So what went wrong?

[Zinzan]

Interesting that no-one has mentioned the Toss as being much of a factor in the series. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Strauss win like 4 out of 5.

I knew the Ashes were over for Oz the moment Strauss won the toss on this pitch, one can't help get the feeling that had Aust won & batted first, they probably have won this test.Of course this is very hypothetical, but just the feeling I have

[marc71178]

You've now said that a few times and nobody's commented on it.

The thing is, the Aussie 1st innings score was not a result of the pitch, so saying the toss was critical is a tad misleading.

We'll never know what would've happened if theyd batted first, there's nothing to say that Broad wouldn't have bowled just as well and they'd have been all out for less than 200 in that case.

[age_master]

You've now said that a few times and nobody's commented on it.

The thing is, the Aussie 1st innings score was not a result of the pitch, so saying the toss was critical is a tad misleading.

We'll never know what would've happened if theyd batted first, there's nothing to say that Broad wouldn't have bowled just as well and they'd have been all out for less than 200 in that case.

I think it did help England a little bit but the second innings of both teams showed that Australia's first innings was bad because of good bowling and bad batting, not the pitch. That was where the game was lost, not at the toss.

[slippyslip]

Interesting that no-one has mentioned the Toss as being much of a factor in the series. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Strauss win like 4 out of 5.

I knew the Ashes were over for Oz the moment Strauss won the toss on this pitch, one can't help get the feeling that had Aust won & batted first, they probably have won this test.Of course this is very hypothetical, but just the feeling I have

When you score 348 in the 2nd innings there is no excuse whatsoever for only scoring 160 in the first innings. Sure Broad bowled well and there was a small window where the ball swung.

But a part of test cricket is surviving the tough parts. Unfortunately the art of toughing out good bowling is long gone. Its now break or break through in any situation.

3/5 times Australia flopped in the first innings and thats where we lost. Tosses, swinging cricket balls, rain, humidity it doesnt matter.

[NUFAN]

What went wrong, London matches went wrong.

The matches were dominated by Australia, England, even, Australia, England but Australia failed to win that all important first match of the series.

At the time I didn't think it would prove THAT costly, but it certainly has.

Realistically Australia didn't deserve to win the series, 2-2 may have been a fair reflection, but no sour grapes here - Punter shouldn't have bowled North at the end of the first test, reckon Johnson and Siddle should have been bowling to Anderson and Panesar.

The positives: Marcus North and Ben Hilfenhaus establishing themselves in our best XI. Clark's batting for the most part was excellent too, shame about the last Test.

[Zinzan]

You've now said that a few times and nobody's commented on it.

Hence me saying it again in-case it was missed earlier

[age_master]

Clark's batting for the most part was excellent too, shame about the last Test.

32 off 31 balls for the series is respectable for a tail-ender

[tooextracool]

Disagree with that. Think the Australian bowlers have generally stuck to their task and bowled with greater discipline that England's on the whole. The only time we ever really threatened to get away from them was the first day at Lords and even then to dismiss us for 425 after we were 196/0 & 302/3 was a pretty decent recovery.

Johnson was obviously a disappointment on the whole, as was Clark in 3 of the 4 innings he was given, but Hilfenhaus (especially), Siddle & Hauritz all emerge in credit for me. The only criticism I can level is that they didn't really produce the match-turning efforts that our chaps managed at various times. Johnson must take most of the responsibility here; he was presumed to be the spearhead coming in, but failed to live up to his billing for whatever reason(s).

No, for me the batting folding at crucial times was their biggest problem. The first innings efforts at Lords, Edgbaston & The Oval were what cost the Australians the series, ultimately.

Australia's bowlers, Johnson excepted, might not have been shockingly poor with the ball, but much like in 2005, they simply weren't able to get as much out of the pitch or the conditions with the odd exception of Headingley. Let's face it, no one in the Australian side swung the ball like James Anderson did at Lords or at Edgbaston in the first innings (whilst Hilfenhaus bowled well throughout he was never really destructive). Siddle was pretty much innocuous until he got to Headingley and Johnson was a joke for the series for all bar the 2nd innings at Headingley. Hauritz was average and Clark had one good innings.

Its like I said earlier, Flintoff, Broad and Anderson all had spells that were head and shoulders above any spell bowled by their Australian counterparts. Two of those spells were match winning spells. For me, unless there was some serious help in the pitch a la Headingley, the thing that struck out most was the fact that the Australian bowlers almost always looked to get less out of the conditions especially in terms of swing than England and although that might be because of Murray Mints but that is a question for a rainy day.

[NUFAN]

32 off 31 balls for the series is respectable for a tail-ender

Haha oops = Michael didn't just lose the Ashes last night, he lost an e from his name.

I never get the Clark's and Clarke's wrong!

[Top_Cat]

Australia's bowlers, Johnson excepted, might not have been shockingly poor with the ball, but much like in 2005, they simply weren't able to get as much out of the pitch or the conditions with the odd exception of Headingley. Let's face it, no one in the Australian side swung the ball like James Anderson did at Lords or at Edgbaston in the first innings (whilst Hilfenhaus bowled well throughout he was never really destructive). Siddle was pretty much innocuous until he got to Headingley and Johnson was a joke for the series for all bar the 2nd innings at Headingley. Hauritz was average and Clark had one good innings.

Its like I said earlier, Flintoff, Broad and Anderson all had spells that were head and shoulders above any spell bowled by their Australian counterparts. Two of those spells were match winning spells. For me, unless there was some serious help in the pitch a la Headingley, the thing that struck out most was the fact that the Australian bowlers almost always looked to get less out of the conditions especially in terms of swing than England and although that might be because of Murray Mints but that is a question for a rainy day.

That they were out-bowled in general isn't really in dispute, I reckon. Not a surprise with such an inexperienced attack and that guys like Anderson have been good for a while now. But ascribing that as a reason for the loss is wrong, in my view; reckon the batters' first innings' in this series got Aus in far more trouble.

[AaronK]

Nothing really.. just like other cricket teams.. Aus had one bad day.. when they did what pakistan does best..collapsing.. before that they day they were on top..

[tooextracool]

That they were out-bowled in general isn't really in dispute, I reckon. Not a surprise with such an inexperienced attack and that guys like Anderson have been good for a while now. But ascribing that as a reason for the loss is wrong, in my view; reckon the batters' first innings' in this series got Aus in far more trouble.

Whilst I dont deny that the batting messed up during that innings, I just dont ascribe to that theory. The bowlers failed to take 20 wickets in 4 out of 5 tests this series. Yes, they took 19 wickets in 2 of the games, but the bowlers were largely to blame for the fact that they couldn't get the 20th wicket at Cardiff in 11 odd overs which would have retained the Ashes for them. That statistic does not lie for me, the batting failed in one inning but it delivered in almost all of the other innings. The bowlers not being able to take 20 wickets in 4 tests against a batting as poor as England's is for me the most important fact to take away from the series

[Jamee999]

In this series the way the teams went when they were batting badly was the reverse from recent Ashes series.

When England didn't bat well, or lost early wickets at key points, we generally managed to hang in there, where as Australia collapsed - especially in first innings.

[JBH001]

In addition to the points about Australia's bowling, and TEC is spot on that those 3 spells from Freddie, Jimmy, and Broad were better than anything bowled by an Australian; and the fragility of Australian batting in their first digs; England's lower order also deserve a mention. Often came to the party when England's middle order crumbled and either scored good runs or soaked up good time. Strauss had good fortune with the toss too, but as Benaud once said, a lucky captain is a good captain.

Also, while Monty and Jimmy were fantastic at Cardiff. Spare a thought for Collingwood - soaked up 4 hours or so for his 70.

[Son Of Coco]

I think England generally batted better than we did in this series and the bowling was about even. We had one or two blokes who were below par in the bowling department (Mitchell Johnson especially so) in all of the tests bar the 4th and so did England. Apart from Headingly for us and Lords for them I can't think of a match where the bowlers on either side bowled well together as a unit.

The most frustrating part of watching this series is knowing a small improvement in either are would probably have seen us keep The Ashes as England weren't outstanding either. They were better than us though which is the important thing.