• 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.

The fallout

Son Of Coco

Hall of Fame Member
Hmm, dunno. I think England's a pretty tough place to tour at the moment, especially for Australia because they put so much towards success in this particular series.

Fair point on Monty and Jimmy, but you could also say there's no need to get too hung up over a series you were one wicket away from taking.
I'm not sure it's that tough if you play decent cricket. WI were woeful and we played poorly. England were good in patches, but if we'd have had two bowlers bowling well consistently I think we would have won. Both teams were inconsistent though so you could say the same for either.

I'm not too hung up on the series really :happy: I just don't think the result is any justification for saying England are tough at home or losing to SA at home should be more disappointing as we were really poor in England. Losing to SA was not entirely unexpected, losing to England in the manner we did was a terrible effort in comparison.
 
Last edited:

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'm not sure it's that tough if you play decent cricket. WI were woeful and we played poorly. England were good in patches, but if we'd have had two bowlers bowling well consistently I think we would have won. Both teams were inconsistent though so you could say the same for either.

I'm not too hung up on the series really :happy: I just don't think the result is any justification for saying England are tough at home or losing to SA at home should be more disappointing as we were really poor in England. Losing to SA was not entirely unexpected, losing to England in the manner we did was a terrible effort in comparison.
England were patchy, but I still think it was a tough tour. Once Broad or Anderson or Flintoff get going it's a big, big ask to stop the rot. You can match them all the way but that one frightening spell with the crowd behind them and the ball swinging big is the spell that loses you the match. That's the difficulty in playing England away, and with the pressure of an Ashes series greater than any other in the country, it's magnified for Australia.
 

howardj

International Coach
Tbf, it's a pretty exceptional attack in home conditions. We were telling you before the series started to be wary of looking at their career figures, and so it proved. These are good bowlers.
I certainly do not think England bowled exceptionally well during the Ashes - though Flintoff touched greatness at Lord's where he really was magnificent. Yes, they did collectively bowl better than Australia, however not one of them averaged under 30. I guess my point is that whilst the Ashes were prized away from us in 2005 with some magnificent feats (I think of Jones, Pietersen and Flintoff in particular throughout much of the Series), I think by contrast in 2009 the Urn was surrendered rather more meekly. And against a middle ranking side missing their two best players throughout much of the Series (I count Flintoff as effectively missing three Tests).

As an Aussie, I find that disappointing and unacceptable from our team.

I don't think we have a God given right to dominate, I just expect better from a team who beat who I regard to be the best team in the world (SA) in their own backyard just a few weeks before.
 
Last edited:

Son Of Coco

Hall of Fame Member
England were patchy, but I still think it was a tough tour. Once Broad or Anderson or Flintoff get going it's a big, big ask to stop the rot. You can match them all the way but that one frightening spell with the crowd behind them and the ball swinging big is the spell that loses you the match. That's the difficulty in playing England away, and with the pressure of an Ashes series greater than any other in the country, it's magnified for Australia.
Can't say I agree, we were too inconsistent. Broad had one good spell in a winning game and another in a losing effort. Flintoff had one very good spell and so did Anderson. Apart from that they were all equal to or worse than their career averages for pretty much the remainder of the series. Broad was very average overall up until Headingly. Anderson was poor when the conditions didn't suit and Flintoff didn't do anything of any great note after Lords. Swann wasn't even close to being a factor in the series until The Oval. The most consistent of the lot was Onions.

The main thing in England's favour was that practically none of their bowlers fired at the same time whereas all of ours bowled well in one match and then, with the exception of Hilfenhaus, were inconsistent at best after that.

I don't think the England team as it currently stands is difficult to beat at home if you play good cricket, we didn't and it's as simple as that. Looking backwards from the result of the series and saying they're tough at home creates a bit of a myth in my opinion.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Was saying it beforehand, tbh. I remember you being one of those most heavily in disagreement back then too :p
 

Son Of Coco

Hall of Fame Member
Was saying it beforehand, tbh. I remember you being one of those most heavily in disagreement back then too :p
:laugh:

Well if that's England bowling well then I stand by my statement. Anderson did nothing for his reputation, Flintoff got one extremely good innings in before he retired, Broad looked like he might be a good bowler sometime in the future, but then left us the same way he started and Swann finally looked good when he got a wicket that suited while generally being outbowled by the worst spinner to have ever lived according to some. Harmison was Harmison and Panesar should never have been there in the first place.

That's why it's more disappointing than the SA series...we were worse than all that.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Haha, well. The clincher is that on the rare-ish occasion that they were good, they were very, very good. It was enough.

You've left out Onions too. Harsh :p.
 

Son Of Coco

Hall of Fame Member
Haha, well. The clincher is that on the rare-ish occasion that they were good, they were very, very good. It was enough.

You've left out Onions too. Harsh :p.
I didn't want to say "I thought Onions was the most consistent of the lot" again as I'd just said it a few posts ago, but..."I thought Onions was the most consistent of the lot". :happy:

They were good, Flintoff bowled the best spell of the whole series in my opinion. And Broad's was second best. I still don't think our batting lineup should collapse like a deck of cards every time a bowler manages to get a few overs in the right areas, but Flintoff is pretty irresistable when he's in the mood and Broad was moving it about a bit so full credit to them. Makes a bit of a mockery of the idea that you have to bowl well in partnerships though. One guy bowling well and another hitting the strip seems to do the job.
 

four_or_six

Cricketer Of The Year
Haha, well. The clincher is that on the rare-ish occasion that they were good, they were very, very good. It was enough.
That's our bowling attack all over. It's why imo they're actually quite dangerous, despite their averages. Because one really good spell can change the game significantly, and we had guys who did that in three tests.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I didn't want to say "I thought Onions was the most consistent of the lot" again as I'd just said it a few posts ago, but..."I thought Onions was the most consistent of the lot". :happy:

They were good, Flintoff bowled the best spell of the whole series in my opinion. And Broad's was second best. I still don't think our batting lineup should collapse like a deck of cards every time a bowler manages to get a few overs in the right areas, but Flintoff is pretty irresistable when he's in the mood and Broad was moving it about a bit so full credit to them. Makes a bit of a mockery of the idea that you have to bowl well in partnerships though. One guy bowling well and another hitting the strip seems to do the job.
Yeah, I think the difference between a quality spell of bowling like Broad's taking 5/12 and 2/20 is in who gets the luck though. The collapse was so dramatic because stuff didn't go your way. Huss got a 50-50 lbw call, Clarke got caught three milimetres off the ground, North got a smeller of epic proportions. And at Lord's in the first innings, every mistimed pull seemed to go straight to a fielder when it could have gone absolutely anywhere. You need a bit of luck to get through top-class bowling, and Australia didn't have it.

I guess it's another reason why I don't think the series should bring about a massive overhaul in Aussie cricket.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
I don't think the England team as it currently stands is difficult to beat at home if you play good cricket, we didn't and it's as simple as that. Looking backwards from the result of the series and saying they're tough at home creates a bit of a myth in my opinion.
We've only lost at home three times in the 21st century so it's not an easy place to come, that being said two of these defeats were in the previous two summers.

I didn't want to say "I thought Onions was the most consistent of the lot" again as I'd just said it a few posts ago, but..."I thought Onions was the most consistent of the lot". :happy:

They were good, Flintoff bowled the best spell of the whole series in my opinion. And Broad's was second best. I still don't think our batting lineup should collapse like a deck of cards every time a bowler manages to get a few overs in the right areas, but Flintoff is pretty irresistable when he's in the mood and Broad was moving it about a bit so full credit to them. Makes a bit of a mockery of the idea that you have to bowl well in partnerships though. One guy bowling well and another hitting the strip seems to do the job.
It was a bowling partnership which won us the Lord's Test. Anderson's 4 wickets in the first dig were crucial - he bowled brilliantly btw, seems to have been forgotten - and he wouldn't have taken them without Flintoff bowling the way he was at the other end.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
It was a bowling partnership which won us the Lord's Test. Anderson's 4 wickets in the first dig were crucial - he bowled brilliantly btw, seems to have been forgotten - and he wouldn't have taken them without Flintoff bowling the way he was at the other end.
I don't 100% buy that, tbh. I remember on the final morning at Edgbaston, Flintoff bowled a hostile spell at Shane Watson which he did well to see of. After being taken out of the attack, Anderson produced a fantastic ball that swung in towards the batsman then seamed away off the pitch, took Watson's edge and got him out. Commentators rushed to credit Flintoff with roughing the batsman up.

Personally, I think it's a cop-out. Flintoff makes the batsman feel mildly uncomfortable then leaves the responsibility of getting the team wickets to everyone else. By saying that the wickets Anderson got in the first dig at Lord's were partly down to Flintoff, I think you're doing Jimmy a disservice.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Well I disagree. Anderson himself said on the Friday when interviewed post-match that he wouldn't have been able to bowl like he did without Flintoff's control at the other end. I don't think it's doing him a disservice, he bowled brilliantly - an unfortunately forgotten and overlooked spell in fact.

At the end of the day dismissals aren't always just about one ball, they are about what has made the batsman play that way anyway and this will often be the work done by other bowlers.
 

Son Of Coco

Hall of Fame Member
We've only lost at home three times in the 21st century so it's not an easy place to come, that being said two of these defeats were in the previous two summers.



It was a bowling partnership which won us the Lord's Test. Anderson's 4 wickets in the first dig were crucial - he bowled brilliantly btw, seems to have been forgotten - and he wouldn't have taken them without Flintoff bowling the way he was at the other end.
All those sort of stats are fine, but it doesn't make England unbeatable at home when they play average cricket...unless we play worse of course :happy:

And you're right about Anderson and Flintoff together. From what I saw in the 5 tests though that sort of performance was few and far between. The Aussies did it in the first innings at Headingly and Broad had decent support at the Oval. Very rarely did two or more bowlers bowl well in tandem over long periods of the tests. Whenever they did it produced results.

There was a marked inconsistency from nearly all of the bowlers from both teams.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
You're right about the inconsistency. I do think you aren't giving England enough credit though. We stood up when it mattered.
 

Son Of Coco

Hall of Fame Member
You're right about the inconsistency. I do think you aren't giving England enough credit though. We stood up when it mattered.
You did win the last game, but there was still inconsistency in the bowling even then that could have been exploited. Broad's efforts in the first innings saw the game as good as over and Swann bowled well too. Australia bowled poorly again though after looking so good at Headingly.

There are a lot of cliches that go with winning (and losing) but I don't think that masks the fact both teams were pretty average on the whole. England were better than us though and deserved to win. They won the key moments in the series and that included the last game.

I don't see it as not giving England credit though, the whole series mattered not just the last game. Both teams were guilty of not taking chances that would have seen them win (England earlier than they eventually did). It's to their credit they came back from that and were victorious in the end. Player's on both team's performances were what they were regardless of the result though.
 
Last edited:

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
You did win the last game, but there was still inconsistency in the bowling even then that could have been exploited. Broad's efforts in the first innings saw the game as good as over and Swann bowled well too. Australia bowled poorly again though after looking so good at Headingly.

There are a lot of cliches that go with winning (and losing) but I don't think that masks the fact both teams were pretty average on the whole. England were better than us though and deserved to win. They won the key moments in the series and that included the last game.

I don't see it as not giving England credit though, the whole series mattered not just the last game. Both teams were guilty of not taking chances that would have seen them win (England earlier than they eventually did). It's to their credit they came back from that and were victorious in the end. Player's on both team's performances were what they were regardless of the result though.
I don't disagree with much of that. I wasn't just talking about the last game, though. The difference between the two sides was simply that we played well more often.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
The selection panel & coach definately needs chainging. This post McWarne era needs really tacticians selecting the side. AUS dont need another robot like Buchanan at the helm.

I say make I Chappell, Simpson & S Waugh/Border selectors & Warne the coach.
 

social

Hall of Fame Member
The reality is that Eng are a pretty poor test team at present and that was good enough to beat Aus.

If that's not enough reason to overhaul the Aus setup then I dont know what is
 

Top