Ashes 2005 Revisited

[wpdavid]

I honestly think that must be the best spell I've ever seen in a Test. Although a couple from Ambrose would surely beat it (vs Aus at The WACA in 1992\93 and vs England at Trinidad in 1994) sadly I didn't have Sky in those days so didn't see either.

I seem to recall one headline was "McGrath hurls England back to Earth".

I really don't think Trescothick, Strauss, Vaughan, Bell or Flintoff could realistically have done so much as a thing about the deliveries they got.

For me, that was the spell that made me reconsider McGrath's standing from"obviously extremely good but not quite in the same league as Lillee & Marshall" to "as good as anyone you care to name".

 

[BoyBrumby]

I understand how people think Im overstating Harmison hitting Poniting. However, if your battle plan is to be aggressive towards a superior opponent then you need to bloody their nose early (or in this case cheek) or its hard to sustain that aggression.

I dont think it was a turning point or a key aspect but it was certainly a contributing factor to the victory. Even if others were far greater.

Agree. Just as Harmy reaching second slip in the 06/07 Ashes set the tone for that series, Harmy hitting Punter on the helmet in 2005 set the tone for that series.

It did add to the overall impression that we were finally a team to be reckoned with, but for me the tone had already been set in the ODIs beforehand. Two incidents stand out in my mind:

- Simon Jones throwing the ball back after fielding it in his follow-through and hitting Hayden's chest on the bounce. Jones immediately apologised, but Hayden growled something back and was confronted with about four Englishmen (most notably Collingwood) squaring up to him. IIRC Hayden was out a run or two later; showing he could be rattled.

- KP taking the long-handle to the Australian attack on that Sunday after Bangladesh had beaten them the day before. Australia were in a winning position, but Pietersen deposited them to all parts (I remember him being particularly severe on Dizzy). It demonstrated Oz were vulnerable (ish) and that we had a player who simply had to face them in the tests. Brash, confident and untainted by a decade and a half of failure.

 

[sideshowtim]

Richard points out Gillespie being poor. To me, his general crapness was quite a surprise. I can't ever remember him being as downright poor as he was in that series. It's quite odd how such a magnificent bowler could turn into such a poor one so quickly...and seemingly not bounce back...Since that series he's been half the bowler he once was.

 

[Nate]

Very good summary.

Just personally, I can not bring myself to say nice things about the series. I hate the 2005 Ashes. I hated losing so much. And still do. I can say vague things about England being the better side and Australia being unlucky, but they're unattached words with no trace of meaning at all. It kills me.

 

[Richard]

What I think is important to revist is the comments of those who said the Aussie dominance had indeed ended after that series.

19 undefeated tests later....

Beyond question those comments were stupid - especially given their next series was against West Indies - but do you honestly think Australia have completely earned said 19 Tests? South Africa could easily have beaten them in pretty well every single one of their games bar the Fifth, had they caught catches, had less misfortune with the weather and, latterly, managed to take that last wicket.

But people talking of AussieDominance (sorry... ) ending were never more than opportunists. Australia could, conceivably, have won said Ashes even though they were convincingly bettered in 4 out of 5 Tests. And their team coming out of it was little weaker than it had been going in (where, let's not forget, their record read p17, w13, d3, l1 and that could easily have been p17, w16, l1 or even p17, w17 though that's less likely than more).

Even after 2006\07 people were still at it. There'll always be the opportunity to do it.

 

[sideshowtim]

- KP taking the long-handle to the Australian attack on that Sunday after Bangladesh had beaten them the day before. Australia were in a winning position, but Pietersen deposited them to all parts (I remember him being particularly severe on Dizzy). It demonstrated Oz were vulnerable (ish) and that we had a player who simply had to face them in the tests. Brash, confident and untainted by a decade and a half of failure.

It seems odd now, but I do remember there being some enormous doubt over KP's ability as a Test player. If I remember correctly there was quite an extensive debate to whether or not KP should be in the team at the expense of...think it was Thorpe...but yeah, while KP was a huge part of that Test series, it almost seems as if he came very close to not being selected. In what was quite an odd change for most England management, they took a punt and went with the riskier option...has paid off brilliantly for them though.

 

[sideshowtim]

Very good summary.

Just personally, I can not bring myself to say nice things about the series. I hate the 2005 Ashes. I hated losing so much. And still do. I can say vague things about England being the better side and Australia being unlucky, but they're unattached words with no trace of meaning at all. It kills me.

Amen brother!

 

[shortpitched713]

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.

It was a cricket ball/McGrath's ankle interface, iirc.

 

[Richard]

Richard points out Gillespie being poor. To me, his general crapness was quite a surprise. I can't ever remember him being as downright poor as he was in that series. It's quite odd how such a magnificent bowler could turn into such a poor one so quickly...and seemingly not bounce back...Since that series he's been half the bowler he once was.

It baffled me, it really did - people have said the signs were there beforehand. Well, not really. He bowled below his best in 3 Tests in New Zealand beforehand, but he was nowhere near, and I mean nowhere near, as awful as he was in England in ODIs and Tests.

However, you say he's not bounced back - he's not done in Tests because he's not had the chance (vs Test-class-teams). But his form in domestic cricket has, UIMM, been as good as ever. It'll be a terrible shame if that series is indeed the end to his (vs Test-class-teams) Test career.

But I've said all along that, for me, the decline of Gillespie was possibly the biggest factor that turned Australia from unlikely to be defeated into a side that could be dominated. Most of the other players were genuinely worked-out (Hayden, Gilchrist) or were extremely unfortunate (Martyn, McGrath) or were just plain not-that-good to start with (Lee, Clarke, Tait in the 2 Tests he played). I suppose only Katich and to a small extent Ponting (who averaged "only" 39.88) shared Gillespie's sense of disappointment-***-bafflement. Langer and Warne, for mine, came out of the series knowing they could have done little more.

 

[sideshowtim]

It baffled me, it really did - people have said the signs were there beforehand. Well, not really. He bowled below his best in 3 Tests in New Zealand beforehand, but he was nowhere near, and I mean nowhere near, as awful as he was in England in ODIs and Tests.

However, you say he's not bounced back - he's not done in Tests because he's not had the chance (vs Test-class-teams). But his form in domestic cricket has, UIMM, been as good as ever. It'll be a terrible shame if that series is indeed the end to his (vs Test-class-teams) Test career.

But I've said all along that, for me, the decline of Gillespie was possibly the biggest factor that turned Australia from unlikely to be defeated into a side that could be dominated. Most of the other players were genuinely worked-out (Hayden, Gilchrist) or were extremely unfortunate (Martyn, McGrath) or were just plain not-that-good to start with (Lee, Clarke, Tait in the 2 Tests he played). I suppose only Katich and to a small extent Ponting (who averaged "only" 39.88) shared Gillespie's sense of disappointment-***-bafflement. Langer and Warne, for mine, came out of the series knowing they could have done little more.

His record in domestic cricket recently looks alright, but when I've seen him bowl, he quite simply lacks pace and penetration. He doesn't look like the wicket taker he used to be.

 

[Richard]

It seems odd now, but I do remember there being some enormous doubt over KP's ability as a Test player. If I remember correctly there was quite an extensive debate to whether or not KP should be in the team at the expense of...think it was Thorpe...but yeah, while KP was a huge part of that Test series, it almost seems as if he came very close to not being selected. In what was quite an odd change for most England management, they took a punt and went with the riskier option...has paid off brilliantly for them though.

Whether it really was the more risky option is highly debatable IMO, really. Thorpe had struggled, largely, in South Africa, after 12 months of walking on water (averaged 70 between his 2003 comeback and the end of summer 2004). His back, apparently, so they say (I hope it's not just excuse-making) wasn't at its best, as it never had been. And Pietersen's First-Class record was hardly compelling to suggest doubt as to his Test credentials - he averaged 54.

I don't think there was ever much likelihood of him not being selected. And in his magnificent innings at Edgbaston (where he held back while Flintoff biffed, then struck out when Flintoff was dismissed) he did as much, for mine, to turn the tide as Trescothick and Strauss did earlier. And, unlike Trescothick, he didn't need a catch off a no-ball to do it.

But, of course, he did need that Warne drop to play that innings at The Oval, so naturally I think some people have raved about it too much.

 

[Goughy]

But, of course, he did need that Warne drop to play that innings at The Oval, so naturally I think some people have raved about it too much.

Dont forget Tait dropping him as well. The more we think about it, the worse that innings gets

 

[wpdavid]

Wouldn't argue with any of that Rich. Only to add that the selectors made their lives difficult by picking Bell ahead of KP for the Bang tests, where he had, quite predictably, filled his boots and made himself undroppable. If anything, Thorpe lost his place because he batted after Bell instead of before him. You certainly couldn't say that Bell turned out to be a better bet in the Ashes.

 

[GIMH]

What I think is important to revist is the comments of those who said the Aussie dominance had indeed ended after that series.

19 undefeated tests later....

And we've won...what...8 Tests since is it? And's that including the Pakistan at the oval farce.

I wouldn't swap the Ashes win in 05 for anything in the world, I look back so happily on those times, alas I can't help but think that things might have been very different if Australia had won at the Oval. We'll never know though, but it was the old "job done, feet up" routine, which is quite frankly, bollocks, and we haven't been good enough for quite some time, as long as it's taken me to realise.

 

[Richard]

Very good summary.

Just personally, I can not bring myself to say nice things about the series. I hate the 2005 Ashes. I hated losing so much. And still do. I can say vague things about England being the better side and Australia being unlucky, but they're unattached words with no trace of meaning at all. It kills me.

ITSTL.

Personally, I feel far more comfortable about the 2006\07 loss by saying "Australia were, by miles, the better team" than the excuse-making favoured by most of my countrymen which I detailed elsewhere...

People who continously do their darndest to find some reason or another as to why Australia won that doesn't include them quite simply outplaying the opposition. Fair enough if it was a close thing for the entire match barring some brilliance from say Ponting or whoever that wins it. But nothing ****s me more when they thrash the opposition, and then people say "oh it was the pitch" or "oh our batting was crap" instead of saying "their bowling pwned us on what was a reasonable pitch to bat upon" etc.

Hahaha, damn straight. Unutterably off-pissing to hear people make-up 50 reasons a day as to why England lost - and so badly - this winter. Should have had more tour-games, should have picked different players, shouldn't have Duncan Fletcher as coach, picked the wrong captain, should have kept Troy Cooley, shouldn't allow those awful families to tour with the team, Kevin Pietersen is selfish, were too preoccupied with the team of 2005, celebrated too much after the victory in 2005, didn't take a single Test in between seriously, didn't take the Champions Trophy seriously, Stephen Harmison's attitude isn't right, blah-blah-blah...

Every single one of those is just bull**** IMO, even if one of them had a certain amount of grounding in reason (the tour-games). Simple fact is, Australia were the better side, and every single one of the above could have been altered and we probably still would've lost 5-0.

Which annoys me no end.

 

[GIMH]

Wouldn't argue with any of that Rich. Only to add that the selectors made their lives difficult by picking Bell ahead of KP for the Bang tests, where he had, quite predictably, filled his boots and made himself undroppable. If anything, Thorpe lost his place because he batted after Bell instead of before him. You certainly couldn't say that Bell turned out to be a better bet in the Ashes.

Yeah, Thorpe has always said he didn't oppose KP's selection, just that he felt they could both be accomodated. Fletcher, on the other hand, felt that neither of them could bat at 4. He no doubt stands by his decision, and we won so why shouldn't he, but how nice it would have been for Thorpe to go out with an Ashes victory...

 

[wpdavid]

Dont forget Tait dropping him (KP) as well. The more we think about it, the worse that innings gets

The guy who does deserve some credit is whichever umpire made that absolutely critical not-out decision when the short ball from Lee took something that turned out not to be glove or bat on the way through to Gilchrist.

 

[andruid]

All this would have mattered little if a certain Mcgrath had been able to work his majic right through the series

 

[Richard]

Wouldn't argue with any of that Rich. Only to add that the selectors made their lives difficult by picking Bell ahead of KP for the Bang tests, where he had, quite predictably, filled his boots and made himself undroppable. If anything, Thorpe lost his place because he batted after Bell instead of before him. You certainly couldn't say that Bell turned out to be a better bet in the Ashes.

TBH, I feel Bell gets an amount of unfair criticism for his performance. Look at some of the deliveries he received - I'd be surprised if Pietersen would have survived more than 4 of them himself.

That said, it'd have been easier for everyone, beyond doubt, had Pietersen been picked in said Bangladesh Tests. Bell now feels that Ashes was the best thing that ever happened to him, but I'm fairly confident he'd still be a damn decent player these days if he'd waited until 2005\06 before he got a perminant Test place.

I honestly can't begin to guess how well Thorpe would have done in 2005, meanwhile. He could have mastered the Aussie bowlers better than anyone; he could have fallen in a heap. I guess, though, we can't moan too much about how things turned-out. It's a shame, though, that such a fantastic batsman's career ended that way.

 

[wpdavid]

All this would have mattered little if a certain Mcgrath had been able to work his majic right through the series

Spoilsport.