Which was the more painful defeat for Australia?

[Richard]

Australia's great team of 1995-2008 suffered two high-profile defeats in that period - the India-Australia 2001 series and the Ashes 2005. Those are probably the two best Test series I have experienced in my lifetime. I would like to hear the perspective of Australian fans - as supporters of a dominant cricketing nation, which defeat hurt more and why?

I have some thoughts on this but I would like to respond after hearing a few replies.

Something that's interesting to note is that, aside from the parochial "losing to England is baaaaaaaaaaaad" that abounds so readily in modern Australia, is that Australia only lost the 2000/01 India series thanks to a once-in-several-lifetimes occurrance. Even after Laxman and Dravid's sensational partnership, which there was precious little anyone was ever likely to do to stop, they should still easily have drawn the match. They threw it away, and though they were beaten fair-and-square in the final match, if they'd not collapsed at Eden Gardens they'd have shared the spoils.

In 2005 Australia were simply outplayed by a better side, and much as some Australians think England have no right ever to outplay them without Australians underperforming (which in reality only Gillespie really did), that's just what happened. It must be a real bitch for many Australian fans to have England outplay their side though, so I'd not be surprised at that defeat being more painful.

 

[L Trumper]

Yeah losing to India is like once in a blue moon type. Because kind of innings laxman produced and bhajji in form of his life, you don't see that everyday. In fact if there is a 4th test I am sure would've been bounced back ala 99 vs WI.

In 05 they were simply outplayed by ENG. Apart from lord's test they were never look like another match. Although to their credit, never say die attitude they come back hard and almost snatch two victories by playing good cricket in final sessions in edgbaston,trent bridge. At OT they fought tooth and nails and drawn it with help of rain.

Which hurts more? It depends on how one thinks , getting beaten by a once in a life time performances by a less quality side or getting beaten by admittedly better team? I think former should hurt more.

 

[stephen]

In 2005 Australia were simply outplayed by a better side, and much as some Australians think England have no right ever to outplay them without Australians underperforming (which in reality only Gillespie really did), that's just what happened.

Uh Kasper, Hayden, Martyn, Katich, Clarke and Gilchrist all drastically underperformed as well. Not to mention Lee, who was just woeful (interspersed with moments of brilliance) and all of the wickets Aus took off no balls. Really the only three Aussies not to underperform in the series was Langer, Ponting and Warne - and Ponting is arguable in all but one test.

To say that only Gillespie really underperformed is really to undervalue the absolute domination that the Australian side had up to that point. Noone else was really in the same ballpark at the time. Though it pains me incredibly to say it, England did outplay Australia. However, they played an Australia who were underprepared and were very much underperforming.

 

[AaronK]

none of them... I have always enjoyed seeing Aus lose.. not that i have anyting against Aus... but seeing Aus dominate every single team for years and years... I take it as a positive sign seeing Aus losing a series or two...

 

[L Trumper]

Uh Kasper, Hayden, Martyn, Katich, Clarke and Gilchrist all drastically underperformed as well. Not to mention Lee, who was just woeful (interspersed with moments of brilliance) and all of the wickets Aus took off no balls. Really the only three Aussies not to underperform in the series was Langer, Ponting and Warne - and Ponting is arguable in all but one test.

To say that only Gillespie really underperformed is really to undervalue the absolute domination that the Australian side had up to that point. Noone else was really in the same ballpark at the time. Though it pains me incredibly to say it, England did outplay Australia. However, they played an Australia who were underprepared and were very much underperforming.

There is a difference between under performing and worked over. England spent 3 ****ing months to counter gilly, martyn. Hayden always struggled against swing bowling at that time. Katich is not a formidable force either at that time. About Lee being woeful, well most of the times he is woeful with occasional spell of brilliance thats exactly how he performed. Before getting dropped from side Clarke is flashy player rather than substance. Coming into this series its not like whole team is in bad shape, is it?
They are no way under prepared.. As far as under performing goes, english bowling is too good while aussies bowling apart from warne is rubbish. McGrath's injury didn't help. Facing 3 bowlers at 90 mph, 3 reverse swinging bowlers is a lot harder and it is the first time they encountered that kind of attack and promptly got destroyed, considering conditions also suited bowlers.

 

[NasserFan207]

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

You know, it was certainly bad luck, but its very harsh to say Australia's bad luck.

I remember watching that series and despite all the hoopla surrounding Flintoff, Jones was the guy who stuck out to me as someone who could become an alltime great player. Its a tragedy what happened to him imo.

 

[L Trumper]

He did play in 08 season, should have selected him in SA series. Selectors thought he should get more games under his belt, and can be unleashed in 09 but he got injured at the end of 08.

 

[NasserFan207]

I don't think he ever fully recovered from the injuries anyway. By that I mean he was never capable of bowling the way he did in that series again.

 

[Top_Cat]

Some serious revisionism going on in this thread from '05. First, the Aussies played two ODI series' before the first Test with a couple of 3/4 day games before the first Test which they won by heaps. They clearly weren't under-prepared. Second, the conditions were generally bat-friendly, most of the series being scored at 4rpo. I remember the howls of protest from the English press when scheduling was released because OZ had made it their business to demolish opponents in dry conditions on flat decks and it was in the warmer months. What else do dry conditions help? That's right, reverse swing.

Credit where due, eh?

 

[Burgey]

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

Tbh.

Don't deny it. There can be no other logical explanation for how that Australian side lost to that England one. In fact, had Jones replaced his knee cartilage with Murray Mints, he'd still be bowling for England now.

 

[Burgey]

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.

Or S Jones was dead lbw to Lee before he and Flintoff put on those crucial runs (iirc). Generally though, umpiring decisions do hurt more if you cop a bad one when things are already going against you, as they were for Australia in that series after Lord's.
England built great pressure and didn't let up much at all.

And it's not just modern Australia where it's considered bad to lose to England. It's been that way forever tbh.

 

[stephen]

Some serious revisionism going on in this thread from '05. First, the Aussies played two ODI series' before the first Test with a couple of 3/4 day games before the first Test which they won by heaps. They clearly weren't under-prepared. Second, the conditions were generally bat-friendly, most of the series being scored at 4rpo. I remember the howls of protest from the English press when scheduling was released because OZ had made it their business to demolish opponents in dry conditions on flat decks and it was in the warmer months. What else do dry conditions help? That's right, reverse swing.

Credit where due, eh?

Australia were underprepared. I believe it was Gilchrist who said that due to their win in India they did not do their homework before the Ashes. They were arrogant and expected themselves to be able to just turn up and win.

Interestingly we lost to Bangladesh in an ODI just before the Ashes. The wheels were already falling off.

The '05 win was a culmination of Australia falling apart at exactly the same time as the English team peaked. Which is not to diminish the English performance in any way. Most of the Aussie batsmen averaged around 15 under their career average in that series.

 

[Johnners]

Agree with those saying Ashes 09 hurt. Possibly mainly because it's the most recent loss

 

[Top_Cat]

Australia were underprepared. I believe it was Gilchrist who said that due to their win in India they did not do their homework before the Ashes. They were arrogant and expected themselves to be able to just turn up and win.

Interestingly we lost to Bangladesh in an ODI just before the Ashes. The wheels were already falling off.

The '05 win was a culmination of Australia falling apart at exactly the same time as the English team peaked. Which is not to diminish the English performance in any way. Most of the Aussie batsmen averaged around 15 under their career average in that series.

Couldn't disagree more. They won the first Test by almost 200 runs!

And, tbh, the English side was busily beating everyone in sight for almost 2 years before the Ashes and the same players heavily involved in beating their opponents were the same names that cropped up in 2005. No-one in the Aussie set-up can say with a straight face that they didn't see it coming.

 

[irfan]

England 05 should hurt more for the Aussie supporters - mainly for the fact that Australia could have done a lot more to prevent the Poms from winning. No one could predict that Laxman and Dravid could bat for a day and turn the series on it's head, everyone could see that Flintoff & co would try and swing the Aussies out from the get-go.

Ponting was poor tactically in that Ashes series. His catalogue of errors include
- Overbowling Gillespie when he was clearly out of touch
- Conceding bucketloads of runs through third-man
- Rotating his bowlers in regimented patterns rather than having plans for each of the batsmen
- Not taking ownership of the team and branding his captaincy style (too much talk with Warne, Katich etc.)
and the biggest blunder was of course bowling first at Edgbaston just after McGrath rolled his ankle

In contrast, I don't think Steve Waugh could have done a lot when Laxman & Dravid where batting (maybe have a few more boundary riders when Laxman got going?). Both guys played out of their skins. Harbhajan had a dream series that will never be replicated and I doubt that Steve Waugh and his men could have done much to combat such freakishly brilliant performances - even if their confidence was sky-high after 16 straight wins

 

[L Trumper]

Australia were underprepared. I believe it was Gilchrist who said that due to their win in India they did not do their homework before the Ashes. They were arrogant and expected themselves to be able to just turn up and win.

Interestingly we lost to Bangladesh in an ODI just before the Ashes. The wheels were already falling off.

The '05 win was a culmination of Australia falling apart at exactly the same time as the English team peaked. Which is not to diminish the English performance in any way. Most of the Aussie batsmen averaged around 15 under their career average in that series.

That is because English bowled superbly not because batsmen were under prepared. Wheels are not falling off, they tied natwest finals and won 3 match odi series 2-1 and won comfortably at lords. Actually they are getting better as the tour goes on. Then Mcgrath injured and Flintoff kicked into next gear.

 

[stephen]

That is because English bowled superbly not because batsmen were under prepared. Wheels are not falling off, they tied natwest finals and won 3 match odi series 2-1 and won comfortably at lords. Actually they are getting better as the tour goes on. Then Mcgrath injured and Flintoff kicked into next gear.

The win at Lords was largely on the back of McGrath. The Aussies were underprepared for the series mentally, not physically. They just didn't do their homework properly.

 

[Pothas]

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

Yeah quite a few of us (herny and I watched the last day) felt a little flat, was just an odd series and I actually got a lot more behind the team in South, more than I had in a good while.

Would have been livid losing if I was Australian though, really looking forward to this years insallment though.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yeah losing to India is like once in a blue moon type. Because kind of innings laxman produced and bhajji in form of his life, you don't see that everyday. In fact if there is a 4th test I am sure would've been bounced back ala 99 vs WI.

In 05 they were simply outplayed by ENG. Apart from lord's test they were never look like another match. Although to their credit, never say die attitude they come back hard and almost snatch two victories by playing good cricket in final sessions in edgbaston,trent bridge. At OT they fought tooth and nails and drawn it with help of rain.

Which hurts more? It depends on how one thinks , getting beaten by a once in a life time performances by a less quality side or getting beaten by admittedly better team? I think former should hurt more.

You don't think Flintoff's performance in 05 was a once in a blue moon performance?

 

[marc71178]

It came in the middle of a 2-3 year purple patch so not really, no.