Australia will struggle without star duo: Akram!

[Prudent]

PAKISTAN great Wasim Akram has wasted no time predicting a gloomy future for Australia in the post-Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath era after it failed to make the final of the Twenty20 world championship. Akram believes Australia will struggle to beat India in their seven-match one-day tour starting this week, and said after years of Australian domination, it was refreshing to see the Test and one-day world champions fall short of the Twenty20 final. "Fans had got bored of the one-sided dominance of Australia and teams from India and Pakistan have given a new lease of life to cricket and these teams can go places and dominate world cricket," Akram said. "Once Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath retired, it was only a matter of time before Australia would struggle and they will find it tough to beat India in India and also struggle to get 20 wickets in a Test outside Australia."After twice triumphing in cut-throat games during the tournament, Australia finally succumbed to India by 15 runs in their semi-final in Durban on Saturday.It brought to a close a tumultuous series for the Australians in which everything seemed to happen in threes.Australia first arrived three men short. It won three games, lost three, and ended with three players with hamstring strains.Shane Watson and Michael Hussey will miss the India tour because of their hamstring injuries. Ricky Ponting will tour, but is likely to be sidelined for at least the first week. Were he not captain, Ponting also probably would have headed home. Cricket Australia yesterday announced that Brad Haddin, after initially being named Ponting's short-term replacement, would remain with the squad for the full tour in place of Hussey.West Australian batsman Adam Voges, who captained Australia A on its recent tour to Pakistan, was named to fill in for the skipper, while all-rounder James Hopes previously had been included for Watson. Australia admitted the intensity of Twenty20 cricket during the inaugural tournament — which team physiotherapist Alex Kountouris rated at 70 per cent of a one-day game in only 40 per cent of the time — initially had caught it by surprise."It's so fast," coach Tim Nielsen said. "We've only played one-off games in the past and so playing in a tournament where obviously every game counts really means the pressure stacks up a bit, and then you factor in all the travelling and training and it's quite an intense few weeks." But despite the injuries, the coach believes the tournament has been a worthwhile introduction for what will be a gruelling 18 months ahead for the national team. "I think it's probably been a really good physical workout for us, and it's been nice that the bowlers can get through four overs and they don't have to flog themselves early in the year, so hopefully there is a lot of benefit to get out of it," Nielsen said.Matthew Hayden was Australia's best batsman, scoring four half-centuries in smashing 265 runs at an average of 88.33. But it was the bowlers who most impressed, with Brett Lee taking a hat-trick in his first series back from ankle surgery, and Nathan Bracken and Mitchell Johnson both performing well.Stuart Clark also showed off new variations in pace in taking 12 wickets at an average of 12 Source: http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/australia-will-struggle-without-star-duo-akram/2007/09/24/1190486226232.html --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Chandan]

I don't agree that Australia will struggle to take 20 wickets in tests post McGrath-Warne era. Australian cricket has enough depth to cover up for any retirement. Yes, they won't get anyone like Warne ever. But we can already see that Clark is almost a McGrath clone. They'll keep doing well, regardless of anyone's retirement because they have a great system which produces good cricketers regularly!!

[The Outsider]

I don't agree that Australia will struggle to take 20 wickets in tests post McGrath-Warne era. Australian cricket has enough depth to cover up for any retirement. Yes, they won't get anyone like Warne ever. But we can already see that Clark is almost a McGrath clone. They'll keep doing well, regardless of anyone's retirement because they have a great system which produces good cricketers regularly!!

They'll keep doing well but Warne, McGrath, and Gilchrist are players who are certainties for an all time Aussies XI, and very plausible candidates for an all time World XI. No system, no matter how good, can replicate the genius of these guys on a regular basis. Australia will remain a very good team and possibly the best as well but there is no way their dominance will continue anymore.

[Chandan]

No system' date=' no matter how good, can replicate the genius of these guys on a regular basis. Australia will remain a very good team and possibly the best as well but [b']there is no way their dominance will continue anymore.

I hope so, Shwetabh. But I'd have preferred it had other teams raised their standard and quality to meet that of Australia rather than Australia losing quality and coming back to the pack!! Still, whatever it may be, I think/fear they'll still be number one team in both formats!! It'll be interesting to see how they fill up for two of the best bowlers EVER, in the coming test matches.

[Gaurav]

Will be fun!

[MundaPakistani]

I don't agree that Australia will struggle to take 20 wickets in tests post McGrath-Warne era. Australian cricket has enough depth to cover up for any retirement. Yes, they won't get anyone like Warne ever. But we can already see that Clark is almost a McGrath clone. They'll keep doing well, regardless of anyone's retirement because they have a great system which produces good cricketers regularly!!

Clark will never be as good as Mcgrahth. Mcgrath had a well paced rhythmical run up and a very smooth action Clark has neither. Secondly i think that blaming/crediting the system for defeats/wins is becoming very overrated e.g England have always had a great system yet other than the 2 years from 03 to 05 i don't ever remember them being a great team, AUS had a very fine system in the 70s and 80s yet their team was average. Compare this to WI's domestic structure of the 60s to the 80s...it was no where near as good yet they dominated the world for 2 decades. PAK's system in the 80s was poor yet through out the 80s and the early 90s they had an excellent team. It is the captain and the senior players at the top need to take responsibility to make the team move forward in what ever circumstances and that's where the likes of Viv, Llyod, Imran, Miandad, Waugh,Ponting, Warne, Mcgrath etc left every body behind.

[Chandan]

England have a great system, Faisal?? Last time I checked, it didn't have one. Playing county cricket among 18 teams is almost as bad playing Ranji cricket with 29 teams. And what about their grass root level which has been hogged by foreigners now? Anyway, there is no point in discussing how bad is English system. And if you think Indian or Pakistani cricketers came through the systems of their country, you are absolutely wrong--they've come DESPITE the system, not BECAUSE OF the system. But since there is no system as such there, one day you might get 4-5 brilliant individual cricketer by luck and sometimes you might suffer a long drought. Australia will NEVER suffer that drought because its system will keep producing decent cricketers, unlike India or Pakistan.

[MundaPakistani]

England have a great system, Faisal?? Last time I checked, it didn't have one. Playing county cricket among 18 teams is almost as bad playing Ranji cricket with 29 teams. And what about their grass root level which has been hogged by foreigners now? Anyway, there is no point in discussing how bad is English system. And if you think Indian or Pakistani cricketers came through the systems of their country, you are absolutely wrong--they've come DESPITE the system, not BECAUSE OF the system. But since there is no system as such there, one day you might get 4-5 brilliant individual cricketer by luck and sometimes you might suffer a long drought. Australia will NEVER suffer that drought because its system will keep producing decent cricketers, unlike India or Pakistan.

It doesn't matter how many teams you have as long as the competition is good and in ENG the competiton is always very good because a lot of the elite forigen players come in and play CC. Even then there fast bowling attack of the 90s was on par or worse than that of India. In AUS after D Lillie's retirement there was no truly great fast bowler until Mcgrath came around so obviously there was a massive drought. Plus their spinning bowling options before Warne were about as bad as they can get with the likes of Matthews and later on T May having to do most of the work. So no matter how good the system you can't say that there will never be long droughts of quality players.

[The Outsider]

It doesn't matter how many teams you have as long as the competition is good and in ENG the competiton is always very good because a lot of the elite forigen players come in and play CC. Even then there fast bowling attack of the 90s was on par or worse than that of India.

Not true, MP. English cricket has improved a lot after they made county cricket a 2 division system, thereby increasing competition. Diluting competition is never going to give you good players. Competition was not good in English county cricket till they made this change despite the presence of a few international stars.

In AUS after D Lillie's retirement there was no truly great fast bowler until Mcgrath came around so obviously there was a massive drought. Plus their spinning bowling options before Warne were about as bad as they can get with the likes of Matthews and later on T May having to do most of the work. So no matter how good the system you can't say that there will never be long droughts of quality players.

No system can guarantee you greats like Lillee, McGrath, and Warne. What a good system does ensure is that even in the absence of greats you'll have a dependable and extremely good bunch like McDermott, Reid, Hughes, Lee, and Clark to fall back on.

[MundaPakistani]

Not true' date=' MP. English cricket has improved a lot after they made county cricket a 2 division system, thereby increasing competition. Diluting competition is never going to give you good players. Competition was not good in English county cricket till they made this change despite the presence of a few international stars..[/quote'] hmm ok. I wasn't aware of the fact that they only recently did that.

No system can guarantee you greats like Lillee, McGrath, and Warne. What a good system does ensure is that even in the absence of greats you'll have a dependable and extremely good bunch like McDermott, Reid, Hughes, Lee, and Clark to fall back on.

Then how can you explain their problems with spin bowlers? For almost an entire decade T May and Matthews played no less than 57 test matches(33 for Matt and 24 for Tim) yielding only 136 wickets at an average of 41.

[coffee_rules]

This is what Dhoni or Indian seniors need to tell people, what Akram is helping us out in.

[Gaurav]

This is what Dhoni or Indian seniors need to tell people' date=' what Akram is helping us out in.[/quote'] What does that mean?

[coffee_rules]

What does that mean?

Mind-games etc. They've got to let Ponting know that they don't give enough thought to McWarne-less Aussie team,

[The Outsider]

Then how can you explain their problems with spin bowlers? For almost an entire decade T May and Matthews played no less than 57 test matches(33 for Matt and 24 for Tim) yielding only 136 wickets at an average of 41.

Firstly, the Australian system wasn't all that good at that time. In fact, it was after the retirement of Chappell, Lillee, and Marsh in a single test that they were struck with the enormity of the task of replacing great players. Their team struggled for a long time and at the same time they built up their grassroot structure which started paying dividends in the 90s. Academies, competitive leagues etc. got a major facelift after the mid 80s. Secondly, Australia is not a country which is a "natural" place for spinners like the subcontinent. In fact, Warne was their first great spinner after Benaud retired in the mid 60s. So the culture of spin bowling was not there. But with Warne and a better infrastructure I doubt the Australians will face a spin bowling drought of 30 years again. Sure there is no guarantee of another Warne or even a Benaud but they'll produce decent spinners over the next few years I think.

[MundaPakistani]

Firstly, the Australian system wasn't all that good at that time. In fact, it was after the retirement of Chappell, Lillee, and Marsh in a single test that they were struck with the enormity of the task of replacing great players. Their team struggled for a long time and at the same time they built up their grassroot structure which started paying dividends in the 90s. Academies, competitive leagues etc. got a major facelift after the mid 80s. Secondly, Australia is not a country which is a "natural" place for spinners like the subcontinent. In fact, Warne was their first great spinner after Benaud retired in the mid 60s. So the culture of spin bowling was not there. But with Warne and a better infrastructure I doubt the Australians will face a spin bowling drought of 30 years again. Sure there is no guarantee of another Warne or even a Benaud but they'll produce decent spinners over the next few years I think.

I will have to disagree there Shwetabh. Even in the late 70s and 80s their domestic structure was excellent, Imran Khan played a bit of shield cricket at the time and he called it the best and the most competitive domestic structure in the world yet their team was no where near the best. Going by your second point it would seem that India hasn't produced great fast bowlers because IND isn't a "natural" place for fast bowlers like AUS or SA. So is it due to poor domestic structure or due to the fact that it's not a natural place for fast bowlers?

[The Outsider]

I will have to disagree there Shwetabh. Even in the late 70s and 80s their domestic structure was excellent, Imran Khan played a bit of shield cricket at the time and he called it the best and the most competitive domestic structure in the world yet their team was no where near the best.

Australian team was very good in the 70s and 80s till the retirement of the trio in one match. So, yes their domestic was still good and produced a good unit but not good enough to cope with losing your best batsman, best bowler, and an excellent gloveman in one go. They have built upon that good foundation since then to come up with an excellent system and the loss of McGrath, Warne, Langer, Martyn and sooner than later Hayden and Gilchrist is not going to hurt them as bad as it did in the mid 80s. They'll still remain among the top 2-3 teams.

Going by your second point it would seem that India hasn't produced great fast bowlers because IND isn't a "natural" place for fast bowlers like AUS or SA. So is it due to poor domestic structure or due to the fact that it's not a natural place for fast bowlers?

Both, but having a good domestic structure in place will at least ensure decent fast bowlers. In that respect the MRF pace academy, the preparation of more seam friendly pitches, and 2 tier Ranji system over the last few years have at least ensured that guys like Zaheer, Balaji, RP Singh, Sreesanth, Nehra, Munaf etc. have come out and the cupboard isn't as bare as it has been during India's entire cricketing history except for the aberrations of Kapil and Srinath. In fact, even Srinath got honed at the MRF pace academy.

[Lurker]

Why is Wasim Akram saying this and NOT a Sunil Gavaskar, a Kapil Dev, a Ajit Wadekar etc etc??? And how come the better half of Shaz-Waz is keeping quiet? How come buggers like Ray Bright and Rod Hogg have opinions on Indian greats like SRT and Ganguly while our greats dont bother to ever give it back? Then again you can expect the Indian fans to pick the battle on behalf of the players and not the players(or ex-players) themselves! xxx

[King Tendulkar]

Akram is copying my thread and posts predicting the decline of the aussies. He is plagirising me and I may sue.

[Chandan]

Australian team was very good in the 70s and 80s till the retirement of the trio in one match. So, yes their domestic was still good and produced a good unit but not good enough to cope with losing your best batsman, best bowler, and an excellent gloveman in one go. They have built upon that good foundation since then to come up with an excellent system and the loss of McGrath, Warne, Langer, Martyn and sooner than later Hayden and Gilchrist is not going to hurt them as bad as it did in the mid 80s. They'll still remain among the top 2-3 teams. Both, but having a good domestic structure in place will at least ensure decent fast bowlers. In that respect the MRF pace academy, the preparation of more seam friendly pitches, and 2 tier Ranji system over the last few years have at least ensured that guys like Zaheer, Balaji, RP Singh, Sreesanth, Nehra, Munaf etc. have come out and the cupboard isn't as bare as it has been during India's entire cricketing history except for the aberrations of Kapil and Srinath. In fact, even Srinath got honed at the MRF pace academy.

Terrific explanation, Shwetabh! I've read in Steve Waugh's book that what a sea change their grass-root level went with in early and mid 80s. India lacks that. Nothing has been invested at the grassroot level. The players don't even have decent pitches and grounds to play on in most of the states and Delhi, UP etc are the main culprits (I don't know much about south). Some good schools and colleges here have their ground but I'm yet to see a good pitch which encorages both batsmen and bowlers. And if the grass-root level is poor, no matter how the BCCI would cover it up at top level, India can NEVER be the number one side in the world like Australia.

[chanakya]

I can almost see someone sledging Ponting after Clarke gets clattered around. 'McGrath now did you say?'