So did England really had a chance anyway?

Craig · 27-12-2006, 07:37 PM

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.

Anil · 27-12-2006, 07:47 PM

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....

Craig · 27-12-2006, 07:50 PM

But in saying that IMO your opposition is only as good as you allow them to be. In that I mean you bat, bowl, field very well, you take your half chances etc.

Anil · 27-12-2006, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

But in saying that IMO your opposition is only as good as you allow them to be. In that I mean you bat, bowl, field very well, you take your half chances etc.

right...in saying that aren't you saying that england didn't bat, bowl, field and catch nearly as well as australia though? that's exactly that makes them inferior....

James90 · 27-12-2006, 07:59 PM

It could have happened with a lot of variables so realistically I don't think they could have. Voted no accordingly.

The Baconator · 27-12-2006, 08:04 PM

Bit more optimistic than I usually am when it came to this series. Most of my reasons were more the chance of Australia being crap than us being good though.

steds · 27-12-2006, 08:07 PM

There were a number of things happened before this series to suggest it would be a much harder task this time round. Throw in the location of the series, and it was nigh on impossible I fear.

Prince EWS · 27-12-2006, 08:09 PM

The selection issues weren't a great concern. Panesar should have played ahead of Giles, yes, but we haven't seen anything from Read or Mahmood to suggest they would have been a difference in the earlier tests. In fact, I'd still have Anderson and Jones given the choice.

Matteh · 27-12-2006, 08:47 PM

Craig, you say Regaing in the poll...

But until about a week ago, England were looking to retain the Ashes.

Nnanden · 27-12-2006, 08:55 PM

Haha, the grammar in this thread is atrocious.

James90 · 27-12-2006, 09:16 PM

Quote:

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?

Longest sentence in history?

ripper868 · 27-12-2006, 09:23 PM

I feel england did have a relaistic chance, its just they havnt been allowed to by the aussies. they showed they can play cricket in adelaide and had it not been for australia being simply awesome, they had a chance.

oh look...relaistic...the bad grammar continues...

James90 · 27-12-2006, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James90

Longest sentence in history?

Not even close.

Craig · 27-12-2006, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matteh

Craig, you say Regaing in the poll...

But until about a week ago, England were looking to retain the Ashes.

That wouldn't just be me

If a mod is online and see can they please fix it?

Craig · 27-12-2006, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anil

right...in saying that aren't you saying that england didn't bat, bowl, field and catch nearly as well as australia though? that's exactly that makes them inferior....

Well I suppose yes then. But Australia has played well because England allowed them to.

View Poll Results: Did England have a realistic chance of regaing the Ashes?
Yes	8	25.00%
No	23	71.88%
Undecided	1	3.13%
Voters: 32. You may not vote on this poll

27-12-2006, 08:09 PM	#8 (permalink)
Prince EWS Global Moderator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: New South Wales Posts: 37,759	The selection issues weren't a great concern. Panesar should have played ahead of Giles, yes, but we haven't seen anything from Read or Mahmood to suggest they would have been a difference in the earlier tests. In fact, I'd still have Anderson and Jones given the choice. __________________ ~ Cribbage

27-12-2006, 08:55 PM	#10 (permalink)
Nnanden You'll Never Walk Alone Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: New South Wales Posts: 26,188	Haha, the grammar in this thread is atrocious. __________________ Jesus saves proudly supporting Liverpool FC

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Which team has the best chance to stop Australia??	Choora	World Cup 2003	25	31-01-2003 06:17 PM
Yorkshire without a chance!!?	Umpire Money	World Club Cricket	9	19-11-2002 07:39 PM
Indian "Pace" Bowlers ? The Ones With Chance , The Ones that Deserve Chance?	lord_of_darkness	Cricket Chat	78	14-11-2002 10:11 PM
Does England have any chance against Ozoz in the Ashes series??	vandemataram	Cricket Chat	17	01-09-2002 04:37 AM

27-12-2006, 07:47 PM	#2 (permalink)
Anil Cricketer Of The Year Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Tattooine Posts: 9,646	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....

27-12-2006, 07:50 PM	#3 (permalink)
Craig World Traveller Join Date: May 2003 Location: Super Happy Fun Sugar Lollipop Land! Posts: 34,131	But in saying that IMO your opposition is only as good as you allow them to be. In that I mean you bat, bowl, field very well, you take your half chances etc.

27-12-2006, 08:04 PM	#6 (permalink)
The Baconator International Vice-Captain Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Sutton Coldfield Posts: 4,413	Bit more optimistic than I usually am when it came to this series. Most of my reasons were more the chance of Australia being crap than us being good though.

27-12-2006, 08:07 PM	#7 (permalink)
steds Hall of Fame Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Riding public transport back and forth Posts: 16,914	There were a number of things happened before this series to suggest it would be a much harder task this time round. Throw in the location of the series, and it was nigh on impossible I fear.

27-12-2006, 09:23 PM	#12 (permalink)
ripper868 Cricketer Of The Year Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: The Nest Posts: 8,271	I feel england did have a relaistic chance, its just they havnt been allowed to by the aussies. they showed they can play cricket in adelaide and had it not been for australia being simply awesome, they had a chance. oh look...relaistic...the bad grammar continues...

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)