Mark Richardson: Unspectacular, but ruthlessly efficient

In the wake of Australia's mauling of the Black Caps in the test series in Australia and then the equally vicious assault on Pakistan in their first test, questions have been raised whether such dominance by one country is good for the game.

In answering this question it all depends on where your motivation lies for watching cricket. If you watch cricket to be thrilled by the drama of a close game then I can understand the frustration, especially if you are an Australian or have a vested interest in the revenue generated from the viewing audience. One-sided contests that last all of three days become tedious very quickly and tend to turn people off.

The excitement factor leaves and those who followed Auckland rugby through the 1980s know all about that as they just stopped going to games. By all accounts, Australia is risking the same from their followers. However, that's why we have one-day internationals - and how much of a great advertisement for that form of the game was the recent Chappell-Hadlee trophy?

If you are like me and watch cricket to appreciate the skill of the players and enjoy the battle between batsman and bowler, then a one-sided battle is not such a turn off. When I watch Australia play, I don't see a boring dismantling of the opposition. I marvel at the solidity of Hayden's game plan, I seethe with jealousy at the back-lift of Adam Gilchrist, something I tried in vain to emulate, and I admire a bowling attack that operates with ruthless efficiency. However, I am a purist and have a trained eye and to appreciate the Australian test machine these attributes do help.

As far as a spectacle goes there is a problem in the way the Australians craft a win. In my opinion, they are the greatest team ever on the basis that they win through applying the basics. There is nothing entertaining about basics, that's why they are called the basics. A match winning effort by Shoaib Akhtar involves stumps flying everywhere, the West Indies of the 80s smashing helmets, Muralitharan producing miracles and Cairns clearing grandstands.

But McGrath, Gillespie and Kasprowitz just bowl maiden after maiden at medium fast pace and batsmen meekly succumb. Gilchrist entertains but, for the most part, the Australian batsmen accumulate runs with a minimum of fuss. It's all so simple that they now get raspberries from their own crowd if they play correct cricket and not flamboyant rubbish.

Perhaps their dominance has ruined the spectacle but then again there is only one Australia and if you want a to and fro'ing cat-fight there are always match ups between the rest of the test playing nations. I challenge anyone to label the 3-0 beating the Black Caps took at the hands of England last winter as boring test match cricket.

I believe the Auckland Rugby team of the 80s took All Black rugby to a new level, which in turn stimulated world rugby.

I do not subscribe to the theory that the standard of sport was better in the past, I believe all sports move forward over time or at the very least mutate and evolve.

Australia's responsibility in test cricket is to continue to ask better of other nations who need to heed the lessons Australia provide. These lessons are not just in the way they play at the test level but also in the total infrastructure of the Australian game that is responsible for their dominance.