View Poll Results: Most disappointing Ashes loss from an Australian POV?

Voters
25. You may not vote on this poll
  • 2005

    1 4.00%
  • 2009

    1 4.00%
  • 2010/11

    7 28.00%
  • 2013

    1 4.00%
  • 2015

    3 12.00%
  • They were all delightful

    12 48.00%
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 49
Like Tree11Likes

Thread: Most galling Ashes loss

  1. #31
    Global Moderator Cabinet96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    17,739
    And Shaun Tait played two tests.
    Johnners and Uppercut like this.
    RIP Philip Hughes - 1988-2014

    The Wheel of Mediocrity | Compton, Root, Carberry, Robson, Trott, Lyth, Moeen, Hales | The wheel is forever

    Founder and Grand Wizard of the CW Football Thread Statluminati. Potential hater of abilities. Blocked on twitter by Michael Vaughan, Brad McNamara and AtlCricket for my hard hitting truths.

  2. #32
    International Captain Riggins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    6,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Furball View Post
    Yeah look I'll accept that it's one of those "chicken or egg" scenarios - were the Australian bats out of form because they were up against a superb bowling unit, or was it superb bowling that led to Australia's batsmen losing form?
    that's not really a chicken and egg scenario is it?
    The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament.

  3. #33
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    SWA
    Posts
    57,350
    Quote Originally Posted by Furball View Post
    Yeah look I'll accept that it's one of those "chicken or egg" scenarios - were the Australian bats out of form because they were up against a superb bowling unit, or was it superb bowling that led to Australia's batsmen losing form?

    However, Hayden had been in wretched form coming into the series - he'd gone 12 Tests without a ton, which he continued by failing to make a 50 in the first 4 Tests.
    Clarke was an unproven youngster who'd had 1 season in the Test side - and while he'd sparkled on debut in India, he'd had a pretty **** home summer. His series against New Zealand and Pakistan remain two of his worst ever.
    Katich is another one who was nowhere near established.

    It's telling that by the time South Africa rocked around at Christmas 2005, half of Australia's Ashes top 6 had been binned. There's no doubting it was a great series performance, particularly as past England teams would have just folded after Lord's. But Australia weren't a side without their problems.
    The half the top six thing though. Katich, Martyn and Clarke all came again. Martyn's dropping was stupid anyway as he'd been guilty of bad umpiring more than anything. Clarke had showed his class at Lord's before falling prey to reverse swing and injury for the rest of the series. Part of the reason for the restructured top six was down to the Aussie desire to replicate what we had with Freddie which saw Watson tried in the supertest and then Symonds got a run.

    Martyn was back in the side on merit by the next Ashes, and Clarke went away and worked on what he'd learned and never looked back.

    Sure, what happened in the series led to Aussie changes in the wake of it. But that should be used to credit England's performance, not to say, ah it wasn't that good because these batsmen wound up dropped anyway.
    Last edited by GIMH; 11-08-2015 at 04:56 AM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Axl Rose
    The internet is a big garbage can


    RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.

  4. #34
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    27,151
    Quote Originally Posted by GIMH View Post
    The half the top six thing though. Katich, Martyn and Clarke all came again. Martyn's dropping was stupid anyway as he'd been guilty of bad umpiring more than anything. Clarke had showed his class at Lord's before falling prey to reverse swing and injury for the rest of the series. Part of the reason for the restructured top six was down to the Aussie desire to replicate what we had with Freddie which saw Watson tried in the supertest and then Symonds got a run.

    Martyn was back in the side on merit by the next Ashes, and Clarke went away and worked on what he'd learned and never looked back.

    Sure, what happened in the series led to Aussie changes in the wake of it. But that should be used to credit England's performance, not to say, ah it wasn't that good because these batsmen wound up dropped anyway.
    It's a series that takes on a bit of a different context given what's happened since. Australia being vulnerable to bursts of excellent swing bowling in England is much less striking than it was at the time.

    But as you say yourself, sometimes there's nothing wrong with using hindsight when evaluating something. The more Ashes series that get played, the more I think the 2010/11 England side was much better than all of the others.


  5. #35
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    SWA
    Posts
    57,350
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    It's a series that takes on a bit of a different context given what's happened since. Australia being vulnerable to bursts of excellent swing bowling in England is much less striking than it was at the time.

    But as you say yourself, sometimes there's nothing wrong with using hindsight when evaluating something. The more Ashes series that get played, the more I think the 2010/11 England side was much better than all of the others.
    I think the 2010-11 side was better too (except for it's lack of Freddie. Always remember that disclaimer. Always). I mean that win can easily be downplayed if you're so inclined too. Ponting & Clarke were out of sorts (devil's advocate here because as with 05 we can debate the cause), conditions overhead suited us more than you'd expect in Australia, their bowlers were buffoons (again, this is devil's advocate because they got worse the more we punished them).

    Ultimately, in terms of cricketing achievements, both 2005 and 2010-11 stand alongside winning in India in 2012, and getting to #1 in 2011, as the peaks of English cricket this century. You can argue which was better and come up with all sorts of valid points, but I don't believe talking down the quality of the Australian side of 2005 is one such example.

  6. #36
    Evil Scotsman Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    506
    Posts
    28,973
    Quote Originally Posted by GIMH View Post
    The half the top six thing though. Katich, Martyn and Clarke all came again. Martyn's dropping was stupid anyway as he'd been guilty of bad umpiring more than anything. Clarke had showed his class at Lord's before falling prey to reverse swing and injury for the rest of the series. Part of the reason for the restructured top six was down to the Aussie desire to replicate what we had with Freddie which saw Watson tried in the supertest and then Symonds got a run.

    Martyn was back in the side on merit by the next Ashes, and Clarke went away and worked on what he'd learned and never looked back.

    Sure, what happened in the series led to Aussie changes in the wake of it. But that should be used to credit England's performance, not to say, ah it wasn't that good because these batsmen wound up dropped anyway.
    Martyn batted like a tool when he wasn't getting sawn off, Clarke came into that series with question marks over his technique and temperament that he failed to answer. Like I said, his home summer of 04/05 contain 2 of his worst ever series.

    In hindsight (wonderful thing etc) catching Australia when they did was perfect timing for England because there was a mini transition from Waugh's great team to their last hurrah as a truly great team between 2006 and 2008.

    I agree with Uppercut's conclusion as well; I think only Flintoff and Simon Jones would get into the 2010/11 side from the 2005 vintage.

    Comparing captains is interesting as well. Cook takes a lot of flak for his captaincy but while Vaughan certainly innovated with field placings the cordon wasn't particularly heavily manned during 2005.
    ​63*

    Quote Originally Posted by Howe_zat View Post
    Come on Lancashire!
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Let it be known for the record that the font in the top of the picture noted that Kohli was wearing Jimmy Choo shoes and Happy Socks

  7. #37
    International Captain Gnske's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Dude. I need to get out of Seattle this weekend. This chick is all over my junk and I've got to get away
    Posts
    7,288
    10/11, the epitome of a total cricketing farce.

  8. #38
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    SWA
    Posts
    57,350
    Quote Originally Posted by Furball View Post
    Martyn batted like a tool when he wasn't getting sawn off, Clarke came into that series with question marks over his technique and temperament that he failed to answer. Like I said, his home summer of 04/05 contain 2 of his worst ever series.

    In hindsight (wonderful thing etc) catching Australia when they did was perfect timing for England because there was a mini transition from Waugh's great team to their last hurrah as a truly great team between 2006 and 2008.

    I agree with Uppercut's conclusion as well; I think only Flintoff and Simon Jones would get into the 2010/11 side from the 2005 vintage.

    Comparing captains is interesting as well. Cook takes a lot of flak for his captaincy but while Vaughan certainly innovated with field placings the cordon wasn't particularly heavily manned during 2005.
    Martyn played the key innings at Lord's - Clarke's was important too as I mentioned and he scored more but it was Martyn who really took the game away from us. And sure he could have batted better aside from the dismissals, but again we were bowling brilliantly, and when it's going against a batsman in terms of umpiring, they can have a tendency to fall away anyway (see also; Strauss 06-07).

    Can accept the question marks that Clarke came into the series with and that he failed to answer on the most part, but it's not as though he came into the series as a guaranteed failure., We asked the right questions after Lord's but it's unfair to ignore that he was struggling with his back for the last three Tests.

    The transition point is kind of fair, but again we forced that to happen with our performance. I mean nobody would question Gilchrist's quality but he was never really the same again after the series. A great opponent can do that to you (see also: England 13-14 - not to say our quality was anywhere close to the Aussies of 05). The Oz side had been and would get better, but it was still comfortably the best team in the world and outside of Australia I'd still argue it was better than any side that's played Test Cricket since.

    As for the combined XI. Straight up disagree, given that ignoring captaincy (and if we pick on captaincy Vaughan gets in ahead of Strauss) the Strauss of 2010-11 wouldn't get in ahead of either Trescothick or the Strauss of 05. Strauss performed better in the series, so picking a combined XI depends on whether you go on series output alone or overall quality. A similar question exists for Pietersen, and I would probably argue that Pietersen circa 05-09 was a better player than afterwards, but he played better innings later in his career. Anyhow, I'll give it a shot.

    Trescothick
    Cook
    Trott
    Pietersen (circa 05)
    Bell (circa 10-11)
    Flintoff
    Prior +
    Swann
    Anderson
    Jones
    Hoggard/Harmison/Bresnan/Tremlett

    Not sure on the bowlers. All well and good to point to the stats etc. No doubt that Hoggard was the best overall Test bowler of the four. I've excluded Broad because he hardly played in 10-11. Bresnan and Tremlett's stats in 10-11 are superb, but they came into the series and benefitted from a lot of what went before, whereas Harmison did the opposite in 05, superb at Lord's, decent at Egdbaston then faded away. Would probably go Hoggard tbh.

    Of course, I'm now without a captain. If you're picking on captaincy, then as I say you go Vaughan. Probably for Trescothick. But you could easily stick Strauss there given he was good enough and a better opener.

    All this being said, I'm not really sure why I've bothered as the quality of the England side isn't really of any consequence because that's not what I'm arguing anyway. What I will say is, the 10-11 side may have struggled to beat the 05 Aussies because it lacks Freddie, and let's not beat around the bush here, that's why we won.

    In summary. Freddie.
    Last edited by GIMH; 11-08-2015 at 05:57 AM.

  9. #39
    State Captain ImpatientLime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    The lime tree.
    Posts
    1,777
    Quote Originally Posted by Gnske View Post
    10/11, the epitome of a total cricketing farce.
    michael beer
    knows the conditions well
    local lad

    greatest selection ever.

  10. #40
    International Coach wpdavid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    11,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    It's a series that takes on a bit of a different context given what's happened since. Australia being vulnerable to bursts of excellent swing bowling in England is much less striking than it was at the time.

    But as you say yourself, sometimes there's nothing wrong with using hindsight when evaluating something. The more Ashes series that get played, the more I think the 2010/11 England side was much better than all of the others.
    It makes a pleasant change to see the 2010/11 ashes win given some serious credit instead of being written off due to the state of the Australian team. Three innings victories in Australia was just extraordinary, and I don't recall anyone doing that to them even at the darkest points in their history. Whether I'd place clear daylight between it and the 2005 side is questionable, but I think that was discussed on CW even before the subsequent implosion, and it is only an opinion, so who cares really. I can only agree with those who've pointed out that Fred and Jones give the 2005 side a dimension that might just give it the edge, despite the clear superiority of Swann, Prior, Cook (in that series, anyway) and Bell over their 2005 counterparts. Choosing a composite team is hard because picking the best bowlers probably omits one of the tall brigade, so we end up with Hoggard and Anderson doing similar jobs without Tremlett or Harmison doing their thing.

  11. #41
    Evil Scotsman Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    506
    Posts
    28,973
    Quote Originally Posted by wpdavid View Post
    It makes a pleasant change to see the 2010/11 ashes win given some serious credit instead of being written off due to the state of the Australian team. Three innings victories in Australia was just extraordinary, and I don't recall anyone doing that to them even at the darkest points in their history. Whether I'd place clear daylight between it and the 2005 side is questionable, but I think that was discussed on CW even before the subsequent implosion, and it is only an opinion, so who cares really. I can only agree with those who've pointed out that Fred and Jones give the 2005 side a dimension that might just give it the edge, despite the clear superiority of Swann, Prior, Cook (in that series, anyway) and Bell over their 2005 counterparts. Choosing a composite team is hard because picking the best bowlers probably omits one of the tall brigade, so we end up with Hoggard and Anderson doing similar jobs without Tremlett or Harmison doing their thing.
    I'm going to knock this on the head; the closest comparison is Anderson and Flintoff. Hoggard in 2005, other than his Oval heroics largely played the part of Hayden Kryptonite with the new ball. There were a few Tests where he had a burst with the new ball then spent the rest of the innings fielding; Anderson by contrast was the workhorse of the 2010/11 side that the captain kept turning to.

  12. #42
    Evil Scotsman Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    506
    Posts
    28,973
    Quote Originally Posted by GIMH View Post
    As for the combined XI. Straight up disagree, given that ignoring captaincy (and if we pick on captaincy Vaughan gets in ahead of Strauss) the Strauss of 2010-11 wouldn't get in ahead of either Trescothick or the Strauss of 05. Strauss performed better in the series, so picking a combined XI depends on whether you go on series output alone or overall quality. A similar question exists for Pietersen, and I would probably argue that Pietersen circa 05-09 was a better player than afterwards, but he played better innings later in his career. Anyhow, I'll give it a shot.

    Trescothick
    Cook
    Trott
    Pietersen (circa 05)
    Bell (circa 10-11)
    Flintoff
    Prior +
    Swann
    Anderson
    Jones
    Hoggard/Harmison/Bresnan/Tremlett
    Actually when I did a mental comparison I was going with "which of the 2005 players would I pick to improve the team that went to number 1?", so I was going to express amazement that there was no Broad but then again he played virtually no part in 2010/11.

    I actually agree with you about Pietersen; I always felt he batted worse the more responsible he tried to be and I preferred him as the brash, bombastic character that just waltzed in to the middle and smashed it. I'll probably give you Strauss of 05 as well.

  13. #43
    State Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Furball View Post
    Actually when I did a mental comparison I was going with "which of the 2005 players would I pick to improve the team that went to number 1?", so I was going to express amazement that there was no Broad but then again he played virtually no part in 2010/11.

    I actually agree with you about Pietersen; I always felt he batted worse the more responsible he tried to be and I preferred him as the brash, bombastic character that just waltzed in to the middle and smashed it. I'll probably give you Strauss of 05 as well.
    The 2010/11 team was the only time in my life that one has got the impression from an England team of remorseless dominance. The regular feeling that a partnership would never be broken, or if it was it would never lead to a collapse of wickets but would simply be followed by another unbreakable partnership. The 2005 team was different, it was never remorseless and was always a bit on edge, a bit risky. Partly that was the players, partly the way they played and also the fact that the team was a little bit unbalanced IMO, with not quite the batting strength one would like. And heavily dependent on Flintoff performing with the bat. As was ultimately shown up in 2006/7. The 2005 team (and in the couple of years beforehand) was successful because it won the key moments. The 2010/11 team didn't need key moments because they were invariably too far ahead anyway.
    Adders and Uppercut like this.

  14. #44
    The Tiger King smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    28,197
    Quote Originally Posted by nightprowler10 View Post
    From a neutral perspective, '05 was by far the most thrilling series to follow.
    Indeed
    And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW

    Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta

  15. #45
    International Coach wpdavid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    11,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Furball View Post
    I'm going to knock this on the head; the closest comparison is Anderson and Flintoff. Hoggard in 2005, other than his Oval heroics largely played the part of Hayden Kryptonite with the new ball. There were a few Tests where he had a burst with the new ball then spent the rest of the innings fielding; Anderson by contrast was the workhorse of the 2010/11 side that the captain kept turning to.
    Yes. I agree with most of that. What I meant was that Anderson and Hoggard bring similar skill-sets to the team, irrespective of how their captains used them. Perhaps Jimmy's workload in 2010/11 compared to Hoggard five years earlier simply means he's the better of the two bowlers.


    And looking at your next post, I was pleased to see Strauss of 2005 get a mention. I've long argued that his ton at The Oval was one of the finest I've seen from an England player, given the occasion, the strength of the opposition and the collapse of most of those around him.
    Last edited by wpdavid; 13-08-2015 at 11:25 AM.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Loss art of reverse swing
    By jonbrooks in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 18-06-2015, 04:16 PM
  2. Loss of bowling form - ideas?
    By wellAlbidarned in forum Coaching and Equipment Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-11-2012, 12:49 AM
  3. Loss of confidence
    By Burgey in forum Coaching and Equipment Forum
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 30-10-2008, 01:39 AM
  4. Was England's biggest loss heading into the Ashes...
    By Shoggz in forum Ashes 2006/07
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-12-2006, 08:30 AM
  5. Sudden Loss of form
    By wonderben in forum Cricket Games
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-08-2004, 09:12 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •