Thursday, November 12, 2009

The Making of "Australia - The Team To Beat"

When the One-Day Internationals were first introduced in the early 70's, no team had a clear idea as to how to go about playing the format. All they knew was that there were 60 overs to score as much as they could and then bowl out or restrict the opposition or to chase down whatever the target was. But there was no particular game plan, no strategic manoeuvres, no fantastic mind games and most importantly, there were no One-Day specialists. In short, the sophistication of the present day was not there 35-40 years ago. Masters of the Test format were founding wanting in the shorter version. But there was one exception - West Indies. Led by a stand-out performer in Clive Lloyd, the ever-dangerous Sir Vivian Richards to guide them and with a bowling attack boasting with the likes of Julien, Boyce, Holder, Andy Roberts, Malcolm Marshall, Joel Garner and Michael Holding, no wonder this "dream team" became a real force to reckon with in the cricketing world. They ruled the game for nearly two decades, a period which included the famous World Cup triumphs of 1975 and 1979.

Sadly, as the big guns started quitting, West Indies cricket plunged into darkness. No one, not even a once-in-a-lifetime-cricketer like Brian Charles Lara could save them from the depths of despair. The newcomers failed miserably and just did not have it in them to step into the shoes of their Masters.

Cricket, then became more competent with every team staking a claim for the top spot. Matches were more closely fought (some even very fiercely!) than ever and their control switched 'n' number of times before a winner came out on top, bruised and battered. This phenomena is very much evident from the fact that the the World Cup was won by four different teams from 1983 to 1996.

1983 - India.
1987 - Australia.
1992 - Pakistan.
1996 - Sri Lanka.

However, the competency factor took a severe beating from then on. Again, the world witnessed the rise of a super-power in cricket. A team that went on to demolish anything that came in it's way and re-wrote infinite number of cricket records. It had players who lived up to the definition of the phrase "team game". An apt analogy would be that of warriors in a battlefield - each fighting for the cause at hand while also defending members of his/her own clan. More precisely put, this team had surpassed all the achievements of the West Indies team of the 70's and 80's. Importantly, it is still continuing with the trend of making winning a habit which it's players had inherited from the retired geniuses. And that team, which everyone knows, is Australia.

For the beginning of any era there should be a ''the moment". And such a moment for Australia occurred on 13th June, 1999 at Leeds and just seemed to have continued four days later at Birmingham. On both occasions, South Africa was the opponent. In the first instance, Gibbs dropped a sitter to let off Steve Waugh and eventually Australia with the match. And then, the most famous match in cricket's history. The tied second semi-final of the 1999 World Cup. Klusener's heroics went in vain and was over-shadowed by "the magician" Shane Warne. Australia went on to thrash Pakistan in the final by 8 wickets and thus began their journey of domination of world cricket.

Steve Waugh, nurtured by the tactically brilliant Mark Taylor, created a team of players who could survive any kind of situation and take up any challenge thrown at them. He was blessed with the talents of Glenn McGrath, Shane Warne, Mark Waugh, Ricky Ponting, Michael Bevan, Damien Martyn, Jason Gillespie, Matthew Hayden, Justin Langer, Ian Healy and Adam Gilchrist. But still, these players had to be groomed in the right way and that's exactly what Waugh did. The captain, too, led from the front on many instances - either batting, fielding or even bowling. He developed a team that was never short of match-winners. Part of the success should also be attributed to the professional manner in which the Australian domestic players are trained. The Aussies have one of the best domestic circuits in the globe. Players are mentally and physically prepared for the big moments so that they could prove themselves at the highest level of the game. Later on, the mantle was passed on to Ponting and he's doing a fantastic job of leading the new brigade sans geniuses.

One of the most striking aspects of Australian cricket is that they always had back-ups. They were, not for once, found short of finding players to fulfill the void left by the "biggies". Everything was planned to perfection with the aim of taking their game forward. They also realized that exceptional talent (like the ones mentioned above) did not come everyday. As a result, they also took up the task of making the younger generation work harder for a place in a team at any level of the game. Subsequently, ordinary players were turned into amazing ones who were well equipped to burst into the international arena and give a consistent performance at that level. One example being the just-concluded series between India and Australia. The Aussies did not have the services of McGrath, Warne or even a Lee or Clark or Bracken. The entire squad was plagued by injuries with 9 of the original 15 being sent back home to recover. Ricky had to find ways to give encouragement to the brand new ones and also to find means of making the team more competitive against the Indians at home. The new set of players, including Paine, Watson, Bollinger, Hauritz, White, Hussey, etc. repaid their country's and captain's faith and played very hard cricket. Their level was at a staggering high that the Indians had no clue of what was to be done. Finally, after three weeks of grinding it out across various stadiums in India, it was Australia, once again, that came up trumps with an emphatic 4-2 series win, when most expected a 6-1 or even a 7-0 Aussie drubbing by the Indians.

Another classic trait of the "Aussie Game" is their motto of playing the game very hard and their mind-set of "no game is won unless the last ball is bowled or the last run is scored or the last wicket is taken". A great but simple truth which is the mother of all ways of how the game is to be played and won. Kudos to the Aussies for imbibing this rule in their cricketing culture. No wonder they continue to dominate the Game of Cricket.


2 comments:

  1. Hi dude,
    By and large, you were on target in the above article. A couple of crucial points I felt you missed.
    1.There is one important reason why THIS Australian team(the last decade odd) have dominated India in cricket: that is the way they play the game.
    You came close to addressing it, when you talked about the game not being over till the last ball is bowled. But that typically is also taken as a way of saying "dont give up EVER". That is only 1 half of the story. The other half is, DONT ever take victory for granted no matter the position.
    To put it in my own words, there is only 1 philosophy with which to play cricket or any competitive sport, and that is, by the relentless pursuit of victory.

    Well, Indian cricketers of this generation,especially the batsmen, arent quite relentless are they? Get near a 50, they relent. Get near 100, they relent. Get near 1729 runs, they relent(just about every milestone you can name).
    Every time the representatives of the TEAM (the 2 men out in the middle) take their focus off the pursuit of victory, teams like Australia exploit it. This has been the critical factor when analyzig games between India and Australia.

    As far as Aussies and the rest of the world goes, the analysis is tougher, but cut to the core, the other teams (with the exception of Sri Lanka) have struggled to put up 11 players on the field that match Australia man for man. So, wherever the weakness in the team is, Australia go straight for it, and relentlessly hammer away at that weakness. Like, for example, a team has a shaky middle order, they go hard to open up the batting and expose the vulnerable links in the team.
    In this context, I'll like to draw attention back to India, for point 2.

    2.Indian batsmen are simply not accountable.
    What they score is what they can score, deal with it, is the philosophy. The philosophy isnt "could I have done better as a batsman for the TEAM": NOT get 10,20,50 runs more, but IMPROVE the team's probability of winning.
    If the batsmen find it tough to measure up to par(say they score 230 on a 300 pitch and lose), the Indian team mentality is, drop a batsman and play an extra bowler!!!. Drive the batsmen FURTHER away from accountability!!! Let the bowlers bear the full burden of getting a result, batsmen just get runs.
    This series was yet another illustrator of the obvious fact that the 5 bowler strategy has 0 chances of working in ODI cricket, and probably close to 0 in tests also. Why do India play it repeatedly? Because its their way of dodging questions over batsmen's performance COMPARED to par for the course.

    Ohh,nobody can quibble with the BATSMEN when a batsman makes 100 off 120 and the team reaches 290 on a 320 par track, and the opponents chase it down with ease, right?It would be the bowling,fielding to blame.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well said :). But, this analysis of Aus is not pertaining to Aus v/s India alone. It's Aus v/s any other opponent.
    And, I thought I'd brought in their relentless spirit in the last para. But you've just pointed out the half missing :)! Thanks :)!! Have noted.

    ReplyDelete