97 vs 09

[Xuhaib]

I will go for 97.

The only thing 97 had going against is that it was decided before the final test but overall the quality of cricket was much better then this one, however a classic final test mighy still sway my oponion.

[Uppercut]

I think this poll is a test match too soon.

[GIMH]

09, could of course change if we lose

[Xuhaib]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

I think this poll is a test match too soon.

should have added multivote would have been interesting to see people views changing during the test.

Is it possible for a mod to change?

[Top_Cat]

'09 deffo. Sides are a little more evenly matched whereas, after Edgbaston, Aus were clearly the better side in 1997. Dispute better cricket played in 1997 too; the Aus bowling was obviously better but the Aus batting I've found so much better this series, Elliott aside (who was immense; loved his play against the short balls).

[BoyBrumby]

Think it depends what you're after. Would disagree with T_C slightly about the quality of the cricket, think it was definitely better back then. Although we were generally having our arses handed to us, I reckon our batsmen stood up more in 1997 against a genuinely great Oz attack & our seam attack of Caddick, Gough & Headley looks pretty bloody decent in retrospect.

However, despite Dicko's occasional "black is actually white" assertions round these parts that '97 was a close series, supported with "if X had/hadn't happened we'd have clearly won Y test" (& if my auntie had a cock, etc...), it was AN Other thrashing after the first test. If memory serves rain saved us in the second test (McGrath took his test best figures I think?) and we won at The Oval with the series gone to add a flattering sheen to the scoreline.

Have gone 2009 because it's been more of a contest, but it's been the closeness of the score rather than the quality of the cricket that has kept us interested IMHO.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

However, despite Dicko's occasional "black is actually white" assertions round these parts that '97 was a close series, supported with "if X had/hadn't happened we'd have clearly won Y test" (& if my auntie had a cock, etc...), it was AN Other thrashing after the first test.

Actually it wasn't. Fair to say England were hammered at Lord's with lots of rain almost certainly saving defeat, but the next two hinged on one crucial moment, which had it gone England's way they would very probably have won the game - Stephen Waugh's n\o at Old Trafford and Elliott's dropped catch at Headingley. Only at Trent Bridge were England completely outplayed and beaten, before winning a close game at The Oval that they could have lost (and no, don't anyone go claiming the fact it was a dead game meant that much - Australia historically struggle equally chasing small scores dead or live Test). People can try to discredit this sort of thing with the usual "if my aunty had a cock" nonsense, but that's what happened.

Australia were certainly the better side in '97 and deserved to win, but it was a closely-fought series which could easily have gone either way.

Anyway, certainly agree that we shouldn't be assessing the relative merits and demerits of two series' when one has had six Tests complete and the other four with one remaining. Ask me after The Oval.

And yes, the question of quality of cricket and exciting-ness are very often two different ones - see '05 and '06/07 for instance - and this might well be another such.

[Uppercut]

I think we've seen lots of quality cricket this series, from both sides. Just never from both at the same time.

[GIMH]

Second innings at Lord's?

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

Second innings at Lord's?

Yep, about the only time this series when both the batting side and the bowling side were at the top of their game.

[Richard]

And even then we couldn't fully concentrate on that because of the furore over the Umpiring. And the game was essentially decided as said innings begun anyway.

[GIMH]

I disagree so much with that, and I certainly never slept a wink on the Sunday night

[0RI0N]

97 for me.
Eng stunning 0z in the 1st test.Nas n Thorpe batting brilliantly after Caddick and Gough bowled 0z out cheaply.
Tubby getting a 100 after months of batting torment.
1 -0 Eng
/
Lords Test a draw.McGrath providing a masterclass.
1 -0 Eng
/
2nd Test Old Trafford
Steve Waugh's 108 and 116 on a difficult and tricky pitch.
1 - 1
/
3rd Test at H'dingley
Thorpe drops MTG Elliot early on.
Elliot and Ponting partnership guides 0z to huge lead.
Jason Gillespie 7fers in Eng 2nd innings.
1-2 to Aus
/
5th Test at Trent Bridge was a Test that was anybody's but ultimately tilted 0z way by Ian Healy's innings(and some lower order runs)
1-3 Aus and Ashes retained
/
6th Test at the Oval (last of the 6 match Ashes series in England)
Low scoring match in which The Cat bags 11 wickets to give the English a consolation victory
2-3 to Aus
/
England had periods at Old Trafford and Trent Bridge where they should've closed 0z out but they didn't.
At Old Trafford they ran into the iron will of Steve Waugh.
At Trent Bridge they allowed the 0z lower order to score crucial runs.
But at the end Aus won 3 Tests on the bounce in England since who knows when.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

I disagree so much with that, and I certainly never slept a wink on the Sunday night

Yeah but you're an ultra-patriot. Us realistically-minded types knew that Australia never, at any point in their innings, had a hope in hell of chasing 500-odd. Though we should've made them chase far more.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by Richard

Yeah but you're an ultra-patriot. Us realistically-minded types knew that Australia never, at any point in their innings, had a hope in hell of chasing 500-odd. Though we should've made them chase far more.

I'm not an ultra-patriot, more an ultra-supporter of the England cricket team, FTR. but anyway, I'm also an eternal optimist, so if I'm worried, everyone else should be