Originally Posted by social
Margin of victories have been so huge that, whilst conceding that they would make a difference, it ludicrous to suggest that the score-line would be any other than it is right now
I don't think it's as simple as that.
Ostensibly in 2005, Australia had the better players as now, but England matched their intensity and desire to win. I believe Michael Vaughan was a huge factor in that. Also, little pieces of luck helped the English (Ricky Ponting's decision to bowl at Edgbaston, Glen McGrath's injuries etc.) which meant that England didn't lose momentum. That luck has conspicuously left them this time.
In this series, the whole tone has been different and the Aussies have made the most of it.
They got off to a magnificent start in Brisbane and (unlike 2005) have kept their boot on the English throat! England have been sliding backwards with every match, becoming more and more shell-shocked. Whilst being an outstanding player, I don't think Freddie Flintoff's captaincy style is suited to playing Australia. You need to be more "hard-nosed" and calculating (a la Vaughan), rather than the 'lead from the front' style, particularly when not 100% fit.
I believe that if Vaughan and an in-form Jones had been playing, the Australians would still be winning, but the margin would be much less and the matches more competitive.