The reason for Australia's long term success is because we have a system in place which ensures that the best cricketers get the best preparation, both in first class cricket and even earlier, to ensure that they are physically, mentally and technically ready to compete in international matches.
It's not just about talent - it's about identifying talent early, nurturing it, training it both mentally and physically, then picking the best of these into the OZ XI. It's about being really professional in how you manage the sport.
We only have a small population (20million) and many sports - cricket has to fight for its share of young kids, who get split up between cricket, rugby, league, Aussie Rules, tennis, swimming, football, etc. We don't have a huge pool to choose from like India or Pakistan, so we have to make sure that the ones we do choose are well-prepared.
The thing about the OZ success is that it is not purely down to talent or skill - it's down to attitude, professionalism and a lot of hard work to try to keep improving. Look at the u-19 and u-21 competitions - the OZ don't dominate there to the extent that we do in full-fledged Tests or ODIs. At u-19 and u-21 level we're about even with India, Pakistan, SA or any of the other teams. But when our players move from the ages of 19 to about 23 or 24, they improve at a much faster rate than their counterparts, because they play in a cut-throat district, grade and domestic competition which weeds out the also-rans from the really-good prospects. Then this "cream of the crop" usually has to mark time in the Pura Cup (our FC competition) to make sure that they are mentally and physically prepared to play in high-pressure matches. Then the best of these are cherry-picked to play in the Test side. That's why OZ can pick players out of domestic cricket that nobody else has heard of (e.g. Bracken, Hussey, Clark, Tait, etc) and they slot into the OZ side fully prepared and able to cope with the pressure of international cricket. As an example, before he made his OZ debut, Hussey had scored over 15000 runs and had 35 first class centuries - so by the time he played for the Baggy Greens had already had heaps of experience.
It's very rare for the OZ to pick a young bloke to play for our team if he hasn't played first class cricket in OZ yet - Clarke had to wait, Tait had to wait, and even now there are a lot of exciting young blokes in OZ (Cullen Bailey, Adam Voges, Chris Rogers, Ben Hilfenhaus) who just have to bide their time and continue to hone their skills in the Pura Cup.
Because we have a well-organised structure, it turns into a competitive advantage for us - we don't have to rely on finding the "one-in-a-million" players, the Shane Warnes or the Adam Gilchrists. They're the icing on the cake - but the fundamental base is built from the likes of the Pontings, Haydens, Martyns, McGraths, Brackens, Husseys, etc.
The good news is that it's not impossible to adopt this system - all you need is a visionary leader who can mobilise different elements of your cricket infrastructure and work towards improving it and making it more cohesive:
For the infrastructure
1. get the right set of administrators in place
2. work on improving coaching standards at FC, district and schoolboy level
3. set up a talent identification and management process
4. work to improve the first class domestic competition - make it more competitive and try to make sure that there are pressure matches so that players can get used to playing under pressure
5. make sure you have a succession plan in place. Players are like inventory - they age and need to be replaced. There should always be at least one or two players being "groomed" for each position, should a player retire or lose form.
For the team:
1. get the right coaching staff in place to support the team
2. have a strong leader who can "own" the team and leave his stamp on it
3. ensure that when deficiencies in players are noticed (either mental or technical) that someone works with them to eliminate these. No point dropping a player because he keeps walking across his stumps but then not working with him to fix it, because he will never improve.
4. Work hard on things like athleticism and fitness, so that things like fielding and running between the wickets improve. This is unglamourous but often is the difference between winning and losing.
I guess to summarise, what I'm saying is that all the above can be replicated, as long as someone has the critical mass and vision to implement it. The catalyst for OZ cricket to restructure itself was when we had the mass retirements of Lillee, Chappell and Marsh in the 1980s and our team basically ended up getting hammered by the WI for years. Cricket Australia recognised that we couldn't be in a situation where we were relying on "blind luck" of having talented players coming through - we had to work to make sure that whatever talent we had, that we improved it and made sure it was as prepared as possible. Look at the WI - no system in place, so when the talent dried up they've plummeted from No1 to No8 or 9 in the world.
Talent always helps - and we're lucky to have such a strong cricket culture that we're always unearthing talented players like Tait, Clarke, Symonds, etc - but having a system in place will help build competitiveness when the talent's not always there, and will build on existing talent as well.
My 2c (geez that was a bit long).