Cricket Betting Site Betway

View Poll Results: Who's going to win the 2009 Ashes?

Voters
86. You may not vote on this poll
  • Australia

    64 74.42%
  • England

    16 18.60%
  • Tie (Australia retains the Ashes)

    2 2.33%
  • I just want my kids back

    4 4.65%
Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 195

Thread: Who's going to win?

  1. #16
    Cricketer Of The Year four_or_six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,205
    I hope we can make a good fist of things. Who knows what will happen if we get off to a good start. A huge amount depends on the form and fitness of Mitchell Johnson... if he trips over a stray cricket ball, I reckon it could even be 5-0 to us.

  2. #17
    Norwood's on Fire GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    League One
    Posts
    60,418
    Gonna dig this thread up when we win the Ashes, not a big fan of digging poor predictions but will make an exception

    Quote Originally Posted by Axl Rose
    The internet is a big garbage can


    RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.

  3. #18
    State Vice-Captain DaRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Oh, England of 2004/05 are miles ahead of England of 2008/09 (and 2008, and 2007/08, and 2007, and 2006/07, and 2006, and 2005/06...) for sure. But still, there was absolutely no real indication that Simon Jones was Test-class never mind as good as he was sometimes in 2005; there was no indication Flintoff was going to be as sensationally fantastic as he was for the last four Tests of 2005; and obviously Kevin Pietersen hadn't played before then so we had no clue what was going to happen when he did.
    I agree about Kevin Pietersen and to an extent about Simon Jones (although he did deliver a few good spells, like in Port Elizabeth), although Andrew Flintoff was arguably reaching a peak with bat and ball. That being said, he definitely saved his best for the 2005 Ashes.

    Australia, meanwhile, had lost a vital, vital bowler (Gillespie) and two good middle-order batsmen (Katich and Martyn), and no-one realised that until the Ashes series started. In fact it only happened with the two WA batsmen after the First Test.
    There were signs that Gillespie was losing his form in New Zealand (and indeed, ever since New Year's Day - he was never the same after being dropped twice in one over at the start of the Sydney Test). The same applies to Kaspr - which is probably why both had such dismal series.

    Maybe you have a point, incidentally, in that going from good to superlative is rather more likely than going from shocking to very good (which England will have to do if they're to win this series).
    Exactly. It's easier to turn in a superb performance when you have form and confidence behind you than when you don't, even though Australia's side is 'merely' very good.

  4. #19
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by DaRick View Post
    There were signs that Gillespie was losing his form in New Zealand (and indeed, ever since New Year's Day - he was never the same after being dropped twice in one over at the start of the Sydney Test). The same applies to Kaspr - which is probably why both had such dismal series.
    It's true that, in New Zealand, both were well below the standard they'd been at for the last 12 months - but did anyone seriously expect them to be as utterly diabolical in England as they ended-up being?

    I'd say anyone who claims they seriously did was lying.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006


  5. #20
    State Vice-Captain DaRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    It's true that, in New Zealand, both were well below the standard they'd been at for the last 12 months - but did anyone seriously expect them to be as utterly diabolical in England as they ended-up being?

    I'd say anyone who claims they seriously did was lying.
    Yeah, you're right. No-one would've seriously betted on them being that bad and everything is much clearer with hindsight. I myself didn't see the signs of their receeding form (pre-Ashes, that is) until after the Ashes was won by England.

  6. #21
    Soutie Langeveldt's Avatar
    Pinball Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Leeuwarden, Netherlands
    Posts
    29,567
    Aus 2-1.. There is no way Australia are that strong to whitewash England, even though they are diabolical.. I still can't believe they beat SA, we were absolutely hideously bad for the first 2 tests.. Basically, everyone is bad

  7. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    India
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by DaRick View Post
    Yeah, you're right. No-one would've seriously betted on them being that bad and everything is much clearer with hindsight. I myself didn't see the signs of their receeding form (pre-Ashes, that is) until after the Ashes was won by England.
    Quote Originally Posted by Langeveldt View Post
    Aus 2-1.. There is no way Australia are that strong to whitewash England, even though they are diabolical.. I still can't believe they beat SA, we were absolutely hideously bad for the first 2 tests.. Basically, everyone is bad
    Had they played Prince instead of McKenzie, they probably would have won the first test without a doubt but probably not the second test. SA lost the series rather than Australia winning it.

  8. #23
    Cricketer Of The Year Ausage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    I'll show ye!!
    Posts
    8,675
    Australia 3-0 imo. Reckon Johnson will have a field day over there

  9. #24
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    29,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Inferiority View Post
    Had they played Prince instead of McKenzie, they probably would have won the first test without a doubt but probably not the second test. SA lost the series rather than Australia winning it.
    Can only beat the team put on the park.

    Would have been Prince's first hit in a long time, without a chance to establish any semblance of form. You can't quantify how much the big score he made for his province before the third Test contributed towards his effort in that game.

  10. #25
    Hall of Fame Member TT Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    .
    Posts
    17,431
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    Can only beat the team put on the park.

    Would have been Prince's first hit in a long time, without a chance to establish any semblance of form. You can't quantify how much the big score he made for his province before the third Test contributed towards his effort in that game.
    He did play some domestic cricket before the first test, albeit 20/20.

  11. #26
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    Can only beat the team put on the park.

    Would have been Prince's first hit in a long time, without a chance to establish any semblance of form. You can't quantify how much the big score he made for his province before the third Test contributed towards his effort in that game.
    Not to mention that, rather like Michael Hussey playing instead of Katich or Clarke in England in 2005, it would only ever remotely be suggested in a wise-after-the-event category. The idea of Prince opening instead of McKenzie at the start of the series was, rightly, absurd.

  12. #27
    State Vice-Captain DaRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Inferiority View Post
    Had they played Prince instead of McKenzie, they probably would have won the first test without a doubt but probably not the second test. SA lost the series rather than Australia winning it.
    That's a bold statement to make - like others have said, the double-century prior to the third test (plus Bryce McGain's fecklessness) helped Prince immeasurably.

    In the end, we could do the same 'what-if' situations to the series in AUS. What if Lee had not played, for instance?

    However, ultimately, there's no point - we'll never know the proper answers to these hypothetical questions.

  13. #28
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Well, some what-ifs are interesting - if they're what-if-something-plausible-happened ones. The example you give is a perfect example of a pointless one, as pointless as the what-if-Prince-had-opened-all-series. There was no possibility, under any circumstance, that either player was going to play \ not play given the availability at the times in question.

    And while "what if so-and-so wasn't injured" is reasonable, "what if so-and-so was injured" emphatically isn't. Because you can say that about every single player ever to take the field in every game of cricket ever.

  14. #29
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    29,950
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Well, some what-ifs are interesting - if they're what-if-something-plausible-happened ones. The example you give is a perfect example of a pointless one, as pointless as the what-if-Prince-had-opened-all-series. There was no possibility, under any circumstance, that either player was going to play \ not play given the availability at the times in question.

    And while "what if so-and-so wasn't injured" is reasonable, "what if so-and-so was injured" emphatically isn't. Because you can say that about every single player ever to take the field in every game of cricket ever.
    I don't agree that Prince opening instead of McKenzie was as implausible as you seem to believe.

  15. #30
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    29,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    I don't agree that Prince opening instead of McKenzie was as implausible as you seem to believe.
    It was mooted, but it would've been a hugely controversial decision. It'd be like dropping Mike Hussey right now from the Test side.

Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •