Were England lucky to win the Ashes in 2005 ? ?

[andyc]

straight up...tell me why the Australians are a better team right at the moment.

Because they're on top of the ratings? And England just lost a series in Pakistan, while Australia beat West Indies and South Africa quite comfortably.

 

[Swervy]

Because they're on top of the ratings? And England just lost a series in Pakistan, while Australia beat West Indies and South Africa quite comfortably.

Right..ok..bear in mind I am Australian and i support Australia....


England beat West Indies 7-0 18 months ago over two series...and beat SA 2-1 in SA in series that England were quite clearly the better team..then beat Australia in a series where is was obvious who played the better cricket.

Even if India actually beat England 3-0, I would still consider England at full whack to be nigh on as good as Australia is, given that England bowling line up is far deeper than ours, and really if it comes down to it, Australias batting is probaly only slighly better tha England when in form

 

[Jono]

No England weren't lucky to beat Australia. You can't be lucky over a 5 test match series IMO.

Even if India actually beat England 3-0, I would still consider England at full whack to be nigh on as good as Australia is, given that England bowling line up is far deeper than ours, and really if it comes down to it, Australias batting is probaly only slighly better tha England when in form

What? So Australia can beat India in India, belt Pakistan and pretty much not lose a series to anyone other than England for 5 years and yet England are at the same level despite losing 2 series on the trot and showing no ability at all to play in Asia (this is of course assuming a 3-0 loss)?

Australia are still the better team.

 

[Francis]

Thinking about it (I do that sometimes), I'm beginning to think that one period of half an hour really did decide the Ashes.

Like I said, nobody should ever stop talking about the Ashes. Great series.

For me the one period that decided the Ashes was the 10th wicket partnership in England's second innings at Edgbaston. Those extra 51 runs for the last wicket were absolutely crucial. I mean England were 9-131 and Warne was spinning up a storm. Flintoff stood up and decided to take all the balls Warne bowled, defend them, then go after Kasprowitz, Lee and Gillespie. Just a big-match performance that stats don't show. I think if you compared the games Flintoff and Warne played, on stats, Warne might look slightly better. If you look at the times where Flintoff stood up and impacted games, you might find he was the better in the series. It's close and I wouldn't care if people said Warne... but that one session saved the Ashes because Australia would have backed themselves to get 230.

 

[parttimer]

Right..ok..bear in mind I am Australian and i support Australia....


England beat West Indies 7-0 18 months ago over two series...and beat SA 2-1 in SA in series that England were quite clearly the better team..then beat Australia in a series where is was obvious who played the better cricket.

Even if India actually beat England 3-0, I would still consider England at full whack to be nigh on as good as Australia is, given that England bowling line up is far deeper than ours, and really if it comes down to it, Australias batting is probaly only slighly better tha England when in form

Only slightly better you are kidding..

 

[marc71178]

If that's the case, it was certainly lucky. Aliens don't usually visit Birmingham on a Thursday.

Well they do, but it's the Job Centre in neighbouring Small Heath, not Edgbaston.

 

[sqwerty]

Who cares if England were lucky or not....it's history now.

The only thing they were lucky about is the fact that the selectors didn't pick Hussey.

I said it then and I'll say it now:

If Hussey played that series Australia would, without a shadow of doubt, still hold the Ashes.

 

[luckyeddie]

Well they do, but it's the Job Centre in neighbouring Small Heath, not Edgbaston.

Ooroight. Forgot about that. The one on Brumigit Road.

 

[Swervy]

Only slightly better you are kidding..

On its day, England batting can play at a level just short of Australias, there is no doubt in my mind that England have the ability to be a very very dangerous batting team

 

[Scaly piscine]

The only thing they were lucky about is the fact that the selectors didn't pick Hussey.

I said it then and I'll say it now:

If Hussey played that series Australia would, without a shadow of doubt, still hold the Ashes.

Without a shadow of doubt??? Given how England bowled there's no guarantee he'd have done any better than whoever he'd of replaced.

 

[adharcric]

On its day, England batting can play at a level just short of Australias, there is no doubt in my mind that England have the ability to be a very very dangerous batting team

uhh no .. never very dangerous, bowling clearly carries the team to a large extent
trescothick is among the top 5 openers in the world, but after that?
the only other guy who you might say is close to world-class with the bat is pietersen, and he's too new to the test format to make that claim.
australia has ponting in the middle, india dravid & sachin, pakistan inzy, none of england's middle-order bats come close to any of them ... so as of now, england are not a very strong batting team

 

[adharcric]

each match and each series is won by the team that plays better on the given occasion. the team that "plays better on the given occasion" most regularly is the better team. england haven't proven that they're as good as australia yet.

 

[Swervy]

uhh no .. never very dangerous, bowling clearly carries the team to a large extent
trescothick is among the top 5 openers in the world, but after that?
the only other guy who you might say is close to world-class with the bat is pietersen, and he's too new to the test format to make that claim.
australia has ponting in the middle, india dravid & sachin, pakistan inzy, none of england's middle-order bats come close to any of them ... so as of now, england are not a very strong batting team

read what I have said...when England are in top form, they can be as good as anyone ....Tresco and Strauss have proven to be an extremely successful opening pair, Vaughan IS a world class batsman, Pietersen as all the potential to be one of the very best in the game for the next 15 years, Flintoff etc....I would say they are a Thorpe short of being as strong as India, I think they probably are as strong as Pakistans batting line up...and as for Australia, the middle order for me is still somewhat of a concern at test level.

Over the last 25 tests, England average nudging 40 runs a wicket when batting, Australia about 41 and India 41...Pakistan is about 37....

I think England are still a team that underperforms with the bat, but you cant really argue with the stats on this one, over the last couple of years, England have performed well with the bat...especially when you consider India and Pakistan play half the time on the higher scoring pitces of the subcontinent

 

[honestbharani]

A lot of mentions for Gillespie's lack of form during the series. I think he simply had all his confidence smashed out of him by the English batsman in the ODI's beforehand. I.e KP at Bristol. Also has mentioned before No balls, certain players not being included, Hayden and Gilchrist being horribly exposed etc aren't good luck.

I think the knock by Ashraful and the dent the Tigers created on the Aussie confidence is being under rated here. It might have been a factor (albeit not a big one) too.

 

[luckyeddie]

each match and each series is won by the team that plays better on the given occasion. the team that "plays better on the given occasion" most regularly is the better team. england haven't proven that they're as good as australia yet.

You would be hard-pressed to find more than 1 or 2 people, even English supporters, who even in the post-Ashes euphoria, were saying that England were ready to assume the mantle of 'best team' in world cricket.

How on Earth so many people keep trying to make an argument about something where no-one seems to be taking the contrary position is beyond me.

Can someone explain this to me, please?

 

[aussie]

You think they lost the ashes because of dodgy fielding?

yea, they didn't feild well & if they had take 90% of the catches they had dropped it would have helped their cause.

 

[Richard]

To be fair tho we didn't win four tosses in a row: Ponting made that disasterous call @ Edgbaston in the 2nd test to put us in & we then won the next 3. As for Dizzy & Kasper losing form, I think if you look at the 20/20 & the ODIs beforehand our batters had made a conscious decision to target them, Dizzy particularly.

Nope, in Twenty20 you make a conscious effort to target every bowler.
The only batsman who could be said to have made a conscious effort to go for him was Pietersen, and I did find Gillespie sometimes came across as a little reluctant to bowl at him after Nevill Road. Possibly a shattering illusion, as Pietersen generally makes it his policy to go after most bowlers.

 

[Richard]

A series loss to Pakistan thats got to say something and im sure that this Indian series will be close.

We should never have lost to Pakistan (indeed we should have won, all it took was 2 sessions to go just slightly differently) and no-one should ever have expected victory in India with a full-strength side. Right now it's near inconceivable.

 

[Richard]

Morning of day 3 too; Lee bowled up a storm. Think we were six down at lunch.

Indeed Lee bowled such a storm by having Trescothick play the shot he usually played to Gillespie beforehand, getting Vaughan to miss a ball he'd never have missed in top form, and dismissing the nigh****chman.

 

[Richard]

England had a lot of luck (Warne dropping Pietersen stood out for me), but they deserved it because they played brilliant, attacking cricket all the way through the summer.

That Test might well have been lost but for that drop.
However but for rain at Old Trafford it'd likely have been over by that Test.