• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Anyone know what he's referring to?

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
That's a stupid way of looking at it. Just because Australia dominated, it really wasn't part of the series, but was rather part of Australia's dominance in previous series? Honestly...

Just because a match has nothing in common with the series doesn't mean its misplaced. Look at the India vs. Pakistan 2004 series. India dominated the first and third test match, but Pakistan dominated the second. Should that 2nd test than be viewed as 'not part of the series really' since it was a one-off?

The fact is, you can't claim that Lords test should be part of 2002/03 because the personnel from both sides are completely different and the form of the players are different. England had Flintoff, Geraint Jones, Pietersen etc. and Australia had Clarke, Katich, Ponting as captain etc.

What you're arguing is silly, but I'll end it here because really, where could this possibly go. How can I convince a person that a test which occurred 2 years later with very different teams in different conditions shouldn't actually be viewed as part of the previous series?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
How can you possibly compare Pakistan-India to what I mentioned?
Incidentally - what was the point in even making that post if you were going to "end it here".
There's no point me replying in that case, is there?
 

Swervy

International Captain
Richard said:
Err, that match was clearly part of something that disappeared at Edgbaston.
Australia dominated at Lord's. As they had done for most of the Tests since 1989.
Lord's would've been far more appropriately placed in the previous series.
Lord's had virtually nothing in common with the rest of the series.
I think you have really lost the plot now!!!!
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
It's pretty obvious why isn't it? You're claiming that a test match played a week or so before another test match had more in common with a completely different test series played about 30 months previously, with different teams and in a different part of the world. It's just absurd.

Anyway, if Lords wasn't part of the series, England won at Old Trafford and had a series draw been an England win then yes, England would have dominated the series. However, none of those things were the case, so they didn't.

I mean, if Australia had made 3 more runs at Edgbaston, taken the last three wickets at Trent Bridge and Warne had held that catch at The Oval and ran through the tail allowing an Australian win, Australia would have dominated the series, wouldn't they? Hell, it would have been 4-0, the biggest Ashes win since 1989. However, none of those things happened, and none of them are any more unlikely than your suggestions. Neither side dominated the Ashes because it was a close series. England won it because they were marginally the better team over the series, mainly in the middle three tests.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Richard said:
It wasn't remotely tricky, and we NEVER looked like not making it.
:laugh:

Tell that to my ring-piece. It was going like billio when Geraint holed out & we still needed a dozen or so with an 8 & 9 at the crease.
 

howardj

International Coach
Silence is golden. Love the way Ponting and Flintoff say nothing, and then come out and hammer the opposition. That's class.

Man, Im sick of Hayden. It's arrogance like his that contributed to Australia losing the Urn last year.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
It's pretty obvious why isn't it? You're claiming that a test match played a week or so before another test match had more in common with a completely different test series played about 30 months previously, with different teams and in a different part of the world. It's just absurd.
It's not absurd - Lord's had impossibly more in common with 2002\03 than the rest of 2005.
I mean, if Australia had made 3 more runs at Edgbaston, taken the last three wickets at Trent Bridge and Warne had held that catch at The Oval and ran through the tail allowing an Australian win, Australia would have dominated the series, wouldn't they?
If such things had happened it would've been a poor description of how each match had panned-out.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
"Get one over"?

No, just respond to a comment I would've responded to earlier had I not taken a 8-month sabbatical.

Note I didn't dig-up every thread of such a nature as soon as I returned, given that so many people have a problem with that. 8-)
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Probably about the same as it ever was.

As I recall it was around 50 in my first stay before my first sabbatical.

As I said - Sudeep! Do you still read these forums? :(

I'm sure Sudeep is equipped to calculate my PPD with absences subtracted.
 

Swervy

International Captain
well , as this has ben dug up >>>>>

'Err, that match was clearly part of something that disappeared at Edgbaston.
Australia dominated at Lord's. As they had done for most of the Tests since 1989.
Lord's would've been far more appropriately placed in the previous series.
Lord's had virtually nothing in common with the rest of the series.'----- that is the most incredible post ever on this forum...although that stuff you said about that 18 in 85 by Botham comes close.

Hehehe, you genuinely crack me up
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
So, then... how did Lord's have anything in common with the rest of the series?

Australia utterly dominated that match, as they had most games since 1989.

England mostly dominated the next 3, and had even shares of the Fifth.
 

Swervy

International Captain
So, then... how did Lord's have anything in common with the rest of the series?

Australia utterly dominated that match, as they had most games since 1989.

England mostly dominated the next 3, and had even shares of the Fifth.
the lords test WAS a part of the 2005 series, thats what it had in common with the 2005 series. Does anyone really have to spell that one out any more clearly??. It is laughable (as i say, probably the most ridiculous thing you have EVER said on these forums) ....damn, I have lost my train of thought here...well slappa my thigh, you have knocked me speechless
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Err - it may have been part of the result-schedule of the 2005 series but the cricket played within it had nothing in common with the rest of that series. It did, however, have much in common with most of the previous 8 series.
 

Top