Greatest ever Ashes series?

[aussie]

well i have seen almost every ball of ashes cricket simce the aussies were over here in 1997 and even though they have dominated all the best out those series would be 1997 i reckon, plus i have the tape story of the ashes and the to (3) best would be 1981series, the bodyline series of 1932 & its a though choice between the 1958 series down under and the 2-2 series over here in 1972

 

[luckyeddie]

I think the England side in 1958-59 was had one of their best attacks in the history of English cricket. [/B]

*cough*Tony Lock's fast ball*cough
*cough*Peter Loader's slower ball*cough

I have no dispute about the quality of the others, but those two were doubtful in the extreme - and they were far better than at least two of four highly suspect Aussies (just going on second-hand information here).

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

*cough*Tony Lock's fast ball*cough
*cough*Peter Loader's slower ball*cough

I have no dispute about the quality of the others, but those two were doubtful in the extreme - and they were far better than at least two of four highly suspect Aussies (just going on second-hand information here).

Who were the four suspect bowlers on the Australian side?

There's obviously Meckiff. Other Australian bowlers used during the tour are Davidson, Benaud, Mackay, Kline, Slater, Rorke, O'Neill and Burke. I've seen a fair bit of footage of Davidson and Benaud and they always looked pretty good to me. I've heard a few bad things about O'Neill but I don't remember much about his action from the footage I've seen. No idea about the others really.

 

[luckyeddie]

Who were the four suspect bowlers on the Australian side?

There's obviously Meckiff. Other Australian bowlers used during the tour are Davidson, Benaud, Mackay, Kline, Slater, Rorke, O'Neill and Burke. I've seen a fair bit of footage of Davidson and Benaud and they always looked pretty good to me. I've heard a few bad things about O'Neill but I don't remember much about his action from the footage I've seen. No idea about the others really.

It was widely put about at the time (according to Simon Rae, at least) that the 'guilty men in English eyes were.... Jimmy Burke and Keith Slater, and the two fast men, Gordon Rorke and Ian Meckiff'.

In fairness, from the (limited) footage I've seen of the series, Burke and Slater (who was called for throwing) were 'jerky' like Ramadhin, although nowhere near as bad as Lock. Meckiff was just an out-and-out chucker whereas Rorke, to be fair, had a permenently bent arm. He was also the world's best exponent of 'dragging' (back foot rule applied in those days) and could over-step by more than a yard.

 

[aussie]

ohhhhhhhh... a change of mind after reviewing th tape (Story of the ashes) the top three for me are now the 1936/37 series when the aussies were 2-0 down & came back to win the series 3-2, Botham's Ashes of 1981 then the 1972 series 2-2 series

 

[wpdavid]

ohhhhhhhh... a change of mind after reviewing th tape (Story of the ashes) the top three for me are now the 1936/37 series when the aussies were 2-0 down & came back to win the series 3-2, Botham's Ashes of 1981 then the 1972 series 2-2 series

The 1972 series was the first I saw, so I have fond memories of it. However, it wasn't that great, in all honesty. England were very ordinary (lots of famous names, but many of them past their best), and only secured a share of the series courtesy of a very dodgy Headingly wicket which just happened to be ideal for the conveniently recalled Underwood. Aus were on the up, but weren't the side they would become when Thomson & Walker came along.

 

[wpdavid]

I think the England side in 1958-59 was had one of their best attacks in the history of English cricket.

Trueman, Statham, Loader, Tyson, followed by spinners Laker and Lock.

And yet, how many of them performed on that tour? Admittedly Tyson wasn't 100% fit, but the others had no such excuses.

 

[JBH001]

I am not disputing that these were great series. But isnt it a big coincidence that most of the great Ashes series have been those won by England ??

Is it because England really had to struggle and have been underdogs ?

Is it because the British romaticise much more ?

Is it because most of cricket history has been written by the British ?

Is it that you are an English fan ?

Yes, I did notice that while I was typing the post.

Errr, I am categorically not an English fan - though I will be supporting them come The Ashes as I think Australia has held The Urn for long enough.

I will however reconsider my list and remove the 1926 series from that list.
Interestingly though, England won that test because of two old stagers in Hobbs and Sutcliffe and the recalled Wildfred Rhodes (48 years old!).
Larwood, I think, made his debut in this test taking 6 wickets.

I shall also remove the 1953 series.
Though it was the first time a professional led England (Hutton) and featured two very good sides.

So:

The 1902 series for mind was the best series yet.
(for one thing it was not dependant on one man as the 81 series was)

The 1932/33 series because it featured two great sides.
An awesome captain in Jardine.
And, of course, all the acrimony and bitterness and fire of controversy.

The 1981 series. Self explanatory really.

 

[Link]

for me the last one was good. I was only taking vaughan's performances into account. might aswel i cant take nothing else from it

 

[Richard]

The 1902 series - the first of the all time great Australian sides up against a very powerful English outfit.
Australia take the series (2 -1 I think? after having been in trouble earlier in the series) with England winning the famous last test at the Oval due to that famous last wicket partnership between George Hirst ('we'll get em in singles, Wilfred') and Wilfred Rhodes (whose first scoring shot was actually a boundary).
They did get England home, confirming the views of one spectator who was heard to say, as Rhodes walked out to bat, that all would be well now that 2 Yorkshiremen were at the crease.
Apparently another spectator fell down dead while watching and another chewed through his umbrella handle, due to the tension.

The 1926 series which saw England reclaim the Ashes for the first time since WW1 after 4 drawn tests.
Their win at the Oval built on a century opening stand on a treacherous wicket between Hobbs and Sutcliffe - probably the greatest opening pair of all time.

The 1932/33 Bodyline series.

The 1953 Ashes series. England win the last test after having drawn the 4 previous tests.

The 1981 Ashes series. Bothams Ashes etc.

Couldn't have put it better myself.
Plus the 1972 series.

 

[wpdavid]

Couldn't have put it better myself.
Plus the 1972 series.

I'm interested to see the high regard that the 1972 series is held in some quarters. I won't repeat my previous comments about it, but I am surprised. Apart from the novelty of featuring possibly the oldest English sides ever to feature in an Ashes series and beginnings of what would become a very good Australian side, what's the appeal?

 

[Swervy]

I'm interested to see the high regard that the 1972 series is held in some quarters. I won't repeat my previous comments about it, but I am surprised. Apart from the novelty of featuring possibly the oldest English sides ever to feature in an Ashes series and beginnings of what would become a very good Australian side, what's the appeal?

thats a good point...I dont think I have ever really read about that series as being a particularly outstanding one (the one highlight was probably Massies match) in terms of standard of cricket played...pretty much a case of a 60's throw back team vs an emerging power, but still far from its peak

 

[wpdavid]

thats a good point...I dont think I have ever really read about that series as being a particularly outstanding one (the one highlight was probably Massies match) in terms of standard of cricket played...pretty much a case of a 60's throw back team vs an emerging power, but still far from its peak

I suppose it raises the question of whether a series can be regarded as great just because the 2 sides are closely matched. I would argue not, and would go further that the 1974/5 series was probably better, depite being horribly onesided, because one of the sides was playing some genuinely world class cricket.

 

[Swervy]

I suppose it raises the question of whether a series can be regarded as great just because the 2 sides are closely matched. I would argue not, and would go further that the 1974/5 series was probably better, depite being horribly onesided, because one of the sides was playing some genuinely world class cricket.

maybe....

Its another reason why 81 was so good, both teams were good teams (despite maybe Chappell not touring) and the entertainment value was second to none (although in actual fact for huge passages of play in 81, the cricket was pretty lifeless, but everyone forgets those bits...hehehehe)

 

[wpdavid]

maybe....

Its another reason why 81 was so good, both teams were good teams (despite maybe Chappell not touring) and the entertainment value was second to none (although in actual fact for huge passages of play in 81, the cricket was pretty lifeless, but everyone forgets those bits...hehehehe)

Dead right about our selective memories - Lord's & The Oval anyone? Not to mention the first three days at Leeds. The thing about 1981, of course, was the dramatic swings in fortune and the heroic individual performances, even if most of them were by you-know-who. I'm not sure about the quality of the sides though. Aus had a good attack, but I thought their batting was pretty fragile. England, OTOH, looked good on paper, but most of the batsmen underperformed and some of the bowlers were a bit past it.

 

[Swervy]

Dead right about our selective memories - Lord's & The Oval anyone? Not to mention the first three days at Leeds. The thing about 1981, of course, was the dramatic swings in fortune and the heroic individual performances, even if most of them were by you-know-who. I'm not sure about the quality of the sides though. Aus had a good attack, but I thought their batting was pretty fragile. England, OTOH, looked good on paper, but most of the batsmen underperformed and some of the bowlers were a bit past it.

actually yeah the batting was a bit fragile...apart from Border....and Hughes was pretty good as well.

 

[wpdavid]

actually yeah the batting was a bit fragile...apart from Border....and Hughes was pretty good as well.

Poor old Kim Hughes - the captaincy was the ruin of what should have been a very fine test career, AFAICS. Who else was batting in 1981? Dyson, Trevor Chappell, Yallop, Wood, & Kent? Not a lot of quality there.

Anyway, not that anyone asked, here's my 10 most memorable England vs Aus tests since I started watching the game in 1971.
1. Massie's game at Lord's in 1972
2. The first test in 1974/5 (Brisbane?), as it was the first sighting of Lillee & Thomson in full flight. IIRC, Greig made a superb hundred.
3. The Centenary Test in 1977
4. Leeds in 1977 - Boycott's 100th 100, great English bowling, Randall's fielding & England's first Ashes series win in England for over 20 years
5. & 6. Leeds & Edgbaston in 1981. Obviously.
7. The one we won by 3 runs in 1982/3, when Botham took the winning catch on the rebound from tavare after Border & Thomson had almost won it for Aus.
8. Old Trafford in 1993, if only for the Gatting Ball.
9. Edgbaston in 1997 - a quite delirious first session and unbelievably good batting by Hussain & Thorpe. Our only win in a live Ashes match since 1986/7.
10. Old Trafford in 1997, if only out of respect for S. Waugh's twin tons on a spiteful pitch against a more than decent England attack. They won the game and effectively won the series too.

 

[Richard]

The 1972 series has many times been described as one of the most exciting ever, and that's what constitutes a good series for me, even if the sides weren't especially good (and let's face it - we don't know for certain whether they were just very good or average, because West Indies weren't too much better).
Yes, Massie's sensational performance was the highlight, but the match at The Oval, Australia twice coming from behind to level, also featured some terrific cricket.
As for our only live win since 1987... sorry, but a live Test for me constitutes whether the series can still be tied, not won, so The MCG 1998\99 was live as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Richard]

Apart from the novelty of featuring possibly the oldest English sides ever to feature in an Ashes series and beginnings of what would become a very good Australian side, what's the appeal?

That's something that really irks me - so what if the England side was pretty old? This one was still far older - oldest team ever fielded in any international sporting contest. The less well remembered abandoned-timeless-Test.
England in 1972 might have been an old side but it certainly wasn't a bad one.

 

[archie mac]

The appeal to me are the players involved in the series, I remember reading the names of the 1902 English side, almost everyone a legend of the game.
With Australia winning that series 2-1 it shows the quality of the Aussie team. Throw in Trumper scoring a Hundred on the 1st day of a Test, Jessop scoring one of the fastest pressure tons and two of the closest Ashes Tests and I think that would be the series I would visit if a had a time machine. Just after I picked up next weeks paper! (lottery results)