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?
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?