• 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.

So did England really had a chance anyway?

Did England have a realistic chance of regaing the Ashes?


  • Total voters
    32

Craig

World Traveller
After being thumped thus far and all the talk of Ashley Giles, Geriant Jones, Monty Panesar, Chris Read, Steve Harmison and James Anderson, Flintoff's captaincy, Adelaide, and the lack of a proper preparation, really in hindsight even if they got it right do you think they would still have been in the contest with a chance of winning the Ashes, or in your view it doesn't matter what they did they would still have lost?

Thoughts please.
 

Anil

International Coach
england are decidedly the inferior team and would've lost anyway(in fact i disagree with people who say that the series would've been different had it been played in england), had the selections been done better, england might have put up a better fight, they would still have lost the ashes comprehensively...it's not that they are a bad team, the aussies are just that good, simple as that....
 

Craig

World Traveller
But in saying that IMO your opposition is only as good as you allow them to be. In that I mean you bat, bowl, field very well, you take your half chances etc.
 

Anil

International Coach
Craig said:
But in saying that IMO your opposition is only as good as you allow them to be. In that I mean you bat, bowl, field very well, you take your half chances etc.
right...in saying that aren't you saying that england didn't bat, bowl, field and catch nearly as well as australia though? that's exactly that makes them inferior....
 

James90

Cricketer Of The Year
It could have happened with a lot of variables so realistically I don't think they could have. Voted no accordingly.
 

The Baconator

International Vice-Captain
Bit more optimistic than I usually am when it came to this series. Most of my reasons were more the chance of Australia being crap than us being good though.
 

steds

Hall of Fame Member
There were a number of things happened before this series to suggest it would be a much harder task this time round. Throw in the location of the series, and it was nigh on impossible I fear.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
The selection issues weren't a great concern. Panesar should have played ahead of Giles, yes, but we haven't seen anything from Read or Mahmood to suggest they would have been a difference in the earlier tests. In fact, I'd still have Anderson and Jones given the choice.
 

Matteh

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Craig, you say Regaing in the poll...

But until about a week ago, England were looking to retain the Ashes. ;)
 

James90

Cricketer Of The Year
Craig said:
After being thumped thus far and all the talk of Ashley Giles, Geriant Jones, Monty Panesar, Chris Read, Steve Harmison and James Anderson, Flintoff's captaincy, Adelaide, and the lack of a proper preparation, really in hindsight even if they got it right do you think they would still have been in the contest with a chance of winning the Ashes, or in your view it doesn't matter what they did they would still have lost?
Longest sentence in history?
 

ripper868

Cricketer Of The Year
I feel england did have a relaistic chance, its just they havnt been allowed to by the aussies. they showed they can play cricket in adelaide and had it not been for australia being simply awesome, they had a chance.

oh look...relaistic...the bad grammar continues...
 

Craig

World Traveller
Matteh said:
Craig, you say Regaing in the poll...

But until about a week ago, England were looking to retain the Ashes. ;)
That wouldn't just be me :laugh: If a mod is online and see can they please fix it?
 

Craig

World Traveller
Anil said:
right...in saying that aren't you saying that england didn't bat, bowl, field and catch nearly as well as australia though? that's exactly that makes them inferior....
Well I suppose yes then. But Australia has played well because England allowed them to.
 

Anil

International Coach
Craig said:
Well I suppose yes then. But Australia has played well because England allowed them to.
we seem to be going around in circles on this one....:) for me, you don't go up 4-0 unless you are significantly better and not just because your opponents loosened their grip on you....
 

Slow Love™

International Captain
Anil said:
england are decidedly the inferior team and would've lost anyway(in fact i disagree with people who say that the series would've been different had it been played in england), had the selections been done better, england might have put up a better fight, they would still have lost the ashes comprehensively...it's not that they are a bad team, the aussies are just that good, simple as that....
England man for man weren't Australia's equals, that's true. But they weren't necssarily last time either, and they managed to beat us. I do think they'd have fared better at home (though I wouldn't have expected them to win), and some of what affected their performances was their poor preparation (and obviously their away "selection group") for the tour. But mainly, I think the English - and particularly their bowlers - were just substantially below their best. And Australia were a lot closer to theirs.

Anyhow, in answer to the poll question, no.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
I've been disappointed not so much for the defeat, which I realistically expected anyway, but for the lack of a real contest. We've been involved in some exciting series over the past couple of years, regardless of results, and this has been a non-starter. Obviously one must give massive respect to Australia for the quality of the cricket they've played and for the way they've turned potentially difficult situations into winning ones (Adelaide is the obvious one, but they could've been in trouble after the first innings at Perth too), but we've really shrank from the challenge.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Obviously I was expecting to walk it, tbh I thought there was an outside chance of us sneaking 6-0 and winning some games without even batting. Nonetheless, having viewed fair chunks of the first three Tests, and bits of this fourth one, it's clear that the Ashes have been lost because Australia are an above average side.

Having said that, I do believe that it needn't have been 4-0; whatever decisions we made incorrectly, the Ashes would still be lost, and had we played a lot better, Aus would still have beaten us, but we could have taken a lot more pride out of this series than we have done.

We have failed to put together three out of four good innings in any Test, but I don't want to take anying away from Australia, because they have been magnificent.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Its easy to say no when the scoreline says 4-0 in Australia's favour...

so I'll say no. :smartass:
 

Top