During what will no doubt come to be known as
La Grande Terreur of international cricket, frightened
adversaries went on the run and prayed nightly in
their beds that the ruthless revolutionaries of the
Southern Cross would one day grow weary of the
serial slaughter, from Lord's to the Gabba, in Sydney
and Mumbai, Durban and Lahore.
|
|
Australia's spate of recent retirements might suggest a slump on the cards like the one that followed the departures of Lillee, Chappell and Marsh
© Getty Images
|
|
|
For desperate members of the old aristocracy that
day might have been presaged last month when the
executioner-in-chief, Citizen Gilchrist, announced
he was putting away his axe for good. Au revoir,
mon brave! But no. They have not done with us yet,
these revolutionaries from Terror Australis. It would
be as well to expect the worst for another couple of
years at least.
Ricky Ponting joked (I think) that,
as he trailed the retiring Gilchrist
from the field at Adelaide after the
fourth Test against India, he turned
to Matthew Hayden and said: "There's
not many of us left now."
True, they have lost Shane Warne,
Glenn McGrath and now Gilchrist
- three certainties for any all-time
Greats XI - over the past 18 months.
Hayden's partner in pain, the estimable
Justin Langer, has gone too, as has
the enigmatic Damien Martyn. Their
replacements are not bedded in yet.
Warne is irreplaceable, so too McGrath
and Gilchrist.
And, on the face of it, this gradual
break-up of one of the game's most brutally efficient
teams might suggest disintegration only slightly less
dramatic than that signalled by the triple retirement
of Dennis Lillee, Greg Chappell and Rod Marsh in
1984. After their departure Australia went into
relative decline and confusion for at least five years.
Yet look at the evidence of recent times. When
Steve Waugh followed his twin Mark into retirement
after the previous India tour to Australia in 2003-04,
Australia soon enough got on with battering the
opposition. They found a pretty good McGrath clone
in Stuart Clark, and have faith in his near namesake
Michael. They can still score quick runs, take wickets
through sustained quality pressure, and hang on to
the toughest of catches. Ponting is not exactly Nelson
Mandela, but his wicket remains the most prized in
Test cricket. Mike Hussey is witheringly efficient.
Andrew Symonds might be reaching a delayed
peak as a Test player. Australia's hunger has not
diminished. They are still the best team in the world.
So when will the hegemony crack? Prediction
is a precarious business. I thought after the 2005
summer of madness that the Australians might be
too old, incapable of the intensity needed, to win the
Ashes back at home. How wrong can you get? But
more eminent voices have had a stab at it too.
In December 2006, Rod Marsh, writing in The Observer,
made some typically bold forecasts about
who would play a prominent part in the Ashes series
of 2009, and who would be long gone. Tom Moody,
he reckoned, would be one of the coaches, though he
was not sure for which side. Other strong coaching
candidates, Marsh said, were two wicketkeepers
who never made it to Test level, Peter Moores and
Tim Nielsen. He predicted Andrew Strauss would
be England's captain, while Michael Vaughan, Steve
Harmison, Matthew Hoggard and Paul Collingwood
would all have moved on. Ed Joyce, Owais Shah and
Liam Plunkett would be in the team, and Andrew
Flintoff would bat at No. 7.
For Australia the Tasmanian Tim Paine would
open the batting with Phil Jaques, the spinner would
be South Australia's leggie Cullen
Bailey, and Brad Haddin would have the
responsibility of replacing Gilchrist.
So how is Nostradamus doing?
Moores and Nielsen made it, Jaques is in
There, and after Gilchrist's retirement
from all international cricket at the end
of the CB Series against India and Sri
Lanka, Haddin will have to cock it up
gloriously to be relieved of the gloves.
Bailey? Maybe not. Not sure about
Paine - or Chris Rogers, for that matter;
Hayden is going to be hard to replace
and may be hard to shift, given his late-career
form and determination to bat on
for as long as he is wanted.
|
|
|
|
|
There is no avoiding the reality of
modern Test cricket: it depends on the Australians.
They deserve to be pre-eminent because they have
worked so hard for it. |
|
As for England, Vaughan has been
written off so many times it is impossible to put a
date on his exit; his calm and relaxed demeanour
belies his grit. I think he will hang on. Collingwood
too. Nobody can be sure if Freddie will make it
through this summer, let alone to 2009. I suspect
Hoggard and Harmison will be desperate for one
more Ashes fight, as will Strauss, although he
cannot have many more blips. There is not enough
evidence yet to be confident in Shah or Joyce.
But however good a side England - or anyone else - can put out
there is no avoiding the reality of
modern Test cricket: it depends on the Australians.
They deserve to be pre-eminent because they have
worked so hard for it. Their arrogance may yet undo
them again - and Ponting will hardly have noticed
his own swagger with his back-handed compliment
of India that they are rightly the second-best team
in the world. But clinging to the notion that these
things are cyclical appears more like wishful
thinking as the years pass and records tumble.
Australia have established a culture of excellence
in cricket every bit as convincing as that of New
Zealand in rugby union. And none of the teams they
continue to terrorise can say they have no incentive
to rise up and overthrow these wonderful tyrants.
Kevin Mitchell is chief sports writer of The Observer. This article was first published in the March 2008 issue of The Wisden Cricketer. Subscribe here