-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Who's going to win?
- Thread starter andyc
- Start date
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Right now, you'd have to back in Australia. When you look back at 2005 though, both sides really have dropped off.
England's issues in the middle order, and bowling attack, still need to be sorted out. If they can get that done in the series vs the Windies which precedes the Ashes, then their chances will improve.
Hopefully Australia goes in with the attack of Johnson, Siddle and Clark. Not really all that fussed whom the fourth component of the attack is; ideally I'd like Hauritz or McGain, with Watson batting at 6. However, the more likely situation is that North retains his spot (which he is entitled to do, don't get me wrong) with Lee playing as the fourth quick, which funnily enough would mean that he'd probably have to take the new ball.
Australia 2-1, with the last couple of Tests really affected by weather and bad light.
England's issues in the middle order, and bowling attack, still need to be sorted out. If they can get that done in the series vs the Windies which precedes the Ashes, then their chances will improve.
Hopefully Australia goes in with the attack of Johnson, Siddle and Clark. Not really all that fussed whom the fourth component of the attack is; ideally I'd like Hauritz or McGain, with Watson batting at 6. However, the more likely situation is that North retains his spot (which he is entitled to do, don't get me wrong) with Lee playing as the fourth quick, which funnily enough would mean that he'd probably have to take the new ball.
Australia 2-1, with the last couple of Tests really affected by weather and bad light.
Jakester1288
International Regular
I'm going Australia 2-1 if we pick the right sides.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Australia are overwhelmingly the better side as of April 2009 - as Australia of April 2005 were.
Thus, Australia should win - comfortably. But so they should have in 2005. It turned-out a couple of their key players (Gillespie and Katich, and possibly Martyn) got a lot worse in a very short time, and several of England's (Simon Jones, Flintoff, Pietersen in the sense that he'd never played before) got a hell of a lot better (and have since gotten worse since again).
If Australia are not to win this series, comfortably, it'll take something similar this time around. It's unlikely to happen twice in such a short space of time, so myself I'd predict Australia to win.
Honestly, though, the scoreline is anyone's guess. I'd reckon Australia by two clear Tests - that is, I'd expect Australia to be two up at a time when the destination of The Ashes is decided.
Thus, Australia should win - comfortably. But so they should have in 2005. It turned-out a couple of their key players (Gillespie and Katich, and possibly Martyn) got a lot worse in a very short time, and several of England's (Simon Jones, Flintoff, Pietersen in the sense that he'd never played before) got a hell of a lot better (and have since gotten worse since again).
If Australia are not to win this series, comfortably, it'll take something similar this time around. It's unlikely to happen twice in such a short space of time, so myself I'd predict Australia to win.
Honestly, though, the scoreline is anyone's guess. I'd reckon Australia by two clear Tests - that is, I'd expect Australia to be two up at a time when the destination of The Ashes is decided.
You do realise that England were building up a head of steam in early 2005, as well? It's not quite the same as now (where they're plumbing to new depths).
But you're right, England will need to really lift their game to win, especially seeing how Australia dealt with South Africa in their backyard.
What will the scoreline be? I'm not stupid enough to predict a whitewash, but I'm skeptical of England's ability to win anything other than a dead test as of right now. I'm guessing 3-0 or maybe 3-1, similar to the 1990's, when Australia were consistently better than England but England were always capable of springing the odd surprise at a seemingly unexpected moment (usually in dead rubbers).
The squad will be important, but not as vital as it was against SA. Still, I'd advise against any of Lee, Bollinger or McGain playing. The first two have poor records in England, while the third's performance in Cape Town defied description.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
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.
Australia were still massive favourites. England had some good players: Trescothick in 2004 and 2004/05 was in the best phase of his career, by miles, IMO; Strauss had obviously started sensationally; Vaughan was going OK-ish; Geraint Jones was just about acceptable as a wicketkeeper-batsman; Giles was good on a turning deck; Hoggard was pretty decent. But the team were far, far better in 2005 than they had been in 2004 or 2004/05 or than I reckon anyone of reasonable mind was expecting them to be.
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.
The point is that, while both England and Australia are unrecogniseable for what they were in 2004/05, they're pretty well in similar positions as regards to each other. And it will take something like 2005 for England to win, once more.
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).
PhoenixFire
International Coach
Australia either 4-0, 3-0 or 3-1 IMO.
Magrat Garlick
Global Moderator
6-0 Australia
BoyBrumby
Englishman
Don't thik it will be a thrashing, England are never as bad or as good as they are made out to be. This team is clearly not up to much but I there is enough there to avoid complete embarrassment, they may have lost to South Africa and India but they were pretty competative series and I expect this one to be the same.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
As always, of course, I hope that if there's a draw it's a genuine one rather than one where one side is denied by lost play.
Though it goes without saying that if one side is to be denied by lost play I want it to be Australia.
15-1 currently, ITSTL... and the 1 is the serial optimist Corrin. Already a series of Greigys lined-up should England pull-off the unlikely.
Though it goes without saying that if one side is to be denied by lost play I want it to be Australia.
15-1 currently, ITSTL... and the 1 is the serial optimist Corrin. Already a series of Greigys lined-up should England pull-off the unlikely.
four_or_six
Cricketer Of The Year
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. 
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.
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.
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.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
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.