Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
I know that this has probably been done before but its been a long weekend here and Ive spent it going through the 2005 Ashes DVDs and books.
Its been a while since Ive done it and all I can say is 'Wow'. It loses nothing in the rewatching. It is still the most remarkable series.
Boxing analogies are overused, but it fits here. Australia were the classy world champs, skilled, balanced and dangerous. England were hard hitting and aggressive and had a punchers chance. They knew they had to come hard and throw everything agaist the Aussies and risk getting blown away in order to gain the initiative and land thir own heavy blows.
Backed by a raucous home crowd, that evidently inspires cricketers like it does boxers, that is exactly what they did.
Englands strategy seems to be the roadmap by which to tackle the superior Australians.
Ie Risk losing by gambling to create opportunities, be aggressive, don't let the Australians settle into their gameplan and have some luck.
There is no doubt in my mind that Australia were the better and more classy team, but for the reasons mentioned above they were not allowed to show it.
Some other observations
- Injuries played their large part. England being able to field the same XI for the first 4 tests was a bonus but not as much as McGrath being injured in the 2 Tests they eventually won.
- The toss was also key, Vaughan won 3 of the 5 and decided to bat first in all of them and was inserted on a flat track in the 2nd Test. Obviously the bowling of Australia was seen as the weaker of the 2 disciplines and England thought they had the players to put the bowling attack under pressure. They did so more often than not. That in turn gave their bowlers freedom to launch into the Australian batsmen with almost a carefree, recklessness and the batsmen had to battle. England seemed to want to ask all the questions. If Australia could answer them then fine, but it would be England setting the agenda.
- Pietersen dropped 6 catches in the series. That would have crushed a lesser man. Instead that arrogance and self belief so often missing in English sportsmen and often criticised in Pietersen helped him ignore it and play a remarkable innings in the the 5th (and only his 5th) Test and have a good Test career so far.
- For a guy that averaged over 40 with the ball, Brett Lee didnt bowl badly at all. Lots of runs came from snicks or top edges and he often looked threatening. Much has been made out how the new bat technology will make it difficult for spinners as mis****s can travel for 6. However, watching Lee it seems that it will make life difficult for the quicks as well as the slightest top edge flies for miles and batsmen barely have to touch the ball at that pace for it to race away.
- No matter how many times it is watched, the decisions given to Martyn were shockers. There has to be an element of technolgy used. The number of time he was incorrectly given out LBW after hitting the ball could have ended the career of a junior player before it had even properly started.
- This series also marked how the class players performed under pressure, highlighting that what makes the best goes deeper than just ability. McGrath in the first Test produced an incredible spell to destroy England after Australia had been on the back foot due to Harmison. Pontings reaguard action in the 3rd Test was more about guts and determination than his considerable ability. 158 when everyone else struggled and had to face a fired up Harmison that bowled a wicked spell at him. Flintoffs' spell in the drawn 5th Test was titanic. Almost single handedly turning the game through sheer willpower, effort and ability and with the series on the line. And then there was Warne. He was amazing throughout the series but in the 5th Test he produced some of the best spin bowling you are ever likely to see. It was a one man show, trying to claw his team back to tie the series.
- It was a mistake to play Tait in the 5th and deciding Test. As talented as he maybe, it was the wrong time and place for an inexpreienced, fast but wild bowler. The captain didnt seem to trust him and in that pressure cooker atmosphere and cauldren of noise Australia would have been better served by selecting a veteren campaigner who couldhave been relied upon to have a cool head and settle into a pre-determined role.
- I believe that ball by Harmison that split open Pontings cheek in the 1st Test served as a statement of intent and was a factor in the series. The fact he had to have plastic surgery and wore a scar across his cheek thoughout the series was a permenant reminder to the English that 'these guys are human, they bleed like us, and they don't like it up 'em' Instead of having to recite a mantra to remind themselves of what they could do and that they could be successful, the opposition captans face did the job beautifully.
One thing that had faded a little from memory was how much of a factor the weather was. It certainly shortened a number of the games and made time an issue which further applied pressure to both teams.
I was in South Africa during this series and its reach to the otherside of the world was amazing. Pubs were packed full of South Africans watching the games and people Id never met before would wish me luck, as if I was playing. A truly legendary series and Id forgotten the chill I got from the crowd reactions and the collective passion.
Most of what I have written is pretty obvious and will have been said before but Ive tried to stay away from the even more obvious such as reverse swing, substitute fielders and keeping issues.
It was a joy to go back to it and see such a remarkable and competetive series that still amazes and was played in such good spirit.
Its been a while since Ive done it and all I can say is 'Wow'. It loses nothing in the rewatching. It is still the most remarkable series.
Boxing analogies are overused, but it fits here. Australia were the classy world champs, skilled, balanced and dangerous. England were hard hitting and aggressive and had a punchers chance. They knew they had to come hard and throw everything agaist the Aussies and risk getting blown away in order to gain the initiative and land thir own heavy blows.
Backed by a raucous home crowd, that evidently inspires cricketers like it does boxers, that is exactly what they did.
Englands strategy seems to be the roadmap by which to tackle the superior Australians.
Ie Risk losing by gambling to create opportunities, be aggressive, don't let the Australians settle into their gameplan and have some luck.
There is no doubt in my mind that Australia were the better and more classy team, but for the reasons mentioned above they were not allowed to show it.
Some other observations
- Injuries played their large part. England being able to field the same XI for the first 4 tests was a bonus but not as much as McGrath being injured in the 2 Tests they eventually won.
- The toss was also key, Vaughan won 3 of the 5 and decided to bat first in all of them and was inserted on a flat track in the 2nd Test. Obviously the bowling of Australia was seen as the weaker of the 2 disciplines and England thought they had the players to put the bowling attack under pressure. They did so more often than not. That in turn gave their bowlers freedom to launch into the Australian batsmen with almost a carefree, recklessness and the batsmen had to battle. England seemed to want to ask all the questions. If Australia could answer them then fine, but it would be England setting the agenda.
- Pietersen dropped 6 catches in the series. That would have crushed a lesser man. Instead that arrogance and self belief so often missing in English sportsmen and often criticised in Pietersen helped him ignore it and play a remarkable innings in the the 5th (and only his 5th) Test and have a good Test career so far.
- For a guy that averaged over 40 with the ball, Brett Lee didnt bowl badly at all. Lots of runs came from snicks or top edges and he often looked threatening. Much has been made out how the new bat technology will make it difficult for spinners as mis****s can travel for 6. However, watching Lee it seems that it will make life difficult for the quicks as well as the slightest top edge flies for miles and batsmen barely have to touch the ball at that pace for it to race away.
- No matter how many times it is watched, the decisions given to Martyn were shockers. There has to be an element of technolgy used. The number of time he was incorrectly given out LBW after hitting the ball could have ended the career of a junior player before it had even properly started.
- This series also marked how the class players performed under pressure, highlighting that what makes the best goes deeper than just ability. McGrath in the first Test produced an incredible spell to destroy England after Australia had been on the back foot due to Harmison. Pontings reaguard action in the 3rd Test was more about guts and determination than his considerable ability. 158 when everyone else struggled and had to face a fired up Harmison that bowled a wicked spell at him. Flintoffs' spell in the drawn 5th Test was titanic. Almost single handedly turning the game through sheer willpower, effort and ability and with the series on the line. And then there was Warne. He was amazing throughout the series but in the 5th Test he produced some of the best spin bowling you are ever likely to see. It was a one man show, trying to claw his team back to tie the series.
- It was a mistake to play Tait in the 5th and deciding Test. As talented as he maybe, it was the wrong time and place for an inexpreienced, fast but wild bowler. The captain didnt seem to trust him and in that pressure cooker atmosphere and cauldren of noise Australia would have been better served by selecting a veteren campaigner who couldhave been relied upon to have a cool head and settle into a pre-determined role.
- I believe that ball by Harmison that split open Pontings cheek in the 1st Test served as a statement of intent and was a factor in the series. The fact he had to have plastic surgery and wore a scar across his cheek thoughout the series was a permenant reminder to the English that 'these guys are human, they bleed like us, and they don't like it up 'em' Instead of having to recite a mantra to remind themselves of what they could do and that they could be successful, the opposition captans face did the job beautifully.
One thing that had faded a little from memory was how much of a factor the weather was. It certainly shortened a number of the games and made time an issue which further applied pressure to both teams.
I was in South Africa during this series and its reach to the otherside of the world was amazing. Pubs were packed full of South Africans watching the games and people Id never met before would wish me luck, as if I was playing. A truly legendary series and Id forgotten the chill I got from the crowd reactions and the collective passion.
Most of what I have written is pretty obvious and will have been said before but Ive tried to stay away from the even more obvious such as reverse swing, substitute fielders and keeping issues.
It was a joy to go back to it and see such a remarkable and competetive series that still amazes and was played in such good spirit.
Last edited:
Sorry, but can't resist a spotter's badge there: Ponting won the first two tosses and dropped a family-sized knacker when he put us in at Edgbaston in the second after that fortuitous tennis ball/McGrath's ankle interface.
Will edit
, but off the top of my head those are the only two since 2000.
, but with that summary I feel like I'm there! 
