr 17, 2020 18:29:44 GMT
Deano was the easily our greatest ODI batsman of the early 90s before Bevan took his mantle in the late 90s. I don't get into the argument over which one was better as they were completely different players.
He was also a very under rated test batsman. I hear him dismissed as an ODI specialist who "couldn't play test cricket." As if an average of 46 and 11 hundreds in 52 tests isn't a bloody good record.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Apr 17, 2020 20:56:02 GMT
Deano was the easily our greatest ODI batsman of the early 90s before Bevan took his mantle in the late 90s. I don't get into the argument over which one was better as they were completely different players. He was also a very under rated test batsman. I hear him dismissed as an ODI specialist who "couldn't play test cricket." As if an average of 46 and 11 hundreds in 52 tests isn't a bloody good record. I liked Hussey as a cricketer. Easily my fav Aussie cricketer along with Gilchrist. My only regret is that Hussey didn't play 5 more years. If he did in the same form as he played his whole career, 5 more years would have made him into one of the most talked about players ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by weststigersbob on Apr 19, 2020 6:27:20 GMT
Dean Jones - much like Greg Matthews, many in higher places didn’t like his attitude. Mo was a bit “left of centre” so to speak, but Deano wasn’t called FIGJAM for nothing.
Mike Hussey - for years he was an about average Shield batsman for WA. Then something clicked, had a good County season and just went from there. After his debut Test Innings though, I didn’t think he’d have much of a career. The only batsman I’ve ever seen more nervous was Shane Watson nearing a 100.
|
|
|
|
Post by hoskotafe3 on Apr 19, 2020 8:39:15 GMT
I've said with Matthews before that there's surely a reason other than idiocy why a guy who averages 40+ in tests with the bat (playing much of his career at a time when the Aussie batting was, not to put too fine a point on it, absolutely shit house) kept getting picked as a bowling all rounder. And he was well worth an ODI spot long after they stopped picking him too.
|
|
|
|
Post by weststigersbob on Apr 19, 2020 9:55:53 GMT
I've said with Matthews before that there's surely a reason other than idiocy why a guy who averages 40+ in tests with the bat (playing much of his career at a time when the Aussie batting was, not to put too fine a point on it, absolutely shit house) kept getting picked as a bowling all rounder. And he was well worth an ODI spot long after they stopped picking him too. Oh, there was a reason. Matthews liked alternative music, wasn’t a lover of beer and had interests outside of punting and shagging. But his biggest crime was partaking in the smoking of marijuana. To the higher ups, he was a volatile, upsetting hippy. By today’s standards, Mo was positively square....
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on Apr 21, 2020 18:43:42 GMT
Sky Sports has put up the whole of the Stokes/Leach Ashes partnership at Headingley.
Possibly only available in the U.K.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Apr 29, 2020 20:20:43 GMT
So here's the question that I has asked 3 or 4 years back and had gotten a great reply from Salter. If you only consider the period from 1996 to 2001, how would you compare McGrath and Shaun Pollock? Let's stick strictly to their bowling abilities only. hoskotafe3 , hitchcockthelegend, weststigersbob , Carl LaFong |
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on Apr 29, 2020 20:24:28 GMT
So here's the question that I has asked 3 or 4 years back and had gotten a great reply from Salter. If you only consider the period from 1996 to 2001, how would you compare McGrath and Shaun Pollock? Let's stick strictly to their bowling abilities only. hoskotafe3 , hitchcockthelegend , weststigersbob , Carl LaFong To be honest I don’t recall seeing much of Pollock at all. Sorry. Did you see the thread on the England in the 90s quiz?
|
|
|
|
Post by hoskotafe3 on Apr 29, 2020 22:39:54 GMT
When you're in an attack with Allan Donald and fail to beat Australia in 1996-97 or 1997-98 and lose to a pretty bad England team in 1998 that's a pretty big black mark on your record. Carried an average attack with a past his prime Donald and not much else from 1999-01.
Also failed to bowl South Africa to the '99 World Cup where they had far and away the best team. His stats show he was great. My eyes on occasion showed he was great, but if you want to be remembered you either need to be a winner or a statistical freak on a losing team like Lara. He was the best bowler in a team who should have dominated ODI cricket in the late 90s but didn't and also should have knocked off Australia at least once in a test series in that time and didn't, and he needs to be held somewhat accountable for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by weststigersbob on Apr 30, 2020 1:15:35 GMT
Hosko and I have a similar take on Pollock - primarily because we are Aussies and in the period he played RSA smashed everyone, except Australia. His stats say he was a premium all rounder - one of the best of all time actually. But we just never saw it, because of the key losses South Africa always had against Australia,
As for the comparison to McGrath - McGrath was so good he targeted the best batsman in the opposition and except for the ‘05 Ashes, he invariably got his man. I think the only batsman of his era to truly get on top of him was Lara. Even Tendulkar , was wary against McGrath. And poor old Athers, he must have nightmares still about having to face the “Pigeon”
|
|
|
|
Post by hoskotafe3 on Apr 30, 2020 2:34:02 GMT
I didn't adress the McGrath comparision because I don't think there is one. McGrath was one of the finest bowlers tge world has ever seen. Was a handful against any batsman in just about any conditions and would set up an entire test series in the first bowling session.
Pollock was a non entity. Sorry if that seems harsh but Dean Headley, Darren Gough, Allan Donald, Waqar Younis and Shane Bond all left a bigger mark on me in that time period than Pollock. He was just another over hyped bowler who came to Oz every 4 years and got carted. And he didn't fare much better against us at home. 40 wickets at 36. I remember he bowled well at Adelaide in 98 taking 7-87, but where was that in the second innings when the game was there to be won? As a matter of fact that's my critique of Saffer cricket in general pre Graeme Smith. All style but no substance when it mattered. Their tour here in 2001-02 should have been a series for the ages and instead was a complete mismatch and a colossal disappointment. Smith, Steyn and Boucher at least had some fight and mongrel in them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Apr 30, 2020 3:05:33 GMT
I didn't adress the McGrath comparision because I don't think there is one. McGrath was one of the finest bowlers tge world has ever seen. Was a handful against any batsman in just about any conditions and would set up an entire test series in the first bowling session. Pollock was a non entity. Sorry if that seems harsh but Dean Headley, Darren Gough, Allan Donald, Waqar Younis and Shane Bond all left a bigger mark on me in that time period than Pollock. He was just another over hyped bowler who came to Oz every 4 years and got carted. And he didn't fare much better against us at home. 40 wickets at 36. I remember he bowled well at Adelaide in 98 taking 7-87, but where was that in the second innings when the game was there to be won? As a matter of fact that's my critique of Saffer cricket in general pre Graeme Smith. All style but no substance when it mattered. Their tour here in 2001-02 should have been a series for the ages and instead was a complete mismatch and a colossal disappointment. Smith, Steyn and Boucher at least had some fight and mongrel in them. I do think that is a very harsh and unjustified stance on Pollock. Pollock's opponent wise performance is listed below. If you see he averaged between 15-23 against every country except Australia. howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerOpponents.asp?PlayerID=2039#bowlIn my opinion, Pollock was just slightly lesser than McGrath. That was not because of having less talent but because of having less aggression. He was very passive character and that was one of his demerits. But his ability was very similar to that of McGrath. Also, we cannot judge entire profile of a player based on his performance against one single opponent. India would be the gold standard when it comes to playing against spin but Shane Warne averaged 47 against India in Tests and 50+ in ODIs. He will still remain the greatest spinner of all-time. Now when it comes to lack of success SA had compared to what they should have had - I think I agree that Saffers should have won the 99 WC and possibly also 1996 WC. That said, I believe their ODI team underachieved not their Test team. Their test team had good pieces but they lacked an outright world class batsman. I do not believe Cullinan or Gary Kirsten were world class. They were good batsman but just that. Australia on the contrary had Ricky Ponting (among top 3 batsman of his era) and two Waughs who were also in top 10 of the era. The Proteas had to manage with batsmen like Rhodes who were but not exceptional. Yes, Klusener did provide that extra zing to their ODI side and his presence made them the best ODI side and they still failed. So I readily accept the blemish on their ODI side but their Test side was not exactly great. Pollock and Donald made them better than they should have been.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Apr 30, 2020 3:14:22 GMT
Okay, I forgot about Jacques Kallis. Must retract that SAffers didn't have a great batsman. He certainly was a great batsman. But their batting was still a list of average players bar him.
|
|
|
|
Post by hoskotafe3 on Apr 30, 2020 3:26:35 GMT
But what is Pollock's signature moment? When did he ever put his team on his back in a game that mattered like great players do? It's one thing to have a great statistical record and a completely different thing to actually be great against the best opposition on the biggest stages. Against the best team he played against and in World Cups he produced very little and that puts a big asterisk on anything else he may have achieved as far as I'm concerned. He's like a striker who scores 45 goals in Belgium one year and then goes to the EPL and is a good player, but no standout. The gap between what he produced while his team were steam rolling the rest and struggling against the best has to be held against him. Headley and Gough performed well in spite of the performances of their teams, they weren't dragged down by them. You can't tell his career story without that being a huge part of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by hoskotafe3 on Apr 30, 2020 3:31:29 GMT
Jacques Kallis is a good example of a passive player who still looked impressive while his team was usually getting thrashed by us.
|
|
