Which was the more painful defeat for Australia?

[GIMH]

Ashes easily. 2001 was some thing you couldn't do much about. Except one chance offered which Australia didn't take, there is not much India did wrong in that fabulous come back.

I believe a lot of the Ashes 2005 defeat has to do with bad luck.

Yeah, it was bad luck for Australia that Andrew Flintoff was the best player in the world at the time. It was bad luck that Simon Jones bowled like a beauty. It was a bad luck that Trescothick and Strauss set us off to quick starts throughout the series. Such bad luck...

Come on, you're not giving enough credit. There were moments where we did have fortune fall our way (McGrath stepping on a cricket ball, though he should clearly have looked where he was going) but you can say the same in reverse. England deserved to win in 2005 every much as bit as India did in 2001.

Am glad 09 gets mention in here, I seem to have enjoyed it more than the average Englishman tbh

 

[GotSpin]

yeah, it was bad luck for australia that andrew flintoff was the best player in the world at the time. It was bad luck that simon jones bowled like a beauty. It was a bad luck that trescothick and strauss set us off to quick starts throughout the series. Such bad luck...

Come on, you're not giving enough credit. There were moments where we did have fortune fall our way (mcgrath stepping on a cricket ball, though he should clearly have looked where he was going) but you can say the same in reverse. England deserved to win in 2005 every much as bit as india did in 2001.

Am glad 09 gets mention in here, i seem to have enjoyed it more than the average englishman tbh

 

[Spikey]

It was bad luck that Simon Jones bowled like a beauty.

Well he's done absolutely nothing since, so yeah I'm calling it bad luck

 

[vcs]

'09 Ashes = '08 Border-Gavaskar Trophy, IMO. It's always great to beat the #1 team, but both series were rather unmemorable on the whole.

 

[GIMH]

 

[pasag]

'09 Ashes = '08 Border-Gavaskar Trophy, IMO. It's always great to beat the #1 team, but both series were rather unmemorable on the whole.

At least in the 09 Ashes there was back and forth. The tour in India was us getting pwned and hanging on for our dear life most of the series.

 

[Spark]

I would certainly see how '09 feels like a hollow victory for England... it came down to them being not as categorically woeful as often, except in about one-and-a-third tests. In fact 09 seems to "hurt" more (as in "how on earth did we not win that") than 05, 05 was part luck, part just being beaten by a better team... I don't think anyone could seriously make the argument that the team that played during most of that series was near our best (no McGrath for two tests, Hayden and Gilchrist going AWOL for most of the series, Gillespie, Martyn and Katich having a blue).

01 definitely hurts though, for the same reason.

 

[Redbacks]

had to vote 05. It was a big jolt because the general public consensus at the time was that we could just rock up and win the Ashes, just like last time etc. Then you add in your Aussie/English mates with parents/grandparents from Eng who switch allegiance when it suits

01 changed the way the follow on was viewed but winning in India is always going to be tough, so not as painful a loss.

 

[four_or_six]

05 Ashes was great because we played so wonderfully and it was a great contest. But the 09 Ashes were great because of the hilarity of Broad at the Oval after being bashed so much, how funny it was to see Hughes get owned by Flintoff after he was being made out that he was going to score 100 every time he got to the crease, Johnson spraying it like he was Harmison even though he was meant to be the best bowler in the world.

 

[stephen]

The Ashes. Nothing more needs to be said. They belong in Australia and any team that loses them deserves to feel mighty ashamed. You do not lose the Ashes. That is the one series you do not lose.

 

[Migara]

1999 vs SL went 1-0 for SL, and that too was scintillating cricket by both sides

 

[Matt79]

The 05 loss hurt more. The 01 loss did hurt, but it was in the context of Australia not having won a series in India before that in nearly 30 years - it was the final frontier, and while we probably expected to win (especially after the first test!), we didn't expect it to be easy or a sure thing.

The Ashes on the other hand - for a massive chunk of Australian cricket fans, us winning the Ashes had become the natural order of things. Losing to a team that genuinely played better, and were physically and mentally superior for that series was a massive wrench, even if the standard of the cricket helped sooth the hurt a lot. The fact it came against our 'big brother', with whom we have all that history, undoubtedly added massively to that. I've never seen anything, in a cricketing context, like the anticipation that was around before the return 06/07 series.

The 2005 loss was a highlight in an established, passionate rivalry. The 2001 series created a new rivalry IMO. Unfortunately, it's a rivalry that's got a bit ugly at times in recent years, but (as occurred following Bodyline, once the players involved all moved on) that will smooth over in years to come and what will remain is the importance of the contest.

 

[Sir Alex]

2005 series. Everyne hates losing to the minnows

 

[GotSpin]

At least in the 09 Ashes there was back and forth. The tour in India was us getting pwned and hanging on for our dear life most of the series.

Indeed. Woeful series for Australia.

To be honest I was a bit too young to appreciate 2001 for all its disappointment although I did watch the whole thing, apart from the times when my dad turned off the TV in frustration

 

[Sanz]

Final Frontier <> India 2001

 

[Ikki]

I think the thread-starter was asking Aussie fans to vote.

 

[Sanz]

I know and I realized that after voting. How stupid. Can someone with superpowers please make that change.

Thanks a ton.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I think the thread-starter was asking Aussie fans to vote.

We're Aussie fans too, you know

 

[Richard]

Helps when a myriad of crucial umpiring decisions go against one team.

Umpiring decisions went against England too - only a few, like there were in reality only a few against Australia - but because England played better the decisions against Australia might have cost more.

In reality if Umpiring had been more even, the series result would almost certainly have been no different. The only one where you can claim there was the slightest chance of an impact was the Katich lbw at Trent Bridge, and even that's pretty tenuous as Australia were behind the eight-ball, still, when it happened.

 

[Richard]

At the end of the day, if Lee had hit the ball in the gap at Edgbaston, Australia would probably have won that series in their usual fashion. That's how tight the margins were. But, England took over from that point onwards.

In reality, England had taken-over right from the toss of that Edgbaston game. England utterly dominated the Second Test, from start to finish. The only reason it got close was because, yes, a bad decision went in Australia's favour - Kasprowicz was dead lbw 1st ball and Brent Bowden didn't give it. If he'd given it, as he damn well should have done, the result of that match would've been recorded as an accurate reflection of the cricket played in it - a comfortable England victory.