1997 Ashes

[Swervy]

I find it perfectly conceivable we'd have won the series if George Sharp had given Waugh lbw in the first-innings at Old Trafford when Caddick pinned him with a Full-Toss and if Thorpe had taken that catch off Elliott on 1 in the first-innings at Headingley.
Australia certainly weren't overwhelmingly the better side. The Oval was aught but dead-rubber consolation, but as I say - England could quite easily have won the Third and Fourth Tests had just a single incident in each gone differently.
1997 was certainly the closest-matched Ashes between 1981 and 2005. On the balance, Australia were - just - the better side, but it was no way as convincing as the scoreline made it look.

ifs and buts.....

To be perfectly honest, the 1985 series was actually much more closely contested than the 1997 series....

How could have England 'quite easily' have won two matches that they lost by 268 runs and an inning and 61 runs.

For at least 80% of the series, Australia outplayed England...rain pretty much saved England bacon in the second test, and then pretty much until the final innings of the 6th test, Australia dominated.

 

[wpdavid]

ifs and buts.....

To be perfectly honest, the 1985 series was actually much more closely contested than the 1997 series....

How could have England 'quite easily' have won two matches that they lost by 268 runs and an inning and 61 runs.

For at least 80% of the series, Australia outplayed England...rain pretty much saved England bacon in the second test, and then pretty much until the final innings of the 6th test, Australia dominated.

There's no denying that the better side won. Obviously. But Richard has a point, even if "quite easily" is overstating it. It really isn't as simple as subtracting how many Waugh made after the lbw shout from the final margin of 268 - the whole psychology of the game would have been different. Ditto the runs made by Ponting (or was it Elliott) after Thorpe's drop. This was the only Ashes series from 1989 to 2002/3 where you could even talk about ifs & buts. Had things gone for us like they did in 2005, we were in with a shout.

 

[Richard]

I'd have to dispute your suggestion about Blewett. Do you realise he played almost 50 test matches? He didn't suffer from a lack of opportunities, he suffered from a lengthy test career in which he underperformed, and was justifiably dropped for better players at the end of it.

46 tests averaging 34 wouldn't have been that bad in England in an era with Ramprakash, Hick, Atherton, Hussein, Butcher and so on, but it's a long way below what Australia could accept at a time of such domestic batting strength. Blewett made 2 centuries in his debut series, and 2 more in 44 further tests.

Blewett was (and indeed, still is) a lovely batsman to watch with one of the best techniques of his era, but he was a poor test match batsman.

Of course the fact that he opened or batted three in most of those innings (22 and 26 out of 79) had nothing to do with it, despite the fact that he was patently best used down the order?
Blewett certainly wasn't a top-drawer Test player, but he certainly wasn't poor either. Had Australia's middle-order not been so chock-blocked I'm confident he'd have had a good Test career.
Indeed, had he been born 7 years later I reckon he'd be doing infinately better than that Symondses, Clarkes and the dropped-despite-averaging-58 Hodges.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Of course the fact that he opened or batted three in most of those innings (22 and 26 out of 79) had nothing to do with it, despite the fact that he was patently best used down the order?

Yet Blewett himself oft remarked that he was an opening or top order batsman...

I remember him being tied into knots by Mushtaq Ahmed the Australian summer after his debut, and he said how he's not that bad a player of spin, he's just used to playing it once in because he's done all his batting at the top of the order.

 

[Richard]

ifs and buts.....

To be perfectly honest, the 1985 series was actually much more closely contested than the 1997 series....

How could have England 'quite easily' have won two matches that they lost by 268 runs and an inning and 61 runs.

For at least 80% of the series, Australia outplayed England...rain pretty much saved England bacon in the second test, and then pretty much until the final innings of the 6th test, Australia dominated.

Because in each game the crucial moment happened right at the very start. And something that happens at the start of a game can completely alter it's course.
The only time Australia truly outplayed England from the very start was at Lord's (where rain denied them) and Trent Bridge.
The 1985 series might've been closely contested for the first 4 Tests but in the last 2 the Australians completely and totally fell apart. It was kind of like 1998\99 (reversed, obviously) but with the hopelessness compressed into a single period rather than sprinkled lightly (but decisively) here and there.

 

[Richard]

Yet Blewett himself oft remarked that he was an opening or top order batsman...

I remember him being tied into knots by Mushtaq Ahmed the Australian summer after his debut, and he said how he's not that bad a player of spin, he's just used to playing it once in because he's done all his batting at the top of the order.

Where's he batted most for SA?
I can't ever remember him opening in a single game I've noted, aside from in 1999 when we stupidly put him there because there was no-one else with Byas and Wood refusing to do the job.
His record for Australia at the top is extremely poor, lower down it's pretty good.
I find it likely he'd have batted there in an age that didn't contain Boon, Mark Waugh, Martyn, Langer, Bevan, Ponting, Lehmann, Stephen Waugh and the like.

 

[archie mac]

Yet Blewett himself oft remarked that he was an opening or top order batsman...

I remember him being tied into knots by Mushtaq Ahmed the Australian summer after his debut, and he said how he's not that bad a player of spin, he's just used to playing it once in because he's done all his batting at the top of the order.

True Mushy had his number and seemed to be able to dismiss him soon after coming on.

I thought it to Blewys credit that he worked hard on his game and was a much better player of spin when he came back into the Aussie side.

 

[marc71178]

Yet Blewett himself oft remarked that he was an opening or top order batsman...

What would he have known compared to someone looking back at his career 10 years on?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Where's he batted most for SA?

1, 2 and 3.

 

[Richard]

There's no denying that the better side won. Obviously. But Richard has a point, even if "quite easily" is overstating it. It really isn't as simple as subtracting how many Waugh made after the lbw shout from the final margin of 268 - the whole psychology of the game would have been different. Ditto the runs made by Ponting (or was it Elliott) after Thorpe's drop. This was the only Ashes series from 1989 to 2002/3 where you could even talk about ifs & buts.

Well... I could talk about them in 1998\99 and 1994\95, too.
If it weren't for SCG bad-light in 1994\95 it could've been all-square going into the final game.
If it weren't for dropped catches England could've won that WACA game.
In 1998\99, if it weren't for the same thing England could've won at The 'Gabba... if Hick had kept going another hour at The WACA England could've won... if they'd won the toss at Adelaide they could've won... if they'd done it at The SCG they could've won too...
In all 3 series, the better side won, but it certainly wasn't like 1989, 1990\91, 1993 and 2002\03 where Australia rarely even looked like losing until the final game.
Actually, come to that... were you watching in 1990\91 when the last 4 Aussie batsmen played out 200 deliveries to salvage a draw in the Third Test? Must've been one of the most Tests ever.

 

[Richard]

1, 2 and 3.

Really?
He's opened for SA lots?
Good Lord, I never noticed that.

 

[Richard]

What would he have known compared to someone looking back at his career 10 years on?

What would he know when not looking at his record?

 

[marc71178]

What would he know when not looking at his record?

So you're claiming to know more about him than he does himself then?

 

[vic_orthdox]

http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/1998-99/AUS_LOCAL/SS/SOA_VIC_SS_03-06FEB1999.html
http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_dat.../AUS_LOCAL/SS/SOA_TAS_SS_30OCT-02NOV1998.html
There's a couple of games from 98/99 when he topped Sheffield Shield averages, and he was opening then.

 

[Richard]

So you're claiming to know more about him than he does himself then?

Nope.
Sooner you get that phrase out of your head, the better for yourself and me.

 

[marc71178]

Well seeing as he has said he was one thing and you're saying he's something else, how is that not you thinking you know more about him than he does?

 

[thierry henry]

What's wrong with Richard suggesting he knows more about a player than the player knows himself? Many international cricketers are not particularly intelligent, and even more are not prone to close statistical analysis of their own games. imo Richard is both of these things. These players will certainly have feelings and hunchs about their own strengths and weaknesses, but imo it's the results that count. It's possible for a player to feel more comfortable doing one thing but actually be better/more successful at doing another.

btw I'm only slightly taking the mickey here.