So did England really had a chance anyway?

[Legga]

I thought Aus would win 3-1.
I thought the series would be a hard fought contest between two good teams.
How wrong was I.

[Salamuddin]

Originally Posted by Sanz

England barely won the last Ashes with Mcgrath out for good part of it and most Aussie batsmen out of form. During the last tour Australia made a major mistake by not picking Hussey over Katich.

The way England bowled in 2005 (particularly Simon JOnes and Freddy) even Hussey would have struggled.

Yes the McGrath injury had a big impact....but the out of form Aussie batsmen excuse is a load of rubbish.
For the first time the Aussie bats were up against a pace attack bowling well in conditions that suited them.....

In Australia the ball hardly moves around unlike England so it's much harder to expose the technical deficienicies of Guys like Hayden, Gilchrist, Ponting....
Watch the wasy Gilchrist played SImon Jones....Gilly came into the Ashes having scored a lot of runs against the "world class" New Zealand
so I don't see where the out of form bit comes into the equation ....against Jones and Flintoff he looked clueless.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Craig

After being thumped thus far and all the talk of Ashley Giles, Geriant Jones, Monty Panesar, Chris Read, Steve Harmison and James Anderson, Flintoff's captaincy, Adelaide, and the lack of a proper preparation, really in hindsight even if they got it right do you think they would still have been in the contest with a chance of winning the Ashes, or in your view it doesn't matter what they did they would still have lost?

Thoughts please.

Logically if the side that started in the first test was:
Trescothick(C)- assuming no mental illnesses
Strauss
Cook
Bell/Collingwood
Pietersen
Flintoff- fully fit with enough match practice
Read
Hoggard
Harmison- had actually prepared for the Ashes before the 3rd test match
Anderson- same as flintoff
Panesar

Bowling Coach- Troy Cooley

We might actually have had a chance. Of course if Flintoff were fully fit i would have also pondered going in with an extra batsman instead of Anderson.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

To be honest, I think there's very, very few teams in the history of test cricket that could have beaten Australia at home the way they've played over four tests so far. There's not a single player that hasn't had a significant impact on the series, excluding perhaps Damien Martyn, who Symonds replaced with success. So no, I don't think England had a realistic chance with Australia playing at their best, especially without Simon Jones.

They certainly had the chance to go a lot closer than they have though.

Langer has been beyond poor this series, hes been absolutely disgraceful. He had one good test, and even in that one he was lucky to have got double figures in the first innings and in the 2nd he got plenty of tripe bowling.
Similarly Hayden had been mediocre for most of the series while Symonds will not score a run against any attack worth its salt. You can boast about how well the Australian batting has been, but in reality they've only looked good because the England bowling has been absolute garbage for most of this series. For mine if Hayden, Langer, Gilchrist and Symonds were playing against the attack we saw in England last time none of them would have scored anything other than the odd 50 on a flat track.
Similarly its pretty obvious to me that Mcgrath is past his prime and since that first innings at Brisbane he hasnt troubled any of the England batsman and has more or less been gifted wickets in most test matches. Even then 9 wickets in 3.5 games is hardly anything to jump up and down about.
The cracks are definetly visible in this Australian side, the problem is England have been too far away from exposing them.

[PhoenixFire]

Totally agree with Tooextracool.

If you took away Clark, Ponting and Hussey, England would have won, no doubt.

[Matteh]

Originally Posted by PhoenixFire

If you took away Clark, Ponting and Hussey, England would have won, no doubt.

Well you'd hope that a team with 11 players would beat a team with 8 players.

[PhoenixFire]

Originally Posted by Matteh

Well you'd hope that a team with 11 players would beat a team with 8 players.

It is England we're talking about here.

[Anil]

Originally Posted by PhoenixFire

Totally agree with Tooextracool.

If you took away Clark, Ponting and Hussey, England would have won, no doubt.

and yet, here they are 0-4 down....all theorizing and all fantasizing aside, there was no chance....