dhobi_bhai

Ian Chappell: I dispute the fact that Australia have taken their game to another level. I have trouble believing that Australia have gone to another level, I think it's the other teams that have gone to another level and sadly it's down; and that I think is a major problem with world cricket. I find it ludicrous that Australia haven't been defeated in 29 games in the World Cup so far and that Ricky Ponting has captained 22 World Cup games and hasn't lost a match. I think that it's ridiculous and is a indictment on the other teams. The gulf is pretty big between Australia and their opponents and it's about time the other teams got off their backsides.

Tony Greig: I think that is partly correct. I suspect that it is right [that the other countries are falling down]. I really do believe that with the exception of Sri Lanka - and I do believe that they are an exception because they really have come on and they have closed the gap, certainly from where they were last time to where they are this time and it was appropriate that they were the ones that got to the final.

Ian Chappell: You can only intimidate those people who allow themselves to be intimidated. Australia have always played a very aggressive brand of cricket. I always found that teams that didn't want to be intimidated were always very difficult to intimidate. I think a lot of it has to do with equipment. There is probably a bit more power in this [Australia's] line-up and some of that is to probably to do with the equipment. I think some of the opposing teams just look at Australia and say, 'they are too hard to beat; we'll try but we don't expect to beat them so we'll try to beat the other teams.' If you're taking that sort of an approach against the Australians, they'll realise it very quickly and then they will intimidate you. But, as I've said before, you'll only get intimidated if you allow yourself to be.

Tony Greig: I don't like to say it, but I think there is an element of that. I don't think it quite exists with sides like New Zealand and Sri Lanka - they might have felt it a little bit in the finals - but I don't think that they are quite bad. England on the other hand are definitely inclined that way.

Basically, that line-up is just a very good line-up and they are also very unselfish. They've got a formula there, they've got confidence in the lower-order and so they are just making hay while the sun shines and unfortunately the other teams seem to be fading away almost as if they are accepting the consequences of this Aussie barrage which in a lot of ways is dreadfully sad.

Ian Chappell: One of the reasons why Australia is better than the rest of the world is because of the system that produces their cricketers.

Well, it has been diluted a little bit but that's not because of changes in Australian cricket, it's because of changes in international cricket and in the programming. But when people start telling me that it's the academies and the coaches that make Australia better these days, I tell them that that's a load of rubbish. The reason why Australia is a good side now, is the same reason why it was good side in 1948 - it's because of the system that is producing the cricketers. If you are sending rubbish cricketers to the academies then I defy any coach to change rubbish cricketers into good ones. It boils down to the fact that good, young, competitive cricketers are turning up at the Academy and the Academy is just a finishing school.

The reason why it's a good system is because you get tested - whether as a batsman or as a bowler - many times on the way through. During the Champions Trophy, when West Indies were piling it on in the first few overs of the finals and Australia still managed to come back, how Australia keep managing to come back whereas the other teams fail to do so and that is because of the system. Bracken was the guy who got Chris Gayle on that occasion. Now Bracken has probably been mauled a few times on the way through, as a young cricketer, as a club cricketer and as a first-class cricketer and he's found a way to come back from that and that stood him in good stead when he got to international cricket. So, atleast he knows that he's got a way to come back. It may not always work but he knows that atleast he's got something to fall back on. The English system used to be perhaps as good as Australia's. The Indian system - with the amount of players that they have got - should be able to match Australia in the same way but they don't seem able to do it. The other countries - well, I'm not so sure about them.

You always need to have a good all-round side to win consistently and more importantly to win under all conditions. It's no good being a good side at home - that to me doesn't win you a lot of respect. You get respect from winning wherever you go and to do that you need to have a good all-round side. This is one of the reasons why Australia is so far ahead of the other teams - unlike most of the other teams Australia don't just rely on a handful of star players. In most teams you have four or five players who are exceptionally good players, but if they happen to miss out in the game against Australia, then Australia win...

While Australia have got some star players, they also have other players who are not big names but if it falls on them to do a job, they will do the job for you. And you always need that sort of a team to win consistently.

Source --> CricInfo Roundtable (for the complete article)

Matrubhoomi

For India, the big question at the moment should be how to catch-up with neighboring Sri Lanka and Bangladesh that are progressing at a fast pace.
Australia toh door ki baat hai...

In fact, the sheer class of Pontings, Gilchrists, Haydens, Symonds, McGraths, Brett Lees, Warneys (retired), kept Australia ahead than the rest of the world for so many years.

However, now, the only arguement I can give is obvious that all above "Classic" Players have crossed their 30 years of life cycle.....so one can hope that after they are phased out, the new lots may not be of the same "class"....hence the gap will reduce considerably

Antumul alona

Tony and Ian can argue along the lines of aristotal and socrates arguing on intellect till the cows come home from grazing.
The fact, however, remains that Australian domestic cricket produces players that are within 5-10% of the international match winning standards. They just need a series or two and reach their peak.
The rest of the world has no such local structure. Even England's county sucks pretty bad.
Hence Australians, who live and die with the sport of their choice be it any one, are dominating cricket as well.

Some1

True. I have no doubt in my mind that India's bowling is worse than Bangladesh's. In these circumstances, the talk to India catching up with Australia is simply out of question.

Man with a Plan

Players like Ponting, Hayden, Gilchrist, Brett Lee and McGrath came from Australian system. These players are natural talent, but not like Wasim, Waqar, Saeed and Inzamam.

There is no rocket science to Australian Cricket, our players learn cricket playing International while Aussies come trained and prepared.