Which was the more painful defeat for Australia?

[GIMH]

You don't think Flintoff's performance in 05 was a once in a blue moon performance?

Was below the average performance for him in that period of time, statistically

 

[Richard]

Uh Kasper, Hayden, Martyn, Katich, Clarke and Gilchrist all drastically underperformed as well. Not to mention Lee, who was just woeful (interspersed with moments of brilliance) and all of the wickets Aus took off no balls. Really the only three Aussies not to underperform in the series was Langer, Ponting and Warne - and Ponting is arguable in all but one test.

To say that only Gillespie really underperformed is really to undervalue the absolute domination that the Australian side had up to that point. Noone else was really in the same ballpark at the time. Though it pains me incredibly to say it, England did outplay Australia. However, they played an Australia who were underprepared and were very much underperforming.

Hayden and Gilchrist were worked-out by bowling they never had the power, all career, to counter in that series; Clarke at that point simply wasn't good enough to play Test cricket, only becoming so a year later (that too was demonstrated against other sides before and after), Martyn didn't really underperform just got unlucky with Umpiring decisions and was made to look moderate by some excellent bowling. Katich was rather worked-out too, and Kasprowicz, well, he wasn't good enough any more by then, that'd been shown by his performances in New Zealand and was re-emphasised when he got back in against South Africa. Lee had never been anywhere near good enough and bowled in that series exactly as he had been doing since the 2001 tour, and got the same sort of results.

As for the wickets off no-balls, England bowled more no-balls in the series than Australia, same way they dropped more catches. They just got lucky that they didn't take any wickets off them while Australia took 3 (think it was 3 anyway). That isn't anyone underperforming, it's just the way the dice falls.

 

[Richard]

He did play in 08 season, should have selected him in SA series. Selectors thought he should get more games under his belt, and can be unleashed in 09 but he got injured at the end of 08.

Personally I thought it was reasonable enough that they should test to see whether he got through a full season without injury, and sure enough, he didn't.

Think it's a fair conclusion that Jones' body simply wasn't strong enough for requirements of a Test bowler. All the multitude of totally different injuries he's suffered down the years suggest that to me.

 

[Richard]

Or S Jones was dead lbw to Lee before he and Flintoff put on those crucial runs (iirc).

You remember incorrectly, same way McNamara did when he brought that up last time in reply to my exact same point.

Jones' lbw let-off came 1 run before Flintoff was out.

 

[Richard]

Interestingly we lost to Bangladesh in an ODI just before the Ashes. The wheels were already falling off.

And yet... they then thrashed Bangladesh twice (as England did 3 times) and beat England 3-2 (which would've been 5-2 but for rain and a tie). The ODIs pointed to Australia doing well enough - the defeat to Bangladesh was nothing more than an embarrassing minor setback.

 

[GIMH]

Bit stupid to say it would have been 5-2 but for rain and a tie. Okay, rain, maybe, but that's a bit like saying 'England would have won 7-0 but for all the defeats and the tie'

 

[Richard]

It was diabolically phrased. What I meant was the near-unthinkable comeback to earn a tie. England were dead-and-buried, then escaped.

For that matter, England's first victory was similar, when Pietersen turned the game on its head. Only once in seven could England be said to have been the better side throughout the game - that being when Collingwood took his four-for and Vaughan made an unbeaten 50-odd, to show that things had really gotten bad for Australia.

 

[Stapel]

Uh Kasper, Hayden, Martyn, Katich, Clarke and Gilchrist all drastically underperformed as well.

The way I remember it, most of them did not so much underperform, but rather were pwned by a well-prepared, in-form and peaking England team.

Really the only three Aussies not to underperform in the series was Langer, Ponting and Warne - and Ponting is arguable in all but one test.

No doubt those three were doing great. Warne possibly had his best series ever, which might make the English series win even taste sweeter.

And about Ponting and Langer: That Flintoff over where he got both of them. That's when my attitude changed from a neutral to an English supporter (for that series).

 

[GotSpin]

And about Ponting and Langer: That Flintoff over where he got both of them. That's when my attitude changed from a neutral to an English supporter (for that series).

This can never be quoted but i was gobsmacked when i saw that over. I have watched that over many many times on youtube after

 

[GIMH]

This can never be quoted but i was gobsmacked when i saw that over. I have watched that over many many times on youtube after

Sorry but it had to be done, especially given you having the audacity to roll your eyes at me earlier

 

[GotSpin]

Sorry but it had to be done, especially given you having the audacity to roll your eyes at me earlier

Had good reason


This is my favourite video of the series though

YouTube - Edgbaston 2005 Ashes Test Compilation

 

[Richard]

Warne possibly had his best series ever, which might make the English series win even taste sweeter.

Absolutely beyond doubt. The knowledge that you've won a series in spite rather than because of the oppo's star player's performances is an infinitely preferable thought to the contrariwise one.

 

[Spark]

Absolutely beyond doubt. The knowledge that you've won a series in spite rather than because of the oppo's star player's performances is an infinitely preferable thought to the contrariwise one.

Gotta agree with this. As I said... 09 had more to do with us being ****tier than being soundly beaten by a superior team playing superior cricket. MJ... please, forget about swing.

 

[Son Of Coco]

'09 stings pretty bad tbh.

Yeah, much worse than 2005 in my opinion. In 2005 England played really well.

Losing The Ashes to England in '05 ranks much higher than India '01 too as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Ikki]

They arsed both 05 and 09...05 a lil less...they used mints so a bit of cheating.

 

[GIMH]

We won both because we deserved to, end of discussion really

 

[Ikki]

Shutter Island-like delusions there .

 

[Jono]

Thanks for spoiling Shutter Island Ikkii

 

[slippyslip]

I would have thought more Australians would have voted for 2001 against India.

Losing the Ashes in 2005 was a good result for cricket. 16 consecutive years of one team dominating makes for a dull contest. Winning 1989, 1993, 1997 and 2001 is hardly a disgrace.

To put it into perspective Australia won 15 tests matchs in the decade 2000-2009. England won 6 and 4 were drawn. Australia won 3-2 series.

To be honest I'm not worried if England win back the Ashes in 2013 (I give England absolutely no chance of winning in 2010/11). England winning at home gives cricket a much bigger profile and support. As people pointed out during 2005, when was the last time cricket got bigger sporting headlines than football?

lets face it. Cricket Australia made way way way more $$$ from the 2006/07 Ashes than if Australia had won 2005.

Losing in 2001 was vastly more painful. Australia had not won in India for decades, Laxman, Dravid, Harbhajan etc.

 

[pasag]

Thanks for spoiling Shutter Island Ikkii

yeah, wtf?