Which was the more painful defeat for Australia?

[vcs]

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.

[GotSpin]

Ashes 2005 because the umpires rigged the series and the English players cheated. IMO, English fans should treat that series as nothing but a hollow victory

[GIMH]

2001 should hurt them more IMO, no shame by being beaten by a superior team which is what happened in 05. If anything they should be relieved it wasn't 4-1, which it would have been but for rain

[Pratters]

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.

[GotSpin]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

2001 should hurt them more IMO, no shame by being beaten by a superior team which is what happened in 05. If anything they should be relieved it wasn't 4-1, which it would have been but for rain

The series should be removed from the record books and all media, just like the 06/07 series for the English.

[morgieb]

I don't know. Ashes haunted us more and was an actual loss, rather than just one due to bad luck/choking like India.

Strangely, most of the best test series over the past 10 years have resulted in Australian losses.

[pasag]

'09 stings pretty bad tbh.

[vcs]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

2001 should hurt them more IMO, no shame by being beaten by a superior team which is what happened in 05. If anything they should be relieved it wasn't 4-1, which it would have been but for rain

I know losing the Ashes means everything for Australia, but I agree with this. When you look at the Ashes defeat, Australia lost to a superlative England team, a true team performance. They had been building up to challenge Australia over a period of a year or so, had thumped NZ, W. Indies at home and beaten S. Africa away. Every member of that English team pulled their weight that series. You had Flintoff, Harmison, Jones, Hoggard and even Giles chipping in, and Trescothick, Strauss, Vaughan, KP, Flintoff all playing crucial innings at some point or the other. How do you combat a team effort like that? In fact, it was exactly what Australia have done to opponents in their 15 years of dominance, relentless pressure from every single individual. Australia did extremely well to make it as close as they did after they lost McGrath to injury, Warne put in one of the great individual Ashes performances of all time, and Ponting's knock saved the Test at Old Trafford.

The defeat against India, when I look at it, I still can't believe how we actually pulled it off. If Australia had taken one wicket on the fourth day, they would have undoubtedly won that series. Just one wicket. If they had found a way to counter Harbhajan in that series, they would have won it easily. How can a team lose 32/50 wickets to one guy in a series? That will always be the highlight of his career. But at some point, Australia have to blame themselves for allowing an individual to dominate like that.

Strangely, as I remember it, the reaction from Australia was much more severe after the Ashes defeat. Gillespie's career was over for all practical purposes. Martyn (one of my favourite batsmen) was dropped. But I always felt it was too harsh, very few teams would have coped with the standard of cricket England played as a team in '05. I think it is much more disappointing to go down to a one or two man act, which was what happened against India in '01.

[vcs]

Originally Posted by morgieb

I don't know. Ashes haunted us more and was an actual loss, rather than just one due to bad luck/choking like India.

Strangely, most of the best test series over the past 10 years have resulted in Australian losses.

It shows the standard of cricket needed to beat that great Australian side. I watch tennis and I am a fan of Federer. I completely identify with the feeling of losing some incredibly tight, fantastic contests because the opponent/opposition just has to play that well to overcome the odds.

[GotSpin]

Originally Posted by vcs

I know losing the Ashes means everything for Australia, but I agree with this. When you look at the Ashes defeat, Australia lost to a superlative England team, a true team performance. They had been building up to challenge Australia over a period of a year or so, had thumped NZ, W. Indies at home and beaten S. Africa away. Every member of that English team pulled their weight that series. You had Flintoff, Harmison, Jones, Hoggard and even Giles chipping in, and Trescothick, Strauss, Vaughan, KP, Flintoff all playing crucial innings at some point or the other. How do you combat a team effort like that? In fact, it was exactly what Australia have done to opponents in their 15 years of dominance, relentless pressure from every single individual. Australia did extremely well to make it as close as they did after they lost McGrath to injury, Warne put in one of the great individual Ashes performances of all time, and Ponting's knock saved the Test at Old Trafford.

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

[Noble One]

Neither India in 2001 or England in 2005 was painful.

Both series seen some fantastic cricket and some of the greatest individual performances of all time (Harby 2001, Hayden 2001, Warne 2005, Flintoff 2005).

2009 was just painful. Felt like the general public, media, coaches and players just didn't care. I am still livid.

[vcs]

Originally Posted by Noble One

Neither India in 2001 or England in 2005 was painful.

Both series seen some fantastic cricket and some of the greatest individual performances of all time (Harby 2001, Hayden 2001, Warne 2005, Flintoff 2005).

2009 was just painful. Felt like the general public, media, coaches and players just didn't care. I am still livid.

As an outsider, it did seem to me a bit like that. Maybe the hangover of the 5-0 in Australia? Either way, it seemed like Australia were favourites, the better team on paper and played the better cricket for long stretches but lost the crucial sessions.

[Spikey]

I hate England much more than I hate India. In fact, I only severely dislike India. 05 and 09 were much more painful than 01...

[pasag]

Originally Posted by Noble One

Neither India in 2001 or England in 2005 was painful.

Both series seen some fantastic cricket and some of the greatest individual performances of all time (Harby 2001, Hayden 2001, Warne 2005, Flintoff 2005).

2009 was just painful. Felt like the general public, media, coaches and players just didn't care. I am still livid.

Maintain the rage.

[GotSpin]

Originally Posted by vcs

As an outsider, it did seem to me a bit like that. Maybe the hangover of the 5-0 in Australia? Either way, it seemed like Australia were favourites, the better team on paper and played the better cricket for long stretches but lost the crucial sessions.

It felt like two weakened teams (If England were anything ever but weak ) battling it out in a series that was never going to live up the heroics of the former series. More so, the legends of the Australian had since retired and there was just less enthusiasm.