• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Were England lucky to win the Ashes in 2005 ? ?

Salamuddin

International Debutant
I just watched the Ashes DVD again recently and it struck me that yeah
lots of things did go England's way in the Ashes after the LOrds test.

Mcgrath being injured obviously but also Gillespie's and Kasper's loss of form and the toss.
Even the Aussie batsmen were below par although I do recognise some wonderful bowling on the part of the English which accounted for this.
It was obvious Australia were desperate to bat first in light of difficulties confronting their three premier pace bowlers.
But England won four tosses in a row and I do think it advantaged England to bat first given their strength was in bowling.

What do you guys think ?
 

howardj

International Coach
They dominated at Edgbatston, Old Trafford and Trent Bridge. They didn't merely win two of those three Test Matches, but dominated them. So, in answer to your question, no.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Salamuddin said:
I just watched the Ashes DVD again recently and it struck me that yeah
lots of things did go England's way in the Ashes after the LOrds test.

Mcgrath being injured obviously but also Gillespie's and Kasper's loss of form and the toss.
Even the Aussie batsmen were below par although I do recognise some wonderful bowling on the part of the English which accounted for this.
It was obvious Australia were desperate to bat first in light of difficulties confronting their three premier pace bowlers.
But England won four tosses in a row and I do think it advantaged England to bat first given their strength was in bowling.

What do you guys think ?
I don't think there's any doubt that we had the rub of the green at certain crucial times. For me the biggest break we caught was Buchanan scattering balls around on the floor!

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.

I think you'd have to be a pretty one-eyed Aussie to say we didn't deserve the win tho, especially when we were only Glen McGrath's wicket from winning the third test too.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
I think you'll find we won three tosses in a row, not four. Ponting's silly mistake was certainly another thing that went our way though, but luck? Sure we were lucky Pietersen was dropepd on the way to his magnificent 158, that McGrath wasn't himself due to injury, that Gillespie was a shadow of his former self etc, but I think the main piece of luck was that we finally had a bunch of talented players capable of beating the Aussies at the same time, and that Flintoff has emerged as cricket's #1 all-rounder
 

Natman20

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

howardj

International Coach
GeraintIsMyHero said:
but I think the main piece of luck was that we finally had a bunch of talented players capable of beating the Aussies at the same time, and that Flintoff has emerged as cricket's #1 all-rounder
Moreover, Pietersen, Flintoff, Vaughan, Strauss and Jones are strong personalities. It takes people of immense character - not just fine cricketers - to storm the fortress.
 

age_master

Hall of Fame Member
BoyBrumby said:
I think you'd have to be a pretty one-eyed Aussie to say we didn't deserve the win tho, especially when we were only Glen McGrath's wicket from winning the third test too.

and Australia were only Kaspa's wicket from winning the other one....


England played better through the series and definatley deserved the win.
 

Francis

State Vice-Captain
Yeah, hate to admit it, but England had plenty of luck. In fact I did a top 10 list of things that went wrong in the Ashes for the Aussies a while back.

10. Losing the toss
An odd reason for sure. I just thought it helped England. Vaughn himself always wanted to bat first in all tests because he believed on getting a good start with the bat led to putting Australia under pressure. It's amazing that Warne took 4 wickets in a short time at The Oval because that pitch was perfect for runs. Once England got 400 runs+ and got the ball swinging, Australia felt the pressure. I know they could have done that at the start and made runs... the reason I'm saying this was Vaughn made it completely known that he felt batting first was the best way to win. And he'll do it in Australia. I'd bet on that. It would have to be a bad pitch for him not to. think he liked to nullify Warne on e 4th innings wicket as well.

9. Bad umpiring.
Bowden was the usual colpret, as he usually is. But one moment stood out for me that involved Aleem Dar. 4th test and people need to give England credit, especially Simon Jones. They were swinging the ball all over the place. Clarke and Katich played the type of innings Australia should have played all series. Clarke takes one swipe at one ball he shouldn't, and goes out. But Katich stays in. Australia need at least a lead of 150 runs to defend and it looks like they might have an extremely small total to defend. One ball pitches about a foot outside of leg stump, hits Katich above the knee roll and Dar gives him out. Katich stayed later to look at the replay and got fined for showing dissent. It turns out another 25 runs might have made it interesting for the Aussies and given them a chance the way Warne was bowling. I hate talking about bad umpiring because it's such a good job. Umpire Sheppard was saying Warne was by far the hardest bowler he ever judges because it's hard to pick which deliveries he's bowling. Warne had Flintoff lbw at Edgbaston when that 10th wicket partnership was getting going and Freddie gets away with it. There were plenty of times Warne had lbw's that weren't given. To be honest, I hate saying this because people talk about bad umpiring all the time... I just thought it stood out in the Ashes more. More at stake I guess. A study later showed that England did get a nice runs of lbw decisions, while the Aussies were a bit unlucky. I'd rather say "it's a part of sport" than say "bad umpiring." That's just the way it goes... it just went England's way a bit more. If somebody says to me this shouldn't be a reason, I might be inclined to agree... bad umpiring happens to all teams.

8. Ponting's captaincy.
What a failure he was. I liked it how Botham was saying on Sky that it's all and well being a great captain when things are going good. But you measure a captain by judging him on tight situations. Ponting was brilliant at Old Trafford with the bat, as captain he held too many conferences and looked worried and uncertain. Warne looked confident and believing in Australia's chances... actually I'll stop there because I talked about the captaincy in another thread. The Aussies looked terrible under the pressure, and Ponting (the captain!) often looked the worst. It wa sonly at Old Trafford that he did the business and it was more as a batsman than captain.

7. No MacGill
6. No Hussey

Weather you think MacGill is underrated or overrated or whatever, he's better than Tait and Englishmen like Strauss, Bell and Jones were having trouble with leg-spin. MacGill was an easy choice who got stuffed up because he had one bad domestic game. Boybott was shocked Hussey wasn't in the team, he was clearly handling the swinging ball the best in the ODI's. Simple choice. Boyott also said if Warne had one good bowler performing with him in the series, the Aussies would have won.

5. No balls
4. Dropped catches

For me, one moment in the entire series summed up the luck of the Aussies. It was at Old Trafford and McGrath is bowling to Vaughn. Vaughn nicks the ball, balls goes to Gilchrist, Gilchrist drops it. Now I don't care if people think the Aussies have had series where they dropped plenty of catches, this was the wicket-keeper stuffing-up a simple catch. That's as bad as dropping five catches. Next ball McGrath knocks Vaughn's stumps over but it was a no-ball. Two consecutive balls that didn't go the Aussies way. Vaughn goes on and takes the game away from the Aussies. The Aussies were around 55 runs behind with one wicket when the game ended. I have to believe that if Vaughn didn't make a huge century, the Aussies could have been in a good position. After all he did, Warne dropping Pietersen at The Oval was the absolute killer.

3. Jason Gilespie sucks?
I have no idea what happened to Gilespie. All of a sudde, first few balls in England and all he can do is bowl wides. When he's not bowling wides, it's no balls. People don't know how great he is, any team in the history of cricket would love to have their third best bowler have an average of 26. Courtney Walsh himself once rated him the fourth best bowler in the world at a certain point.

2. Adam Gilchrist struggles.
Maybe I shouldn't say that because a great part of this had to do with Flintoff. But if you ask me, Flintoff's biggest contribution in the Ashes was bunnying Gilchrist. Gilchrist saved Australia at times against Pakistan and New Zealand in the previous series and just took games away in one session. While this has a great deal to do with Flintoff, Gilchrist did look uncertain at which balls to go after, which he never used to be like. When he went back to his home country and lpayed Flintoff, he made a century in one ODI and 94 in the super test. The point is, Gilchrist didn't fire when it mattered most and just one of those innings might have been enough.

1. Glenn McGrath hurting himself.
Easy number one pick. A study I did shows him as having a better peak from Perth to Lords than Hadlee ever did in his career. If you ask me, McGrath hasn't been the same since.


Personally, I'm a believer that you play how you play, no excuses attached. England were the better team and you can't say "oh we didn't perform" when you had a chance to perform. England were the better team and deserved the Ashes... especially considering the pressure they put the Aussies under. If the question becomes "if the Aussies played to their full potential with luck going their way, and England did too..." then the Aussies would win. But that means nothing because they had their chance and stuffed it up. The Ashes rightfully belong to England. So yeah the Aussies clearly had back luck, McGrath being the worst. But England stood up and deserved it.

And people should never NEVER stop talking about the Ashes. Great series.
 

Francis

State Vice-Captain
Insted of babbling in that last paragraph, I should have just said this...

England had some luck. However, they weren't lucky to win the Ashes.

That sums it up from the lad above me.
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
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.
 

open365

International Vice-Captain
I'm going to point out something here,The Aussies playing crap is not lucky for England.

Luck is about things that are out of reasonable control,things like winning the toss and bad umpiring.

Gillespie and Kasper failing miserably is not lucky,they were part of the Aussie side and the whole point of competition is to see who plays the best,and they didn't,the same for Gilly and Hayden.

It was fortunate for England that they played badly,but not luck,if you put players playing badly as being lucky then what's the point in competing if your just going to say any lack of form is luck and is un-deserved?
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
England played better than Australia, England beat Australia - where's the luck?

Oh and Francis that list of 10 is a load of rubbish. How are no-balls and dropped catches lucky? How is the other team being crap lucky?
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
Scaly piscine said:
Oh and Francis that list of 10 is a load of rubbish. How are no-balls and dropped catches lucky? How is the other team being crap lucky?
Have to say I thought that too.

It was their fault they were rubbish for large parts, bar Warne and Langer really.
 

Francis

State Vice-Captain
Meh that wasn't really a list about luck... rather a list about reasons why Australia lost... but I might contest a few things.

Firstly, yes I was wrong, England won three tosses, not four.

Secondly, one can argue that form comes and goes in cricket. Players play and miss plenty of times, sometimes they go out with a nick quickly, other times they escape. Bowlers do nothing different in their runs up and miss the line by a cm and it's a no ball. No balls are unlucky because often players only move 10 cm and they're stuffed. Imagine running 25 steps to a T, and you have to do a little leap in the air for an explosion, your 10 cm futher than you wished and now your screwed. I mean personally I don't understand why bowlers don't do a Michael Holding and not even bother with landing their foot on the line... but it happens in cricket. So no balls can be unlucky.

Dropped catches can be unlucky because they're an instinctual movement. Kevin Pietersen was saying he doesn't drop them in practice, in fact he's one of the better catchers. In the real game it just boiled down to some instinctual movement. If the ball is up in the air, fine you should catch it. When you have .5 of a second to react, that's a bit different.

If that doesn't make sense to you, then let me put it to you this way. England won because they were the better team partly because the Aussies dropped catches. If Adam Gilchrist takes 100 easy catches in a row in practive, but drops one in a game. How is that not unlucky? It's nothing mroe than an instinctual movement. Kevin Pietersen says so anyway. Although I do see where your coming from and it makes sense... I just think it's unlucky for catching to let you down when you have so little time to think... if time to think at all.

Stuff like Gilchrist and Gilespie isn't bad luck, just bad form. I'll concede that... not that I ever meant it like that. Like I said at the start of this post, the list had more to do with reasons why Australia lost. Again, I ended my last post with the intention of saying that had Australia played to their full potential they would have won. Just an opinion. Some people can argue that England didn't allow them to play to their full potential, which is fine. I disagree with that because nothing and nobody made Gillespie, in that 20/20 game, all of a sudeen start bowling wide after wide. I mean it was astonishing... the most inexplicable drop of form I'd ever seen. That's what I'm saying mostly.

As far as luck goes. MacGill and Hussey were unlucky not to make the Aussie team. The Aussies were unlucky to have such pin point no-ball decisions go against them when 10cm might have been the difference. I hate to admit it, but McGrath hurting his ankle by itself may have been, after all that happened to Australia, the only peice of bad luck England needed to win.

For people thinking all my list was regarding bad luck, here was my opening sentence: "Yeah, hate to admit it, but England had plenty of luck. In fact I did a top 10 list of things that went wrong in the Ashes for the Aussies a while back."

I can see where I misled people. I said England had plenty of luck. But then I ended the sentence and said "I did a top ten list of thing that went wrong..." things that went wrong, not bad luck.

England played better than Australia, England beat Australia - where's the luck?

I said it in my first post in this thread. England played better.

I wrote: "Personally, I'm a believer that you play how you play, no excuses attached. England were the better team and you can't say "oh we didn't perform" when you had a chance to perform."
 

Top