Originally Posted by Anil
england are decidedly the inferior team and would've lost anyway(in fact i disagree with people who say that the series would've been different had it been played in england), had the selections been done better, england might have put up a better fight, they would still have lost the ashes comprehensively...it's not that they are a bad team, the aussies are just that good, simple as that....
England man for man weren't Australia's equals, that's true. But they weren't necssarily last time either, and they managed to beat us. I do think they'd have fared better at home (though I wouldn't have expected them to win), and some of what affected their performances was their poor preparation (and obviously their away "selection group") for the tour. But mainly, I think the English - and particularly their bowlers - were just substantially below their best. And Australia were a lot closer to theirs.
Anyhow, in answer to the poll question, no.