awtb

[Uppercut]

Gower- 'Who do you think will win Ian?'

Botham- 'Australia are going to bum us 5-0, really not much point in watching. We are absolute ****, to follow us this summer would be a complete waste of time.'

Doesn't make sense from an advertising point of view does it?

Had to squint to see whether you were implying they'd be set alight or arse-raped.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Had to squint to see whether you were implying they'd be set alight or ass-raped.

arse-raped, tbf.

 

[Uppercut]

Thank you, Brumby. Never one to let an inappropriate comment slide.

 

[vic_orthdox]

arse-raped, tbf.

Nah, in the spirit of Simpson and his donkey, we've got the mule in the back of the plane to bring for a proper ass-raping.

 

[Burgey]

You noticed how I mentioned that, yes?

Had all gone well, it might have gone thus:
Edgbaston - England thrash Australia
Lord's - Australia win comfortably
Old Trafford - England win
Headingley - easy England win
Trent Bridge - easy Australia win
The Oval - could easily have gone either way

Had things gone differently and my aunty was born with balls, she'd have been my uncle.

 

[James_W]

Had things gone differently and my aunty was born with balls, she'd have been my uncle.

You never know. Perhaps if your auntie was indeed your uncle and he/she was your father's brother/sister, he/she would've given your father a swift kick in the nads rendering them useless and you would not be here. Never take life for granted.

 

[Burgey]

Indeed.

 

[Richard]

Had things gone differently and my aunty was born with balls, she'd have been my uncle.

And the effect on the cricket history would, I regret to inform you, have probably been precisely zero.

 

[James_W]

And the effect on the cricket history would, I regret to inform you, have probably been precisely zero.

What if said auntie/uncle bombed Lord's? That would have quite an effect on cricketing history itbt.

 

[Richard]

Ind33d it would. However, that'd be a rather far-fetched outcome, truth to be told.

 

[Jono]

Best point in that article, is that other than 2005, the Ashes are very very rarely close.

Ridiculous commentary from a few people whose opinons I rate very very highly.

 

[Richard]

Best point in that article, is that other than 2005, the Ashes are very very rarely close.

... apart from in 1997.

And, well, the truth is that 1994/95 and 1998/99 weren't rank walkovers either. Even 2006/07 England were in the game at various points in each of the last four Tests, despite being beaten easily in all bar the Second Test.

Only 1989 and 1993 has been Australian thrashing followed by Australian thrashing.

 

[Uppercut]

Even 2006/07 England were in the game at various points in each of the last four Tests, despite being beaten easily in all bar the Second Test.

Let's not be silly Rich. England couldn't have been Australia's bitches any more in 2006 if they had lined the entire England team up facing a wall the second they got off the plane, bent them over, pulled their trousers down and proceeded to perform unspeakable acts to them for the entire duration of the test series.

 

[Richard]

England could very easily have won the Adelaide Test if Giles had caught Ponting.

If Gilchrist had gotten out 1st ball the Australian victory at The WACA would likely have been pretty slim.

If Hayden and Symonds had been given lbw as they should have been who knows what'd have happened in the MCG Test. England could even have taken a first-innings lead.

If England had been able to manage the not-normally-all-that-difficult task of dismissing Stuart Clark quickly then the SCG Test would probably have been a relatively narrow loss, and who knows, maybe even a victory.

Let's get this straight - Australia won all of the latter three Tests by a landslide in the end, and no-one in their right mind would suggest they did not deserve to (they were extremely lucky to win at Adelaide and you could repeat that Test 100 times and they might well never win it again). But the notion that any of the last three Tests were Australian walkovers from first ball to last is plain nonsensical.

They dominated way, way, way, way more in the first three-and-three-quarter Tests in 2002/03 than they did in 2006/07.

 

[GIMH]

I agree with some of your points in a way Rich (particularly the Symonds-Melbourne Cricket Ground one, but there was no excuse for the way we crumbled after that) but it doesn't really change the fact that it was by no means a close series. We had good spells in matches but were outclassed four times and bottle the Adelaide Test.

 

[Uppercut]

England could very easily have won the Adelaide Test if Giles had caught Ponting.

If Gilchrist had gotten out 1st ball the Australian victory at The WACA would likely have been pretty slim.

If Hayden and Symonds had been given lbw as they should have been who knows what'd have happened in the MCG Test. England could even have taken a first-innings lead.

If England had been able to manage the not-normally-all-that-difficult task of dismissing Stuart Clark quickly then the SCG Test would probably have been a relatively narrow loss, and who knows, maybe even a victory.

Let's get this straight - Australia won all of the latter three Tests by a landslide in the end, and no-one in their right mind would suggest they did not deserve to (they were extremely lucky to win at Adelaide and you could repeat that Test 100 times and they might well never win it again). But the notion that any of the last three Tests were Australian walkovers from first ball to last is plain nonsensical.

They dominated way, way, way, way more in the first three-and-three-quarter Tests in 2002/03 than they did in 2006/07.

I don't think i have ever seen a test match where the losing side couldn't look back on a particular moment where the game might have changed in their favour. Nevertheless, the better side almost invariably wins in longer-form cricket, and Australia were so emphatically the better side in that series it was embarrassing.

 

[Richard]

I don't think i have ever seen a test match where the losing side couldn't look back on a particular moment where the game might have changed in their favour.

I have, hundreds of 'em. As I say, the opening four Tests of 2002/03 certainly fitted such a mantle, and so did the First Test in 2006/07.

Nevertheless, the better side almost invariably wins in longer-form cricket, and Australia were so emphatically the better side in that series it was embarrassing.

Australia were the better side, but the series was not completely one-sided. A one-sided series would be 1989 or 1993, or even Aus-vs-WI 1996/97.

Certainly not The Ashes 1994/95, 1997, 1998/99, or even 1990/91 and 2006/07.

 

[Richard]

I agree with some of your points in a way Rich (particularly the Symonds-MCG one, but there was no excuse for the way we crumbled after that)

Well there was actually TBH - it was a very difficult pitch for batting and both sides actually bowled pretty decently on it. The only batsmen who made anything of real note both had Umpiring let-offs. Strauss' performance in that game was actually very good indeed.

If the Umpires had done their job that game would almost certainly have been an extremely close contest - either side could easily have won.

 

[NUFAN]

Risky, but I agree with the below.

 

[Son Of Coco]

England could very easily have won the Adelaide Test if Giles had caught Ponting.

If Gilchrist had gotten out 1st ball the Australian victory at The WACA would likely have been pretty slim.

If Hayden and Symonds had been given lbw as they should have been who knows what'd have happened in the MCG Test. England could even have taken a first-innings lead.

If England had been able to manage the not-normally-all-that-difficult task of dismissing Stuart Clark quickly then the SCG Test would probably have been a relatively narrow loss, and who knows, maybe even a victory.

Let's get this straight - Australia won all of the latter three Tests by a landslide in the end, and no-one in their right mind would suggest they did not deserve to (they were extremely lucky to win at Adelaide and you could repeat that Test 100 times and they might well never win it again). But the notion that any of the last three Tests were Australian walkovers from first ball to last is plain nonsensical.

They dominated way, way, way, way more in the first three-and-three-quarter Tests in 2002/03 than they did in 2006/07.

Not so much luck as England ****ting themselves on the final morning and trying to play out a draw by scoring no runs.

That's the only test where England got close to Australia for longer than about 10 minutes here or there. They might have played well for a session once or twice afterwards, but they were awful in general.