Do you remember when Australia missed the final of the VB series in 2001/02? Of course you do. There was all sorts of kerfuffle about rotation of players, experimentation of batting orders and general ballsing-up. The press had a field day. But apart from Channel Nine, Crick-Aussie and the retards who traipse along to join in the wave and get their signs on telly, who really gave a shit who won that snore-fest?
Not me. Far as I'm concerned, the Aussies can tinker with the formula all they like, just as long as they win the only tournament that matters to me - The World Cup.
Look at what happened in the one-day summers in the year before they won each of the last two World Cups. In 1997/98 they were continually beaten by South Africa until the Yarpies, as is their wont, choked in the finals. I suppose you could say BOTH South Africa and Australia were tuning up for 1999. Then in 2001/02 Australia struggled against both NZ and SA and didn't even make the VB finals.
Grim stats, no. Yet in both cases, by the time the subsequent World Cups came around, Australia (despite struggling early in the 1999 affair) were in good shape and won both tournaments, 2003 in a canter.
Conversely, this summer it is with some trepidation that I see Australia doing better than they did in those previous two. Admittedly neither South Africa or the Shrees are a patch on previous tours, but that doesn't alter the fact that there's most definitely such a thing as peaking too early. Look what happened to NZ in 2001/02. The Kiwis were on fire that summer, but they showed their hand too soon. By the time the 2003 World Cup came around everyone knew what they were up against when they played NZ, and the Kiwis flopped badly. Not that that's a bad thing. (Nor did it help their cause that they forfeited a match.)
Fortunately, Australia aren't sitting on their laurels. (Do you sit on your laurels?) There has been even more experimentation this time round, and it's pretty obvious Australia have their eyes on the two things that matter - The Ashes and the 2007 World Cup. The media, too, seem to have a finer appreciation of what Australia are up to.
Still, fingers crossed. All the planning in the world can mean bugger all. While Australia can afford to drop games now, it's not the same in a World Cup. One dropped catch (thanks, Hersh), half an hour's bad batting, a dodgy pitch, a spot of weather and your campaign might be over. The Aussies have done extraordinarily well to win the last two, but while they're still the best team on paper, their luck won't hold forever. (Nor will the Aussie tapering be ignored by the other teams.)
Minefields please: ODIs are invariably better when the side batting first struggles. If Australia bat first and bat well, the game is as good as over. Look at some of their memorable wins and you'll note they've been achieved by either posting or chasing a lowish first innings total, some on skittish pitches.
- Sydney 1995: Paul Reiffel stars with bat and ball as Australia chase down 172 in a rain reduced match at the SCG.
- New Years Day 1996: Bevan hits a four off the last ball as Australia chase down the Windies' 172.
- World Cup Semi-Final 1996: West Indies collapse as Australia defend 207.
- World Cup Semi-Final 1999: Daffy Donald Duck as Australia "defend" 213.
- World Cup Pool Match 2003: Bevan and Travis Bichel ease Austraia past England's 204.
- World Cup Super Sixer 2003: Australia rout NZ for 112 while defending just 208.
And what's the best match so far this summer? When Australia failed to defend 228 last week.
Yeah, definately on the minefield thing.
Travis?
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 21 January 2006 at 21:15
According to your research, we should have had the Merino Molesters in the VB series instead of the Lankies. We're buggered.
Posted by: Dirk Thruster | 22 January 2006 at 11:21
The great Tom Moody was robbed in that semi
Posted by: Adam 1.0 | 22 January 2006 at 11:44
Ever since the odious Hansie was caught with his hand in the till, I refuse to remember anything about ODI games any longer than 10 seconds after stumps.
Good for an afternoon lying on the couch and drinking beer, but who is winning the "series"? I neither know nor care.
I suspect I am not alone in my amnesia.
Posted by: Pedro the Ignorant | 22 January 2006 at 18:30
You could be right, Pedro, but I can't remember.
Posted by: Tony.T | 22 January 2006 at 18:34
If you are skipping tonight's match, then you are missing a flying pig moment. Channel Nein have finally put the superslowmo camera on a Murali chuck from an angle which clearly shows his cheating in glorious, indisputable detail. They put it on him the other night against the RSA from an innocuous, front-on angle, but this is the first time they showed from behind the left shoulder, the angle which makes chucking obvious. Murali's medical condition, which prevents him from straightening his elbow, is shown to get sudden and miraculously cured halfway through his delivery action, before he experiences an unfortunate relapse of his condition at the start of his next delivery.
Posted by: Clem Snide | 22 January 2006 at 20:36
I saw it Clem. It was on telly about 15 minutes ago. They had a low-down angle (from a boundary camera at long off). But I must admit that I wasn't as convinced as you are that the angle was conclusive, although mid delivery, it DID look dodgy.
If they are fair dinkum, they will show the super slo-mo from side-on like they do with the other bowlers.
The NEXT BALL, though, he bowled a doosra which snagged Haddin. It was clearly a chuck, even in the standard replay, but they never showed the super slo-mo. I'd fall off my chair if they did that.
Perera's action might come under scrutiny, too. Especially his slower ball.
Posted by: Tony.T | 22 January 2006 at 20:51
I thought Perera should have been cited on the ball that bowled Ponting in the first match.
Just how fucked up the chucking thing has become was evident on Saturday for me. The opposition had a bloke who just blatantly chucked. With no official umpire just wtf are we supposed to do? Luckily he got spanked and was pulled after 2 overs but it could have got tricky.
Posted by: Some other Bruce | 23 January 2006 at 13:48
It's tragic, Bruce. The new rules are an utter fuck-up, and just a license to chuck. It's "Give 'em an inch, and they'll take a mile" writ large.
Posted by: Tony.T | 23 January 2006 at 13:58