How would you rate this series?

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Athlai

Aus vs. SA in Aus was probably the best cricketing series I've ever seen.

I think it was probably the highest-quality series I've seen. Hard to beat the 2005 Ashes for excitement, atmosphere, quality... the whole picture. Although it's easy to react against it because no one has learnt to shut the **** up about it yet.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by Athlai

Aus vs. SA in Aus was probably the best cricketing series I've ever seen.

The recent one?. If so i would have to disagree.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by aussie

The recent one?. If so i would have to disagree.

Why? Because Australia lost?

It was a terrific series. Topsy turvy... all 3 tests.

[grecian]

Originally Posted by Athlai

Aus vs. SA in Aus was probably the best cricketing series I've ever seen.

Perhaps I should of said "as an Englishman".

Still think players like Warne, Hayden, McGrath, Gilchrist made that an harder Oz team to beat. Close finishes were pretty cool too.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Jono

Why? Because Australia lost?

It was a terrific series. Topsy turvy... all 3 tests.

Didn't go to the wire though. It was, essentially, a two-test affair.

I was pissed off at the time that it was a three-match series, but in hindsight just think how brilliantly poised it would have been at 2-1 with two to play.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Didn't go to the wire though. It was, essentially, a two-test affair.

I was pissed off at the time that it was a three-match series, but in hindsight just think how brilliantly poised it would have been at 2-1 with two to play.

The high quality of cricket overrides the fact that there wasn't a last test decider. A tense finish with lower quality cricket (e.g. here) doesn't make it better than a terrific contest all the way through.

Plus, I'll argue this series was over on day 2 of this test

[aussie]

Originally Posted by Jono

Why? Because Australia lost?

It was a terrific series. Topsy turvy... all 3 tests.

The series lacked that IND/AUS 01, WI/AUS 99, Ashes 05 feel for me.

AUS stood up no doubt. But they where always behind given the bowling mistakes they made. The return series was much more competitve.

If you want to talk about a top quality AUS vs SA series in AUS - 93/94, 97/98 or 63/64 (probably) would be better examples.

[PhoenixFire]

High quality cricket doesn't always equal an exciting series. Obviosuly '05 had both, but I think that despite the lower quality of the cricket, it was still a fascinating and very enjoyable series.

[pasag]

Originally Posted by aussie

The series lacked that IND/AUS 01, WI/AUS 99, Ashes 05 feel for me.

AUS stood up no doubt. But they where always behind given the bowling mistakes they made. The return series was much more competitve.

If you want to talk about a top quality AUS vs SA series in AUS - 93/94, 97/98 or 63/64 (probably) would be better examples.

I think you were watching a different series to everyone else mate.

[Jamee999]

Originally Posted by aussie

The series lacked that IND/AUS 01, WI/AUS 99, Ashes 05 feel for me.

AUS stood up no doubt. But they where always behind given the bowling mistakes they made. The return series was much more competitve.

If you want to talk about a top quality AUS vs SA series in AUS - 93/94, 97/98 or 63/64 (probably) would be better examples.

If the actual Aussies can be graceful in defeat, I'm sure you can too.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by Jamee999

If the actual Aussies can be graceful in defeat, I'm sure you can too.

That point is not in reference to the Ashes. But the AUS v SA in AUS recently.

[oitoitoi]

As series go it was pretty average, though the final test being a decider is always a good thing. I suppose being an Ashes test will always amplify things for the fans. The standard of cricket wasn't great and the crowds were at times worryingly loutish (the booing of Ponting was frankly disgraceful), but the contest was relatively even overall which made up for a lot.

I thought in terms of standard of cricket the recent SA in AUS series was the best I'd personally ever seen, and it had some truly epic moments in it (amplified by the outstanding Australian grounds, I just love watching Australian tests, they're so beautiful on the screen, cricket the way it was meant to be) and was pretty up and down. Thought IND in AUS 07/08 was right up there too, but all the fallout from Sydney put a big cloud over proceedings (Laxman's hundred at Sydney was something really, really special, often forgotten), Tendulkar was incredible that series, and Ishant Sharma to Ponting at Perth was a revelation. The recent Pak SL series looked pretty damn good from just following the scorecards, I wish SL got more coverage and I really hope they get a proper tour of England soon, not some crap in May. SA in SL was pretty decent too I thought, Jayawardene guiding that big chase was an epic innings.

[Athlai]

Johnson's spell against SA in Oz was probably the best spell I've ever seen.

[oitoitoi]

Originally Posted by Athlai

Johnson's spell against SA in Oz was probably the best spell I've ever seen.

Thought his spell in Durban was better, that late inswinger at 96 mph, the first unplayable bowling performance since Wasim retired.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by PhoenixFire

High quality cricket doesn't always equal an exciting series. Obviosuly '05 had both, but I think that despite the lower quality of the cricket, it was still a fascinating and very enjoyable series.

I enjoyed it. But AUS didn't help themselves with stupid seections, especially in the bowling attack. So SA just capitalized on them as good teams should.

For example. AUS should have never gone into the Perth test as Krejza as one of 4 bowlers. He bowled the brilliant ball to dismiss Alma in the 1st innings. But even though the pitch was an absolute rod, i would have much prefered AUS to lose with a sold 4-man pace attack since at least they would have picked their best team.

Same thing again @ the MCG. Picking a average spinner in Harutiz in a 4-man attack. If 4 seamers where picked, when Lee got injured at least you would have had 3 semers to bowl - thus Dumminy/Steyn wouldn't have had it so easy.



Same thing when SA tour ENG, we basically gave them the 2nd test when Pattinson was picked & Ambrose batted @ 6.