Despite two consecutive series wins in
vastly different circumstances, the Australian cricket team still
tricks the eye. In one Test, Ed Cowan resembles a doughty old-school
opener, capable of withstanding the best attacks in world cricket;
the following, he disappears into the sheds at 1/11. During one
match, Shane Watson fights indomitably for a hard-earned 80; the
next, he plays over and around a nothing-ball and departs meekly. In
any one series Australia is likely to employ seven different bowlers.
With victories against India and the
West Indies under his belt and a reasonable layoff before their next
Test, it's time Michael Clarke examined his team. They aren't super
talented, abounding with youthful promise or even stocked with
journeymen. The Australian team, or even the thirty-man CA contract
list, has no defining single characteristic which unifies them. And
it shows.
 |
| Ed Cowan - (c) Balanced Sports |
Australia are a team without an
identity. Without that unifying factor and devoid of knowledge of
who they are as a team, the country's Test players will continue to
play inconsistent cricket.
The greatest teams in world cricket
history have rocked an identity which was the personification of
their most dominant collective character traits. The Australians of
the first half of the last decade epitomised arrogance. The West
Indians they replaced as ostensible World Champs exuded a fearsome,
calculating vibe. For years, Pakistan has been content with being
unknowable. Flower's England has committed to twin attitudes of
professionalism and preparation. Look back at every great team in
history and adjectives spring quickly to mind.
With the current Aussies, those
adjectives are less defining and more descriptive. Inconsistent.
Journeyman. They (mostly) try hard.
