How would the other teams have done?

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

Maybe they didnt play half as well because they arent very good? Theres no point talking about the quality of Australian batting in the Ashes, because the fact is even a chimpanzee would have made batting look easy when batting against Hoggard, Harmison, Giles, an injured Flintoff and Anderson for most of this series.
Point emphasized when symonds scored runs.

Or maybe they didn't play half as well because they hasn't spent 18 months preparing for the series? South Africa's pace attack is probably better than England's minus Simon Jones, but the gap isn't anything like as big as you seem to be making out, nor did England bowl all that badly. Hoggard bowled better than he did in the 2005 Ashes, while Harmison had two horrible tests and three where he wasn't that bad at all. Flintoff bowled well at times too, as did Panesar. Obviously they all have pretty bad series records, but they faced some fantastic batting, particularly in Brisbane and Perth. The fourth seamer and Giles when he was in the team were terrible, and England's attack didn't operate particularly well as a unit, but they certainly challenged the Australian batsmen enough that no other team would have got close to making 400+ in all tests bar one.

And of course, Australia's team makeup was better this year, with Clarke back in the side and batting well, and Stuart Clark added to the bowling attack, along with McGrath bowling much better than the stuff he sent down last year and Gilchrist playing decently again. I find it pretty hard to believe that anyone who watched both series could believe that Australia didn't play better cricket this year against England than they did against South Africa last year.

[GotSpin]

Most other nations would have been biting the pillow as they felt the wrath of this marvellous Australian cricket team

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by Turbinator

How would the other teams have done in this series against the Aussies?

1) West Indies

The West Indies sides of the 80s would have given them a decent run.

[wpdavid]

Given that standards elsewhere are pretty moderate, I'm not over-concerned about how other sides would have done. And I'm certainly not comforted by the fact that they'd have probably all gone down 5-0. My only concerns are the muddled thinking that's gone into this tour, the complacency that's been apparent for far too long, and the failure of too many players to perform. Of course Aus are good, but that doesn't excuse the margins of victory that we've seen. Same old English excuse making, afaics. In the 80's, we were told that the 5-0 blackwashes against WI were OK because that's what happened to everyone. In reality, it only happened to us, but it was comforting to pretend otherwise. I don't particularly want to see the same lazy thinking now.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Or maybe they didn't play half as well because they hasn't spent 18 months preparing for the series? South Africa's pace attack is probably better than England's minus Simon Jones, but the gap isn't anything like as big as you seem to be making out, nor did England bowl all that badly. Hoggard bowled better than he did in the 2005 Ashes, while Harmison had two horrible tests and three where he wasn't that bad at all. Flintoff bowled well at times too, as did Panesar. Obviously they all have pretty bad series records, but they faced some fantastic batting, particularly in Brisbane and Perth. The fourth seamer and Giles when he was in the team were terrible, and England's attack didn't operate particularly well as a unit, but they certainly challenged the Australian batsmen enough that no other team would have got close to making 400+ in all tests bar one.

And of course, Australia's team makeup was better this year, with Clarke back in the side and batting well, and Stuart Clark added to the bowling attack, along with McGrath bowling much better than the stuff he sent down last year and Gilchrist playing decently again. I find it pretty hard to believe that anyone who watched both series could believe that Australia didn't play better cricket this year against England than they did against South Africa last year.

IMO even a wound up cricket doll could have bowled better than England did at Brisbane.
Hoggard may have bowled better than he did in 2005, but he can only bowl so well when the pitches dont suit him. As such he was gun barrell straight at 75-80 mph all series, and just because he bowled accurately for 3 tests and did something that the rest of the England attack was incapable off it doesnt mean in anyway that he was ever going to be a threat. Hoggard certainly bowled well in TB and the Oval last year, and he almost certainly looked more dangerous on those wickets and more like a matchwinner rather than the support bowling work horse that he has been for most of this series.
Flintoff bowled with an injured ankle all series and it was painfully obvious to anyone that he was bowling at half pace all series and looked half the bowler that he was during the Ashes 2005. Harmison was absolute rubbish for his first 2 tests and other than Perth he was never going to cause any problems to the Australian batsmen even if he bowled accurately anyways.
As far as the Australian side is concerned, Langer has been about as hopeless as Cook or any other English batsmen. Ditto Hayden and Symonds who've had the odd good innings and still looked largely at sea despite playing a completely inferior attack. Martyn for the time that he was around didnt do much either. At the end of the day even against a completely hopeless attack your side was bailed out time and time again by Hussey and Ponting who were the only 2 players who could have claimed to have batted better than all the England batsmen bar Pietersen. Panesar didnt get to bowl on a turning wicket at all this series, yet he even managed to skittle out the Aussies at Perth with the ball turning a few micrometers.
The Australian bowling has been very good, but thats largely because Clark and Warne have bowled well throughout the series and its managed to mask the inconsistency of Lee and Mcgrath.
As far as the SA pace bowling attack is concerned, im sure you watched the series in Australia last winter, and im pretty sure that you would have noticed that Nel, Ntini and Kallis had most of the Australian batting wrapped around the fingers for most of that series, and certainly looked far more dangerous than the England bowling has looked in this series.

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

As far as the SA pace bowling attack is concerned, im sure you watched the series in Australia last winter, and im pretty sure that you would have noticed that Nel, Ntini and Kallis had most of the Australian batting wrapped around the fingers for most of that series, and certainly looked far more dangerous than the England bowling has looked in this series.

Perth: 258 and 8/528 dec

Melbourne: 355 and 7/321 dec

Sydney: 359 and 2/288

Those were Australia's scores in the Tests against South Africa in Australia 12 months ago. Not as consistently dominant as this Ashes series granted, but mate if our batsmen can be "wrapped around the fingers" of opposing attacks with numbers like this in every series we ever play, I'll cop that.

[The Sean]

As for Hayden being largely "all at sea" and Langer being "as hopeless as Cook or any other England batsman"... I'll grant you neither performed at their best, but Haydos averaged 51 and Langer 43 despite this. Only Pietersen and Collingwood can claim comparable numbers.

I'll say again mate - try to give some credit where it's due. Right now it just sounds like a whole lot of sour grapes.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by The Sean

Perth: 258 and 8/528 dec

Melbourne: 355 and 7/321 dec

Sydney: 359 and 2/288

Those were Australia's scores in the Tests against South Africa in Australia 12 months ago. Not as consistently dominant as this Ashes series granted, but mate if our batsmen can be "wrapped around the fingers" of opposing attacks with numbers like this in every series we ever play, I'll cop that.

Averages:
Gilchrist: 27
Symonds: 24
Hodge: 77( without the 203, it was 26.25)
Langer:32
Jacques: 15

Cant say those are exceptional averages. Hayden, Ponting, Hussey carried the side through the series, while the rest of the batting was feeble.

[Prince EWS]

Zimbabwe would have won 5-0. Nkala man of the series.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

Hodge: 77( without the 203, it was 26.25)

I really hate it when people do that to prove a point. Without anyone's highest score, their average will be lower - especially if you are talking about averages over a short period. His 203 was against a quality attack and deserves to be recognised. The fact that he was poor without it is fairly irrelevant because he scored it - hence he had a good series.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

I really hate it when people do that to prove a point. Without anyone's highest score, their average will be lower - especially if you are talking about averages over a short period. His 203 was against a quality attack and deserves to be recognised. The fact that he was poor without it is fairly irrelevant because he scored it - hence he had a good series.

Fair point

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by The Sean

As for Hayden being largely "all at sea" and Langer being "as hopeless as Cook or any other England batsman"... I'll grant you neither performed at their best, but Haydos averaged 51 and Langer 41 despite this.

I'll say again mate - try to give some credit where it's due. Right now it just sounds like a whole lot of sour grapes.

Despite what? Langer had one good test match, easily the game in which England bowled worst in the entire series and even in that game he had an incredible amount of luck that it beggered belief. At the end his average was quite obviously boosted by being 100 not out. Arguably Langer was the worst batsman on both sides this series, unless you count Geraint Jones.
Hayden similarly had 2 good innings, hardly chanceless as most people observed and by and large most people were considering dropping him after the way he was batting at the start of this series.
I honestly cant see how either of these 2 batted well. Their averages look good because they played against a mediocre attack on mostly flat batting wickets and they both still needed plenty of luck to score runs.

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

Averages:
Gilchrist: 27
Symonds: 24
Hodge: 77( without the 203, it was 26.25)
Langer:32
Jacques: 15

Cant say those are exceptional averages. Hayden, Ponting, Hussey carried the side through the series, while the rest of the batting was feeble.

Jacques played one Test. If we're doing that, Bracken played one Test too and he averaged 24. Lee also averaged 24 over the 3 Tests.

So basically three of our batsmen (Ponting, Hussey, Hayden) had excellent series, Hodge scored a double century (which does count, incidentally) and averaged 77, and even our 8th and 9th best batsmen averaged 24. And we won the series 2-0.

If that's "wrapped around the fingers" I'm ok with it.

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

I really hate it when people do that to prove a point. Without anyone's highest score, their average will be lower - especially if you are talking about averages over a short period. His 203 was against a quality attack and deserves to be recognised. The fact that he was poor without it is fairly irrelevant because he scored it - hence he had a good series.

Exactly.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

As far as the SA pace bowling attack is concerned, im sure you watched the series in Australia last winter, and im pretty sure that you would have noticed that Nel, Ntini and Kallis had most of the Australian batting wrapped around the fingers for most of that series, and certainly looked far more dangerous than the England bowling has looked in this series.

That's a massive overstatement as far as I'm concerned. Nel and Ntini certainly bowled well in that series, but they certainly didn't have Australia's batting wrapped around their fingers. Ponting scored three centuries, Hayden and Hussey had good, consistent series, Hodge scored a double century, and Australia made good scores in every match. Given that two of the wickets did a bit off the seam, I don't think two bowlers that averaged 29 had dominant series at all, they merely did reasonably well in the face of some good batting. Gilchrist and Symonds were obviously pretty poor throughout the series, but Gilchrist also struggled against the West Indies, which says a lot about the sort of form he was in at the time.

Regarding the Australian batting in this series, it's obvious that Ponting and Hussey were the standout batsmen, but that doesn't mean that everyone else was rubbish. It says a lot about the performance of the Australian top order that all 7 batsmen made centuries, two of them made more than one, and Hayden, Hussey and Gilchrist all got close to another one as well. It was a very even contribution really, with only Langer actually having a poor series with the bat, after the first test. Gilchrist was probably Australia's 5th best batsman, and he played significant innings in three different tests. I certainly don't think the bowling was bad enough or the pitches flat enough to allow this sort of consistent batting effort from a team that weren't playing extremely good cricket.

Simply put, I think it was the best Australian team performance since the tour of India in '04, and quite comfortably as well. That was the last time that every player (bar Lehmann, in that series) contributed so well to a team victory.