The last time Australia lost six Test matches in a row, I was still a little six year old boy who had just moved back from Venezuela to India and hadn't the slightest clue as to what cricket was all about. My first proper exposure to the game (and to the Australian team) came during the World Cup in India in 1987 when television coverage was still fairly primitive and the teams still played one-day cricket in whites. Nevertheless, I do remember the excitement around the fact that India were defending champions at home was quite palpable and their first group match against the Aussies was quite the cliffhanger. And from that day on, my image of the men from down under was always one of fighters, who wouldn't concede defeat until the scoreboard confirmed it. And over the next 25 years, there was rarely an occasion when they belied that image.
The last six months (and six Test matches) though has changed all that. Ever since the third day of the Chennai Test when Dhoni battered them for a double hundred, the belief seems to have been slowly sucked away from Clarke's men and they've gone from one disaster to another. Whether Lord's proves to be the low point or not only time will tell but the fact that at this point a 0-5 wipeout is certainly not out of the question. Were that to happen, it would be 9 Test defeats in a row and that's nearly Bangladesh territory. How did it come to this though? Since their phenomenal rise in the Ashes of 1989, there have been times when Australia have been beaten soundly (India in 1998, South Africa in 2008/09, England again in the last Ashes) but they have always bounced back and put in good performances after the defeats. This time though, there is a feeling around the team that things are near hopeless and there is no light at the end of the tunnel. At this point, a 1-3 result for this series (which would mean a 1-1 result in the next three Tests) would probably be considered a great result for Clarke and his team which in itself illustrates the extent to which they have fallen. Several theories have been advanced as to the reasons for Australian cricket's demise ranging from poor pitches to the (very original) primacy of T20 and sometimes a combination of these and more, but in my opinion the simple reality is that when you run out of quality cricketers your team runs out of quality. Clarke aside, nearly every single batsman in this squad has a problem with either technique (Hughes, Smith, Warner, Haddin), or temperament (Khawaja, Cowan, Rogers, Wade), or in some cases both (Watson). Since Clarke took over full time as captain, Australia have batted 47 times and in only 12 instances have they scored more than 400 runs in an innings. And just three of those 400+ scores have been achieved without either a Clarke or Hussey hundred. And even in two of those three, Clarke still had scores of 73 and 50. Since the first innings of the aforementioned Chennai Test match, Clarke has averaged 28.67 in nine innings (he didn't play one match due to his bad back) and Australia have been repeatedly pummeled. The trend of Australian batsmen failing to kick off after a promising start to their careers (Hughes, Watson, Warner, and Marsh to name a few) is probably matched only by a similar one for Indian seamers. It is not insurmountable though as has been shown by every one of Hayden, Langer, Martyn, Katich, and even Waugh and Ponting who all came back strongly after being dropped or technically found out. A firmer hand in selection is needed though, similar to what Sandeep Patil and co. have managed to do for India after a similar series of away thrashings. Again, since Clarke has taken over as captain, in 26 matches the Australians have used 30 different players. That's nearly one incremental change every game. And 11 of those players have played three matches or fewer. An unstable team is never a successful one and the endless changing has meant that every player is always playing for his position rather than pulling together in one direction for the team.
And they don't need to look far to see the benefits of consistency and constancy in selection. England have had their ups and downs in the last few years but its mainly been up and a large driver of that has been the fact that the core of their line-up has been stable and steady. More on England later though at the end of the series when I think it'll be easier to pass a verdict on where they stand. For now the big thing that stands out for me is that for years, Australia have been the hard as nails side fighting back from every tricky position but now suddenly England are the ones that appear to have the belief that they can turn things around in all situations. Whether this Oz softness will only be short-term or whether it will take years (like it has for the West Indies with still no signs of success) is going to be a fascinating story to follow.
The last six months (and six Test matches) though has changed all that. Ever since the third day of the Chennai Test when Dhoni battered them for a double hundred, the belief seems to have been slowly sucked away from Clarke's men and they've gone from one disaster to another. Whether Lord's proves to be the low point or not only time will tell but the fact that at this point a 0-5 wipeout is certainly not out of the question. Were that to happen, it would be 9 Test defeats in a row and that's nearly Bangladesh territory. How did it come to this though? Since their phenomenal rise in the Ashes of 1989, there have been times when Australia have been beaten soundly (India in 1998, South Africa in 2008/09, England again in the last Ashes) but they have always bounced back and put in good performances after the defeats. This time though, there is a feeling around the team that things are near hopeless and there is no light at the end of the tunnel. At this point, a 1-3 result for this series (which would mean a 1-1 result in the next three Tests) would probably be considered a great result for Clarke and his team which in itself illustrates the extent to which they have fallen. Several theories have been advanced as to the reasons for Australian cricket's demise ranging from poor pitches to the (very original) primacy of T20 and sometimes a combination of these and more, but in my opinion the simple reality is that when you run out of quality cricketers your team runs out of quality. Clarke aside, nearly every single batsman in this squad has a problem with either technique (Hughes, Smith, Warner, Haddin), or temperament (Khawaja, Cowan, Rogers, Wade), or in some cases both (Watson). Since Clarke took over full time as captain, Australia have batted 47 times and in only 12 instances have they scored more than 400 runs in an innings. And just three of those 400+ scores have been achieved without either a Clarke or Hussey hundred. And even in two of those three, Clarke still had scores of 73 and 50. Since the first innings of the aforementioned Chennai Test match, Clarke has averaged 28.67 in nine innings (he didn't play one match due to his bad back) and Australia have been repeatedly pummeled. The trend of Australian batsmen failing to kick off after a promising start to their careers (Hughes, Watson, Warner, and Marsh to name a few) is probably matched only by a similar one for Indian seamers. It is not insurmountable though as has been shown by every one of Hayden, Langer, Martyn, Katich, and even Waugh and Ponting who all came back strongly after being dropped or technically found out. A firmer hand in selection is needed though, similar to what Sandeep Patil and co. have managed to do for India after a similar series of away thrashings. Again, since Clarke has taken over as captain, in 26 matches the Australians have used 30 different players. That's nearly one incremental change every game. And 11 of those players have played three matches or fewer. An unstable team is never a successful one and the endless changing has meant that every player is always playing for his position rather than pulling together in one direction for the team.
And they don't need to look far to see the benefits of consistency and constancy in selection. England have had their ups and downs in the last few years but its mainly been up and a large driver of that has been the fact that the core of their line-up has been stable and steady. More on England later though at the end of the series when I think it'll be easier to pass a verdict on where they stand. For now the big thing that stands out for me is that for years, Australia have been the hard as nails side fighting back from every tricky position but now suddenly England are the ones that appear to have the belief that they can turn things around in all situations. Whether this Oz softness will only be short-term or whether it will take years (like it has for the West Indies with still no signs of success) is going to be a fascinating story to follow.
Comments