Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 78

Thread: 2009 Sides vs 2005 Sides

  1. #31
    BARNES OUT dontcloseyoureyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    WILDCARD, BITCHES
    Posts
    28,118
    tl:dr.
    The one, the only CW Black
    Code:
    47.3 W Coppinger to Heads 
        Smacked the ball straight into the groin of Iwuajoku who has fallen over, 
        miraculously with the ball still caught in his scrotal area! Out!

  2. #32
    International Regular stephen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    aus
    Posts
    3,773
    On paper I would say that this English side looks as good as the side that played in '05. Remember the 2005 abberation was from numerous things, but primarily it was due to the English working really well together as a team and all hitting their respective peaks (Simon Jones in particular deserves a lot of the credit for the victory), while Australia went into the series without proper preparation, arrogant attitudes and underperformed, to a man with the exception of Warne and McGrath.

    On paper this is a much closer contest than what '05 was supposed to be. Australia's bowling attack is inexperienced and underdone and the batting attack is nowhere near as strong as in '05. At least on paper.

    Yet one gets the feeling that Australia's preparation this time around has been much better while the English have been infighting and working poorly as a team.

    I mean there is no reason why England could not beat Australia in this series, but there equally is no reason to believe that they will.

    Strauss is class, Cook has matured and is a decent opener, Bopara has a decent record at test level, Pieterson is a star, Collingwood is quality and Flintoff is class. Prior is a decent bat (though poor keeper). Swann and Panesar both have a lot of potential and ability, though Panesar really should be doing better by now. Anderson is much better than he was in years past (and as I believed he would back in 06/07, has developed into a quality bowler). Broad has a lot of potential and is coming into the Ashes with some decent form and Onions has had a good start.

    There is no reason why this team could not win, especially if you look at the Aussies at the moment.

    Hughes is relatively untested, Katich is in some form but doesn't tend to go on and make big scores which really hurt the opposition. Ponting looks like he's dropped from his lofty heights back down to the level of "mere mortal", Hussey is in terrible test form. Clarke is better than he was in '05 and is looking like the most reliable middle order bat Australia has. North is relatively untested. Haddin is quite good. Johnson is in incredible form. Siddle is fairly inexperienced but is in good form. Lee and Clark are both coming off injury. Hauritz is Australias best spin option but is far more suited to ODI cricket.

    By comparison to what *should* have happened on paper in '05, the current English team has a better chance of winning. I don't expect that to happen but I would not be surprised to see a 2-1 or 3-1 result to Australia, with the 1 being in a live test.

  3. #33
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    23,055
    I agree with you, although you've been a little questionable with your summary (Hughes is relatively untested but Cook has matured into a decent opener? Mate, Hughes>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>C ook). I don't really see the need for all the English ultra-pessimism. They put up a decent fight against SA last year, and their side has really improved since then for my money.
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    The Filth have comfortably the better bowling. But the Gash have the batting. Might be quite good to watch.

  4. #34
    International Regular stephen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    aus
    Posts
    3,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    I agree with you, although you've been a little questionable with your summary (Hughes is relatively untested but Cook has matured into a decent opener? Mate, Hughes>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>C ook). I don't really see the need for all the English ultra-pessimism. They put up a decent fight against SA last year, and their side has really improved since then for my money.
    My point wasn't that Cook is better than Hughes, I believe the opposite actually. My point was that he's far more proven than Hughes at this stage.


  5. #35
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    #7Thompson
    Posts
    47,135
    Quote Originally Posted by dontcloseyoureyes View Post
    tl:dr.
    I had to look up what this meant
    #JFT96
    "I can't promise anyone success but I can promise them a trip to the moon." - John King
    SWA

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

  6. #36
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    23,055
    Quote Originally Posted by stephen View Post
    My point wasn't that Cook is better than Hughes, I believe the opposite actually. My point was that he's far more proven than Hughes at this stage.
    Indeed- my point wasn't that you think Cook is better than Hughes, but that you had worded your post such that it said everything positive there was to say about Cook but everything negative about Hughes. Love how you couldn't find anything remotely bad to say about Midge Johnson though .

  7. #37
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero View Post
    I had to look up what this meant
    And what does it mean?
    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

  8. #38
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by stephen View Post
    On paper I would say that this English side looks as good as the side that played in '05. Remember the 2005 abberation was from numerous things, but primarily it was due to the English working really well together as a team and all hitting their respective peaks (Simon Jones in particular deserves a lot of the credit for the victory), while Australia went into the series without proper preparation, arrogant attitudes and underperformed, to a man with the exception of Warne and McGrath.
    Langer?

    Anyway I'd dispute that Hayden, Ponting, Martyn, Clarke, Katich and Gilchrist underperformed - they were just worked-out (Hayden, Clarke, Gilchrist) or stripped down from sensational to good (Ponting) or good to poor (Martyn). The only Aussie who really underperformed badly in 2005 for my money was Gillespie, and it was crucial. And truth be told the only time McGrath bowled well in the series was the opening afternoon - though that spell where he knocked-over Trescothick, Strauss, Vaughan, Bell and Flintoff in about 6 overs was as sensational a spell as you'll see as long as you live.

  9. #39
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    #7Thompson
    Posts
    47,135
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    And what does it mean?
    too long: didn't read

    surprised altoz doesn't post it in every thread

  10. #40
    International Regular stephen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    aus
    Posts
    3,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Langer?

    Anyway I'd dispute that Hayden, Ponting, Martyn, Clarke, Katich and Gilchrist underperformed - they were just worked-out (Hayden, Clarke, Gilchrist) or stripped down from sensational to good (Ponting) or good to poor (Martyn). The only Aussie who really underperformed badly in 2005 for my money was Gillespie, and it was crucial. And truth be told the only time McGrath bowled well in the series was the opening afternoon - though that spell where he knocked-over Trescothick, Strauss, Vaughan, Bell and Flintoff in about 6 overs was as sensational a spell as you'll see as long as you live.
    Langer underperformed by his standards.

    Interesting you say that Hayden was worked out. He was coming off a good twelve months of bad form in test matches at the time, which would have been career ending if it was not for the hundred in the final test.

    Martyn was the unlucky player of the series. He'd just had a huge year in international cricket and was dropped on the back of the Ashes alone, even though he'd been sawn off on no less than two occasions (really bad decisions too).

    Clarke was a relatively new player at that stage, and had some technical weaknesses in his game which were exploited by more than England - remember he was dropped a series or two later.

    It was a series in which so many factors combined to give such a memorable and enjoyable series of cricket - underperforming Australian stars, a huge sense of belief among the English team, career best performances from Flintoff, Simon Jones and Hoggard, some really horrible umpiring, wickets from no balls, sugary mints and misplaced cricket balls.

    Remembering back, when McGrath slipped on the ball before Edgebaston everyone thought that he'd be out for months. It really was a miracle that he was fit to play by the third test (though he had an elbow problem in the forth). There's no way he was near full fitness for the two tests he did play in after the accident. But even with his injury he was clearly the second best performing Australian bowler.

    Lee, Kasper and Dizzy were all attrocious, which was really surprising as Lee was looking white hot in other forms of the game (and heck, he was even looking good for some of the Ashes), Kasper had been in great form and Dizzy had been a champion up until then. It's a real shame that Dizzy will be most remembered for his woeful Ashes and then his 201* against Bangladesh. A bowler who takes over 250 wickets at 26 really deserves a better sendoff than what he got.

    There is no way that Australia were functioning well as individuals or a team, with the exception of Warne and McGrath. Langer was ok (but nowhere near his best) as was Ponting, but the rest drastically underperformed, while England overacheived. And in the end we had a series that was decided on the last day of the last test.

    I have to remember to buy my copy of the dvd.
    Last edited by stephen; 23-05-2009 at 12:44 AM.

  11. #41
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by stephen View Post
    Langer underperformed by his standards.
    I don't think so somehow. He played very well against some generally outstanding bowling - something he did do at other points in his career but not really extraordinarily often (due in no small part of course to the fact that more of the attacks than not that he faced were piss weak). For me Langer can be very proud of his 2005 Ashes, unlike pretty much anyone other than Warne.
    Interesting you say that Hayden was worked out. He was coming off a good twelve months of bad form in test matches at the time, which would have been career ending if it was not for the hundred in the final test.
    I don't think he was in bad form for those 12 months either - I think he'd simply been, yes, worked-out. Kyle Mills always had his number, and Shoaib Akhtar did in that series against Pakistan as well. Hoggard merely carried this on (and he did it in 2006/07 as well - only Rudi Koertzen's refusal to give two plumb lbws stopped this from being in full view), he was certainly not the first orchestrator.
    Martyn was the unlucky player of the series. He'd just had a huge year in international cricket and was dropped on the back of the Ashes alone, even though he'd been sawn off on no less than two occasions (really bad decisions too).
    I know. Nonetheless, he was a batsman in supreme nick reduced by both the bowling and the Umpiring to a complete waste of space in the last four Tests.
    Clarke was a relatively new player at that stage, and had some technical weaknesses in his game which were exploited by more than England - remember he was dropped a series or two later.
    He was dropped just 2 (proper) Tests later - he played the opening two games against West Indies then was out because Hussey had to stay when Langer returned. Clarke was not really very good until he went and scored 309 for once out in the 2005/06 domestic season. That was the first time he truly hinted at being a Test-class batsman, and he has demonstrated this since coming back in in 2006/07.
    It was a series in which so many factors combined to give such a memorable and enjoyable series of cricket - underperforming Australian stars, a huge sense of belief among the English team, career best performances from Flintoff, Simon Jones and Hoggard, some really horrible umpiring, wickets from no balls, sugary mints and misplaced cricket balls.
    Not to mention dropped catches - although England put down quite a few more than Australia, their bowling was so superior to the Australians' that the chances just kept coming. And the no-balls weren't just significant for wickets with them (again, though England bowled more no-balls they were lucky that no wickets fell to them whereas the Aussies weren't) - some of the matches were of such fine margins that the gifted runs might easily have been significant.

    As for the Umpiring, to describe it as "really horrible" is a vast exaggeration. There were a couple of utter shockers (Katich's lbw that pitched about half a foot outside leg being the most extreme example) but mostly it was about as you'd expect in a five-match Test series. It favoured the stronger team (England on that occasion) as it always will, but it was not of a deplorably low standard.

  12. #42
    International Vice-Captain Redbacks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    NT
    Posts
    4,141
    looks like England beat a mediocre side then....

    edit: was a good thing for Australian cricket, how about England?
    Last edited by Redbacks; 23-05-2009 at 08:27 AM.

  13. #43
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    My assessment of those who played for Australia in 2005:
    Langer - decent player at the top of his game;
    Hayden - poor batsmen who had been worked-out for six months and continued to be in the series;
    Ponting - outstanding batsman who was made to look merely good by the excellence of the bowling in the series;
    Martyn - decent player who was in the last four games made to look a pauper by the excellence of the bowling and the unfortunate conspiracy of what relatively few bad Umpiring decisions there were several times going against him;
    Clarke - poor player (at that stage) whose weaknesses were exposed;
    Gilchrist - player who could be superlative or very poor depending on what bowling was sent down at him. In this series, it was the latter.
    Warne - outstanding bowler on top of his game who also benefited from some rather loose batting;
    Brett Lee - pretty poor bowler who occasionally punched above his weight in the series;
    Kasprowicz - relegated to the bench by the time the series rolled around and had passed his peak by that time and was very poor;
    Gillespie - had gone from outstanding to diabolical in a short time and had his inadequacy fully exposed;
    McGrath - quite magnificent on the series' opening afternoon, uninspiring for the rest of it (was far less than fully fit for quite a bit of this time)
    Tait - not even taken on tour with the intention of playing, merely gaining experience. Was clearly not up to it and it remains to be seen whether he ever will be or not.

    All, of course, with hindsight. I'd have confidently predicted only a few of these pre-series.

    As for it being a good thing for English cricket, it was the best thing that'd happened since about 1953. Generated collossal interest at just the time it was needed (with cricket being moved off free-to-air TV the following summer). If there are any long-term benefits it'll take a generation for them to unfold. The short-term benefits were clearly nullified by injury to many of the key players of the series.

  14. #44
    International Regular stephen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    aus
    Posts
    3,773
    Richard, I think that you have poor memory of the terrible standard of umpiring in that series.

    At least three game-changing LBW decisions were given against Australia (two against Martyn and one against Katich). And none of those three were line calls either - they were terrible, shocking and third rate by grade cricket standards.

    In fact the umpiring was of the poorest standard I've seen, with the exception of the "sawn off Tendulkar series" here in Australia a couple of years back.

    The only Australian batsman who actually was found out in that Ashes series was Gilchrist. His batting never fully recovered after that series, and it was the point at which he went from superman to a mere mortal.

    Oh and Richard, your analysis of Hayden is so far off the mark it's a wonder if you've ever seen a game of cricket. He was poor for a good amount of time leading up to the 2005 series. It was not that he'd been figured out (though the short mid on was a very good tactic against him), only that he was out of form and had been for some time. In the two series after that Ashes, against South Africa he was one of Australia's strongest performers - because he'd worked himself back into form. He, Ponting and Hussey carried Australia's batting for around two years after that, but particularly in the South Africa series' Hayden really stood up.

    Brett Lee was a good bowler who was exceptionally unlucky in that series, and ended up with figures not befitting the effort and quality of his bowling. The real problem was that he was carrying the fast bowling attack while McGrath was injured and Dizzy, Kasper and Tait were terrible.

    What really came across strongly in that series was how vital good preparation is. Australia were arrogant and did not prepare adequately and got soundly beaten.

    Yet at the end of the day three runs would have swung the series.

  15. #45
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by stephen View Post
    Richard, I think that you have poor memory of the terrible standard of umpiring in that series.

    At least three game-changing LBW decisions were given against Australia (two against Martyn and one against Katich). And none of those three were line calls either - they were terrible, shocking and third rate by grade cricket standards.

    In fact the umpiring was of the poorest standard I've seen, with the exception of the "sawn off Tendulkar series" here in Australia a couple of years back.
    I've seen at least 8 or 9 series' where Umpiring has been patently worse than that 2005 Ashes. The Martyn lbws where he nicked them were certainly not shockers - they were just the inevitable mistakes that happen from time to time. The only decisions I can recall in that series which was of "should never happen" standard was Katich's lbw at Trent Bridge and the Geraint Jones obvious nick behind that wasn't given out.

    It frankly smacks of the misplaced belief that Umpiring influenced the series enormously, and cost Australia, to believe that it was some of the worst of its time. In five Tests, mostly there'll be more errors than there were in that series. I've seen more errors than there were in those five Tests in some three-Test series'. If that's the second-worst you've seen I'd suggest you've a) not been taking much notice of Umpiring in other series' or b) haven't seen many other series' or c) as I say above, are simply biased.
    The only Australian batsman who actually was found out in that Ashes series was Gilchrist. His batting never fully recovered after that series, and it was the point at which he went from superman to a mere mortal.
    Well, not really - he'd done that 18 months previously, as I've also said before.
    Oh and Richard, your analysis of Hayden is so far off the mark it's a wonder if you've ever seen a game of cricket. He was poor for a good amount of time leading up to the 2005 series. It was not that he'd been figured out (though the short mid on was a very good tactic against him), only that he was out of form and had been for some time. In the two series after that Ashes, against South Africa he was one of Australia's strongest performers - because he'd worked himself back into form. He, Ponting and Hussey carried Australia's batting for around two years after that, but particularly in the South Africa series' Hayden really stood up.
    Hayden didn't recover form in 2005/06 - things merely went back to how they had been before. The bowling wasn't good enough, and the pitches too flat, to work him out, same way it hadn't been 2001/02-2004.

    Hayden was worked-out by Kyle Mills, Shoaib Akhtar and Matthew Hoggard in 2004/05 and 2005 - just keep bowling big inswingers at him and he was always a sitting-duck. All career.
    Brett Lee was a good bowler who was exceptionally unlucky in that series, and ended up with figures not befitting the effort and quality of his bowling.
    Disagree completely. Lee was poor for most of the time, unlucky on occasions, and outstanding on occasions. What bad luck he suffered was more than made-up for by extreme good fortune in the 2006/07 series - the last couple of Tests of it anyway.
    What really came across strongly in that series was how vital good preparation is. Australia were arrogant and did not prepare adequately and got soundly beaten.
    Australia's lack of preparation hardly helped, but they could very easily have prepared as well as could reasonably be expected and still lost.
    Yet at the end of the day three runs would have swung the series.
    Not if one of those bad decisions - Kasprowicz being given n\o when he was plumb lbw 1st ball - had been got right.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. ***Official NRL 2009 season thread***
    By Jakester1288 in forum General Sports Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 30-09-2008, 09:08 PM
  2. *Official* English Domestic Season Thread (2005)
    By chris.hinton in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 2401
    Last Post: 09-04-2007, 04:28 PM
  3. Replies: 30
    Last Post: 24-01-2005, 05:35 PM

Posting Permissions

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