Is Australia's dominance bad for cricket?
It's a moot question - it's not like Australia are going to start playing with one hand behind their back (although with all the new one days laws the ICC are introducing...)
This is like asking was Don Bradman bad for cricket? Here's a guy who could score 300 in a day, completely dominating a bowling attack. At times, there was no contest - he demoralised and destroyed opposition teams. And yet people travelled far and in droves to watch him play. The current Australian side has some of the greatest players in history, all in the one side. Warne and McGrath would easily slide into a top 5 of Australia's best bowlers - the only case in test history of two bowlers in the one side with a total of 1000 wickets between them. Gilchrist is almost unanimously considered cricket's best ever wicketkeeper/batsman - after Bradman and Sobers, he's usually third listed in Greatest XI lists. All the top 6 batsman have averages over 50 - that must be the first time that's ever happened.
But in the end, I would say I don't really care. I grew up being traumatised as a young cricket fan watching my team and various player's cricketing careers be destroyed by the West Indies. It's nice at the moment to be an Australian and watch my team hand out the trauma and heartache. I'm enjoying it while it lasts.
| Posted by JC on Wed 12 Jan |  8 comments |
Post New Comment
You need to be logged in to post a comment. If you're new, register here. Existing users, login via the right margin.
