Cricinfo - Blogs - Different Strokes - Goodbye Windies. Hello Australia

The Aussie domination can be traced to multiple factors, not least a talent pool that reaped the dividends of a strong domestic structure and the vision of the Cricket Academy. Top class players, battle-hardened and confident, kept arriving off the conveyor belt and were instantly ready for elite company. Imitation is definitely the sincerest form of flattery with most countries now replicating that ‘finishing school’.

The balance of the Australian team was arguably even more superior to the West Indies in their pomp because they had Warne. No pitch was now beyond them, even though India still defended their castle staunchly. Individual players too became supremely adaptable, performing at home and abroad, on green tops and dust bowls alike.

Australia also changed the way cricket was played. Scoring at 4+ RPO in Test cricket was now de rigueur and other sides soon followed. That legacy can still be seen today.

South Africa was back! How good it was to have another genuine contender in the field. They were immediately competitive and could easily have even won their first World Cup in 1992. Pakistan’s win in that tournament was a triumph of inspirational leadership and brilliant youth. Imran and Javed steering the ship whilst Akram, Mushtaq Ahmed and Inzamam Ul Haq looked nothing like each other but were bound by the common thread of genius.

Sri Lanka then changed the one-day game forever with their ambush in the 1996 World Cup. Their tactics still hold good today but now everyone tries to bat like Sanath Jayasuriya at the top of the order. It was a refreshingly simple but high-risk strategy – keep playing shots even if you lose early wickets and hope someone fires on the day.

Australia adapted better than most and conquered the world in 1999 but they did it with more conventional players like the Waugh Bros and Ponting who simply expanded their skill base. They were that good. Their duels with South Africa in that tournament will stick forever in my mind. Lance Klusener deserves a mention too.

Meanwhile, Lara and Tendulkar were phenomenal players. Their battles against the likes of the great bowlers like McGrath, Allan Donald, Warne, Murali, Akram and Waqar Younis made for compelling entertainment.

What was best about the ‘90s was that it made spin bowling fashionable again, bringing a new dimension back to the game. Have we ever seen so many ‘great’ spinners debuting in a single decade? We’ve already mentioned Warne, Murali and Mushtaq but what about Saqlain Mushtaq, Anil Kumble, Stuart MacGill and even the quirky Paul Adams? Young kids were suddenly captivated by this new art form and the tree is still full of young fruit.

One significant change that the ‘90s introduced was the phenomenon of spreadbetting. Born in London’s financial markets, its influence touched cricket with stunning consequences. It even had the power to take down captains and spawn cricket’s own mafia.

Despite this shadow, my memories of the glorious ‘90s still feature positive images of an Australian dynasty that took the on-field skills to new heights and dragged cricket to a higher plane. All of a sudden, cricketers needed to be athletes in every sense of the word. Revealingly, Australia did it with personnel who essentially had techniques that were built on old-fashioned principles that had stood the test of time. They did it consistently better than anybody else, from number 1 to 11. Not many other teams could regularly match that depth of class. Not many still can!

Polyphemus was shocked, great Odin was furious and Lord Nelson blanched: Michael Jeh formulated a document that was, shock horror, balanced! Odin requested immediate suspension of Michael Jeh's membership of the Cyclopian Club. Polyphemus roared in agreement but Lord Nelson was reserved: final judgement should not be based on a single incident or article alone. Nelson was a wise man indeed. Perhaps, Nelson suggested, this was merely an accident, a byproduct of a desire to appease certain interest groups, namely those bothersome archaic antiopodeans, because that was the adopted homeland of Michael. The others turned their very singular gaze to Nelson, suspicious of such clarity and width of vision. This was beyond their scope, but Nelson was a proven performer and staunch supporter of the Cyclops movement and was, thus far, beyond reproach. They agreed: judgement would be reserved, pending the next submission by Mr Jeh. Perhaps he would revert to form, if not, they would take action.

It bears mentioning Australia didn't "arrive" until the 1999 World cup. Even when they visited India in 1998, they were talked about as "unofficial test world champions" only in hushed tones. Not everyone really believed it, and going by how India thrashed them that season, the skepticism was warranted. Australia was, even in 1998, only slightly better than the rest of the pack.

The 1999 World Cup win made the world sit up and take notice, but truth be told, they only just made it. It was not a convincing performance. People conceded they were the best in the world, but no one was calling them world beaters yet.

But then, in late 1999, a man called Adam Gilchrist made his test debut.

As someone has already pointed out, I consider the 1989 World Cup to be the point where the Aus. ascendency began. They missed out on beating the Windies in 1993 (at home) by the margin of 1 or 2 runs.

Allan Border started it, Mark Taylor refined it and Steve Waugh perfected it. Ricky Ponting has to try to hang on to it. I pity him for that.

Australia has been on top of the rankings for pretty much all of the time they have existed, since 1995 I believe (but I'm not certain about that).

I'd call that dominance, and if people could only get over their pre-conceptions and actually watch the Aussies play cricket I'm sure they'd be impressed with the way they go about it.

Thanks for the comments. You're quite right about some of the great names I left out but sometimes, you just run out of space to describe every single person who deserves a mention. Curtly, Jonty, The Flower Bros, Afridi, Aravinda etc. I tried not to repeat too many of the players who already got mentioned in my previous 80's blog. The list of great players is just too long. For example, Gilly didn't get a mention in the 90s piece but he'll certainly feature in the next decade! Maybe the 90s were more recent so I remember much more than the two previous decades but there were just so many good players weren't there. Also with satellite tv, I got to see a lot more cricket so therefore remembered a lot more too. The poor Brits didn't get much of a mention but I should not forget how Nasser Hussain won a few crucial away series in Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Thorpe and Trescothick were in their prime towards the late 90s and Gough & Caddick had great moments too. Chris Cairns too.

Sardonic statements aside (I notice no reply from Mr Jeh yet?) I concur with other posts: where is the great Curtly? 345 wickets at 19.88 for the 90's should really rate a mention. So many people I know think Curtly played mainly in the 80's, and were stunned that he actually played from 1988-2000. Yes Steve Waugh is the only cricketer to have claimed a catch that wasnt out. The entire Aus dynasty is based on dodgy catches and no balls. They havnt actually taken a wicket at all since 1989 that wasnt dodgy, contrived or a no ball. Those hip high catches too gilli off mcgrath were all from no balls or were bump balls(nonwithstanding video evidence to the contrary which was always doctored for Aus) Every single one of them, its incredible. I should mention that during this period no Indian player was ever out or played a bad shot or bowled a bad delivery. They were always the recipients of dodgy calls from the umpires. No Indian player received a reprieve from an umpiring error either.

@ terry & Tboy....i wouldnt go as far as to suggest that waughs 'catch' caused the aussie uprising but terry does have a point. This was the series when there was a changing of the guard.
When Lara came to the crease on that fateful morning the windies were already 1-1 on the board. Soon they were 3-6. Only a partnership of 100 odd from Lara and Hooper revived the innings. Then Hooper goes followed by Adams. Lara was left with the tail (again). It was not the flashing blade of Lara but the more reserved type inning. 65 runs from 112 balls faced. Without that 'catch' how many more could Lara and the windies have made?? They were dismissed for 195. Aus gained a 150 lead and the rest is history.
Aus won the series 2-1. Sure windies were on the down and Aus were on the up but the famous catchpharse 'catches win matches' has never been so apt as waugh's imfamous effort in 1995.
A Patel

Hello Ashish, Im not sure if this occurred to you: I was taking the mickey re: the waugh incident. One incident alone may affect the outcome of a game, but it doesnt set up a dynasty. The WIs did have their opportunities and decisions did go their way in that series. These things are never so black & white as to clearly define a singular moment when things went wrong. Eg WI cricket: Did the infamous WI bowling factory finally produce two or three injury prone bowlers (Bishop/Patterson etc)& then run dry? Was it cos Wis lack of development of existing talent and the appeal of money in other sports? EG Holdings son was a semipro Basketballer making more USA$ than he could in WI cricket. Maybe its both together? Personally I think its a number reasons (too many to discuss now.)Maybe I could blame the collapse of Eng test cricket on Dhoni's backyard one bounce one hand take to dismiss KP? Perhaps Ind only won the tri-series in Aus cos Dhoni used illegal WK gloves to dismiss Gillchrist?

Salim, as my previous posts on this forum would indicate I employ analogies, even those of a deliberate ludicrous nature, to illustrate a point, a point that you ironically agreed with: "...I also agree that 'that' catch didnt cause Aus to rule the world for the next 13 odd years..." Thanks for that. You may think Im a know it all, so be it, I think Michael Jeh is one eyed and I dont fully agree with your perspective and consider your thoughts on cricket akin to a lumbering behemoth marching blindly through a crystal shop. Whatever. You are entitled to your views, Michael is entitled to his and Im entitled to mine. Just be prepared for some lively discussion if others consider your views uninformed or just plain wrong. But thanks for agreeing with me though. Concessions from an opponent, even one undeserving of respect, are still warmly accepted. Next topic anyone?

Salim, you called me a know it all. I called u a lumbering behemoth, all I can say if u deal it out be prepared to take it. Terry, I didnt mention you at all in any of my posts, so not quite sure what you're on about. What I do know is that my previous posts indicate I dont take myself seriously at all. Have a good read mate. Eddy no one made me an oracle & I have never predicted the future on this blog, so maybe you looked into your own crystal ball for an augury? If someone starts calling me names, then they dont deserve my respect do they? I just responded in kind but thanks for the compliments on my cricket views Eddy, & once again, you have called me a name: pretentious. So no respect for you either mate. Its pretty simple really, give your views, be prepared to defend them, call me a name & I will reply in kind. Salim must be a delicate little blossom indeed if he requires others to defend him after he started the fight. So be it. Bring it on, but at least I have united the blog!

90s and years thereafter undoubtedly belongs to the Aussies. Theres no shadow of doubt that Aussies are to be credited for many aspects which revolutionised the game, and one has to acknowledge their superiority. Having said that, not all aussie trend were great. Before 90s, 'gamesmanship' included the great Curtly striking fear into opponent hearts with the infamous gaze of his, or the mercurial Miandad jumping in the middle of the crease. But it took the aussies to bring the so called strong but fair attitude to the game, which meant Waugh excercised his discretion as regards to claiming catches, or systematically sledging opposite numbers, ponting abusing a concerned srinath after being hit in the head, mcgrath spitting at sarwan when given a dose of his own medicine and so on. Gamesmanship, just like the game were taken to another level, but in this case not a higher one. Yes other teams followed, but that doesn't undermine the aussie contribution!! Peace..

Totally agree Sups, there was never any gamesmanship before 1990, a certain bowler never threw a brick into the crowd & injured a fan, a certain 80's spinner was never charged & convicted for assaulting a fan, a famous batter didnt chase a fan (attempt to chase?) a fan with a megaphone around a stadium in Canada, there was never any home bias by umpires, there was never any sledging & articles where Kumar S has admitted his love of sledging are false, Subcon players have never been convicted & banned for match fixing or for ball tampering either. Now that you point it out its so obvious, when Ranjitsinhji wrote "The Jubilee Book Of Cricket" and spends pages writing about "county crickets conversational fielders" he must have either been a) a time traveller & was referring to the 90's aus or b) was only playing county cricket against all aus sides or c) was terribley mistaken. People like H SIngh & Sreesanth are choir boys & never talk or instigate matters (that slap was all a pr stunt)

And yes sups, anything that has occurred pre or post 1990s is Aus fault, incidents where they were not involved where orchestrated by at least one aussie, articles where subcont players have confessed to cheating, accepting money or even just loving to sledge are all pieces of aus propaganda . its all so clear to me now!The footage I have seen of H Singh getting out & shouting what appears to be a four letter word with "off" attached to the end are merely misinterpretations of him stating in hindi "well bowled old chap, I played all around that one. Have a good day & perhaps we can have the pleasure of playing against each other again very soon. I give your mother my best regards." Face the facts people, we are talking about people, and there are people from every nation, colour, creed etc that are idiots, sledge, cannot control their emotions etc. Warne & Mcgrath overreacted at times, but so have Javed, Sarfraz, Arjuna, Sachin, H singh, etc. Face it people on pedestals are not saints

c'mon Tboy..don't you think you are getting a bit carried away here?
First let me point out that in my previous post I had mentioned of a 'trend' being set in the game by the aussies; one which values 'mental disintegration', one which involves systematic 'abusing' of oppponents. I never ever said that aussies alone were the culprits (please read my last line). However this system, this approach, this group attack theory was established by aussies. Once again, others imitated and that doesn't diminish their faults at all. and yes, many non-aussie individuals were culprits of misdemeanor before 90s, but a group and systematic approach lacked in them.
Secondly, while u were quick to give examples other culprits before and after 90s, you never mentioned that the era which I hailed as the aussie supremacy era also had other greats playing and contributing. So when you fail to acknowledge non-aussie achievement and cry foul for not citing non-aussie culprits, ur approach is not wholesome!

Sups first of all I was taking the mickey out of you to illustrate a point. Second u contradict yourself mate, you didn't mention any other countries in your critique of steve waugh and his men, you blamed aus and only stated "other teams followed." You appear to be abrogating responsibility for other countries sledgers. My egs illustrated that events were occurring long before Waugh was born. You spoke about one side of the coin I felt it was only fair that i replied for the other side, because your initial post was hardly balanced and your approach wasnt "wholesome". And I think you will find there was not "a group and systematic approach" in the Australian team. Not all the aussies joined in with the sledging, just like any side there are different personalities and some people don't like to sledge (shock horror, some of the aus team are in the category!) Just because you see fielder talking doesnt mean he is sledging. Supporting your bowlers & giving encouragement isnt sledging.

Strange, the spinners did not win as many Test Matches as the Fast bowlers in the 90's. Yes Warne and Saqlain and Kumble were wonderful to watch and very important parts of their respective teams, but to my mind the 90's was all about fast bowlers. Donald from South Africa and what a superb foursome they had, I still remember that unbelievable Aus-S Africa series in SA in 97? Gillespie at his fastest , McGrath , vs Donald at his fastest, I think Mark Waugh was the only batsman that could handle them, but I digress, Ambrose and Walsh, Waqar Younis (the best) and Akram , Srinath and Prasad, all deadly bowling combinations, and batting scores in Tests were far lower than they are nowadays, indeed I would go so far as to say the 90's was the last golden age of Fast bowling, with spin bowling being a distant second, despite the efforts of Warne, Kumble and Saqlain. Don't forget Murali was no balled in OZ in 96, I was there, as I was every year from 94-98 for the Boxing Day Test.