The fallout

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

You're right about the inconsistency. I do think you aren't giving England enough credit though. We stood up when it mattered.

You did win the last game, but there was still inconsistency in the bowling even then that could have been exploited. Broad's efforts in the first innings saw the game as good as over and Swann bowled well too. Australia bowled poorly again though after looking so good at Headingly.

There are a lot of cliches that go with winning (and losing) but I don't think that masks the fact both teams were pretty average on the whole. England were better than us though and deserved to win. They won the key moments in the series and that included the last game.

I don't see it as not giving England credit though, the whole series mattered not just the last game. Both teams were guilty of not taking chances that would have seen them win (England earlier than they eventually did). It's to their credit they came back from that and were victorious in the end. Player's on both team's performances were what they were regardless of the result though.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

You did win the last game, but there was still inconsistency in the bowling even then that could have been exploited. Broad's efforts in the first innings saw the game as good as over and Swann bowled well too. Australia bowled poorly again though after looking so good at Headingly.

There are a lot of cliches that go with winning (and losing) but I don't think that masks the fact both teams were pretty average on the whole. England were better than us though and deserved to win. They won the key moments in the series and that included the last game.

I don't see it as not giving England credit though, the whole series mattered not just the last game. Both teams were guilty of not taking chances that would have seen them win (England earlier than they eventually did). It's to their credit they came back from that and were victorious in the end. Player's on both team's performances were what they were regardless of the result though.

I don't disagree with much of that. I wasn't just talking about the last game, though. The difference between the two sides was simply that we played well more often.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

I don't disagree with much of that. I wasn't just talking about the last game, though. The difference between the two sides was simply that we played well more often.

Totally agree.

[aussie]

The selection panel & coach definately needs chainging. This post McWarne era needs really tacticians selecting the side. AUS dont need another robot like Buchanan at the helm.

I say make I Chappell, Simpson & S Waugh/Border selectors & Warne the coach.

[social]

The reality is that Eng are a pretty poor test team at present and that was good enough to beat Aus.

If that's not enough reason to overhaul the Aus setup then I dont know what is

[howardj]

Originally Posted by social

The reality is that Eng are a pretty poor test team at present and that was good enough to beat Aus.

If that's not enough reason to overhaul the Aus setup then I dont know what is

Spot on.

I haven't seen one Aussie in this thread deny that England were the better team. All we are saying is that this is not a particularly great England side - especially minus Pietersen and with an injured Flintoff who only made a significant contribution in one Test match.

For Australia to lose to that side, especially after what we served up in South Africa (who I regard as the best team in the world), justifies some real serious questions to be asked. And more importantly the answers to those questions to be followed up with some action.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by howardj

Spot on.

I haven't seen one Aussie in this thread deny that England were the better team. All we are saying is that this is not a particularly great England side - especially minus Pietersen and with an injured Flintoff who only made a significant contribution in one Test match.

For Australia to lose to that side, especially after what we served up in South Africa (who I regard as the best team in the world), justifies some real serious questions to be asked. And more importantly the answers to those questions to be followed up with some action.

Yeah, having to say "but I give full credit to England" every time when you're discussing that Australia played pretty poorly (which is simply the truth, no matter how you look at it) just so people don't get upset does get a bit tiring after a while.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

You did win the last game, but there was still inconsistency in the bowling even then that could have been exploited. Broad's efforts in the first innings saw the game as good as over and Swann bowled well too. Australia bowled poorly again though after looking so good at Headingly.

I thought they bowled pretty well for the first two days. Getting England to 330ao was a phenomenal effort given how the pitch played on day one, and by the end of day two they were about 50/3 with Midge looking lethal.

It was only faced with having to bowl for a third consecutive day, a terrible match situation and extremely defensive fields from the word go that they started to bowl poorly. I don't think you can blame the bowlers for that defeat in any way.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

I thought they bowled pretty well for the first two days. Getting England to 330ao was a phenomenal effort given how the pitch played on day one, and by the end of day two they were about 50/3 with Midge looking lethal.

It was only faced with having to bowl for a third consecutive day, a terrible match situation and extremely defensive fields from the word go that they started to bowl poorly. I don't think you can blame the bowlers for that defeat in any way.

330ao was a decent effort, but Clark wasn't really a patch on what he did at Headingly and England's batsmen helped us out. Us being bowled out for 160 in the first innings was the cause of our defeat, and the bowlers can't be blamed for that. Still think they went back to being inconsistent though after looking good the match before.

[slippyslip]

Originally Posted by howardj

Spot on.

I haven't seen one Aussie in this thread deny that England were the better team.

And they didnt play badly. So what if England have lost some series in the recent past? Most of them were pretty close. England had their chances against S. Af last year. They had their chances in the West Indies. This time they took them.

Everyone said the 1989 Australian ashes team wasnt very good, that they only won because England were complete crap. Since then Australia has only lost 10 or so series in the past 20 years.

More players contributed to their teams on both sides this series. The 2005 series both teams were carried by a couple of star players.

Just because personalities didnt dominate the series doesnt mean the teams played poorly. If you want larger than life personalities go watch wrestling.

[slippyslip]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

I thought they bowled pretty well for the first two days. Getting England to 330ao was a phenomenal effort given how the pitch played on day one, and by the end of day two they were about 50/3 with Midge looking lethal.

It was only faced with having to bowl for a third consecutive day, a terrible match situation and extremely defensive fields from the word go that they started to bowl poorly. I don't think you can blame the bowlers for that defeat in any way.

England only got over 400 twice in the whole series. Once in Cardiff on a batting paradise and in the 1st innings at Lords when the Australian bowlers did bowl terribly. Other than the 1st innings at Lords when did the English batsmen totally dominate the Australian bowlers?

In the inevitable witch-hunt aftermath an Ashes loss rational thinking goes out the window.

Australia lost because, like in 2005, when the ball was swinging the batsmen couldnt handle it. Its a hard problem to fix because as we saw with Hughes playing county cricket is no preparation for an Ashes series in England.

But its also a problem for England in that they have very few weapons to combat Australia away from home.

I wouldnt be surprised for the next few ashes series the home team wins.

And whats wrong with that? I bet cricket is a lot better off than it would have been if England lost the 2005 and 2009 series.

[howardj]

Originally Posted by slippyslip

And they didnt play badly. So what if England have lost some series in the recent past? Most of them were pretty close. England had their chances against S. Af last year. They had their chances in the West Indies. This time they took them.

Everyone said the 1989 Australian ashes team wasnt very good, that they only won because England were complete crap. Since then Australia has only lost 10 or so series in the past 20 years.

More players contributed to their teams on both sides this series. The 2005 series both teams were carried by a couple of star players.

Just because personalities didnt dominate the series doesnt mean the teams played poorly. If you want larger than life personalities go watch wrestling.

Where did I say they played badly?

FFS anytime an Aussie says that Australia played poorly and should not have lost the Ashes, people think you're having a go at the Poms.

Grow up.

Surely we're allowed to have a discussion and get to the bottom of Australia's poor tour without being cast as having a go at the Poms, or being sore losers.

[slippyslip]

Originally Posted by howardj

Where did I say they played badly?

FFS anytime an Aussie says that Australia played poorly and should not have lost the Ashes, people think you're having a go at the Poms.

Grow up.

Surely we're allowed to have a discussion and get to the bottom of Australia's poor tour without being cast as having a go at the Poms, or being sore losers.

Have a think again.

I live in Sydney. I was born there.

I see a lot of Australians running around hitting the panic button and about to leap out of windows in high rise buildings. Just not here but elsewhere.

Some Australians are using the excuse that England are complete crap so if we lose to them then it should mean drastic overhauls.

Personally I dont think there is a lot between the top 5 teams.

[howardj]

Originally Posted by slippyslip

Have a think again.

I live in Sydney. I was born there.

I see a lot of Australians running around hitting the panic button and about to leap out of windows in high rise buildings. Just not here but elsewhere.

Some Australians are using the excuse that England are complete crap so if we lose to them then it should mean drastic overhauls.

Personally I dont think there is a lot between the top 5 teams.

Mate, I don't think England are complete crap.

Rather I just think that we should have been able to beat the 5th ranked team in the world, especially after beating the # 1 team in the world in their own backyard just a few short weeks before.

To me, there were some inexplicable batting collapses - several times we got cleaned up for under 250 in the 1st innings. But for Lords, where Flintoff was brilliant, I just don't think their bowling was all that great for us to fall in a heap as many times as we did.

Furthermore, our bowling was completely inconsistent.

Neilsen seemed in denial.

And the selectors had a shocker.

On the hand, England were consistent and took advantage of the above, and good luck to them. But I still maintain that it was a sub-standard performance on our part.

For Ponting to say after the last Test: "I'm really proud of the guys and we are definitely heading in the right direction", to me is just denial. On this tour, we crashed out in the 1st round of the T20 WC, and lost the Ashes. That's cause for real alarm from where I sit.

[GIMH]

Anderson's first innings spells at Lord's and Edgbaston and Broad's at the Oval weren't too far behind Flintoff's second innings at Lord's I reckon. And despite being the Freddie worshipper I am, those three spells probably all deserve more praise because they had more effect on the result (well Jimmy's at Edgbaston didn't, but the other two did).

Flintoff was immense at Lord's, mind