Why Australia have lost the Ashes

[Toecrusher]

There were many factors that contributed to Aussies loss, from the dropped catches to McGrath's injury, from Hayden's slump to being unable to play double-reverse swing, from the lack of a consistent third seamer to Ponting's decision to bat at Edgbaston. But in my opinion, the single biggest factor was Gilchrist not coming to the party.

From 1994 to 1999, Aussie had Warne and Mcgrath in their side and were the no.1 team in the world. But they were dominant, not invincible or unbeatable. It was only when Gilchrist arrived that they became the best team of all time and had that aura about them. Time after time after time, Gilchrist rescued them from the mire. He turned desperate situations into manageable ones, turned OK positions into excellent ones, and turned good positions into unabeatable ones. Warne and Mcgrath have often been credited with making Australia what they have been over the past 5 years, but Gilchrist in my opinion was the finishing touch that made the team perfect.

That's why I reckon Gilchrist's form was the biggest factor. In another series, Gilly would have walked out at 5/200 and changed the game, and saved Australia. But here he never did it, and thus Australia were never saved. It is worth mentioning that the last time Australia lost a series despite Warne and McGrath being in the team, Gilchrist had scores of 0, 0, 1 and 1, something which further underlines my point.

 

[C_C]

Sorry, but the England side of the early 80's weren't as good as the current side. Look past the big names and check what they actually achieved - and there wasn't a lot.

They played better cricket till 85/86 or so. Ofcourse,this english team maybe better than the english teams of the 90s and late 80s but its too early to tell. 2 years is nothing of a time and one needs to evaluate it over atleast 6-7 year period inorder to determine how good a given team is.

 

[C_C]

You play your opponents - and England have done that pretty well in my humble opinion.

You play your opponents- thats quiete true. but if the bulk of your opposition is sub par, its a bit like a boxer beefing up his record against the bottomfeeders while avoiding the bigshots....
True, England has KO-ed Australia but if you recall, India KO-ed Australia in 2001 as well and didnt really go anywhere after that. This english team has played 14-16 tests-thats over 50%- against three of the worst teams in cricket's history and has done moderately well.
Nowhere close to being crowned the successor to the Aussies, who are an alltime great team.
But if they manage to do this well consistently for another 4-5 years, or even at a slightly diminished proficiency, i wouldnt have any problems acknowledging it as a good team.

 

[greg]

I still think beating SAfrica (even one in some turmoil, at the start of the series anyway perhaps not the end) in SAfrica hasn't been given nearly the credit it deserves.

 

[PY]

You play your opponents- thats quiete true. but if the bulk of your opposition is sub par, its a bit like a boxer beefing up his record against the bottomfeeders while avoiding the bigshots....

Who are the bigshots at the moment then? We've beaten Australia and South Africa is the past 9 months and you can hardly say that India are bigshots can you?

Is it fair to say India 2006 will define #2 because it's India's backyard and will favour them? Yes, we have to win in all conditions to maintain the meteoric rise but then again, India would get pummeled if they came to England next week (fully prepared etc etc).

Your attitude smacks of being an Indian fan to me, which isn't such a bad thing () but what more do England have to do to for you to concede they are a good side and that they are comfortably number two side in the world?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

You play your opponents- thats quiete true. but if the bulk of your opposition is sub par, its a bit like a boxer beefing up his record against the bottomfeeders while avoiding the bigshots....
True, England has KO-ed Australia but if you recall, India KO-ed Australia in 2001 as well and didnt really go anywhere after that. This english team has played 14-16 tests-thats over 50%- against three of the worst teams in cricket's history and has done moderately well.
Nowhere close to being crowned the successor to the Aussies, who are an alltime great team.
But if they manage to do this well consistently for another 4-5 years, or even at a slightly diminished proficiency, i wouldnt have any problems acknowledging it as a good team.

You're right about being the successor to the Aussies. Hell, England haven't necessarily proven they're better than the Aussies right now (that will come between now and the next Ashes), but in terms of proving they're a good team and not just playing well for a while, I think winning everything over the last year or so has shown that. We'll see just how good England are in the subcontinent and then in Australia in 2006/07, but there's no question they deserve their number 2 ranking right now, and to be mightly close to number 1.

 

[C_C]

but what more do England have to do to for you to concede they are a good side and that they are comfortably number two side in the world?

Do it for more than just two years and in more than 3-4 series of top level competition.

As per India getting smashed- i doubt it but we will find out in 2007. If both teams play to their full potential, India should either win the series or draw it.
Atleast have the a better or even parity with AUS, RSA, IND and SL cumulatively after a few cycles of home and away tests ( ie, 5-6 years) and then we shall talk. Okay ?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Do it for more than just two years and in more than 3-4 series of top level competition.

As per India getting smashed- i doubt it but we will find out in 2007. If both teams play to their full potential, India should either win the series or draw it.
Atleast have the a better or even parity with AUS, RSA, IND and SL cumulatively after a few cycles of home and away tests ( ie, 5-6 years) and then we shall talk. Okay ?

5-6 years is the entire peak of a cricketer's career though. I mean, look at the Australian team of 1999... it had guys like Blewett, Slater, Fleming, the Waughs... it was a totally different team. You can't say "if you want to be number 2 in the world you have to win for 5-6 years" because the world rankings are far more fluid than that. If you're talking about "great" status as a team that's fine, but not "if you don't win all of the next 3 Ashes series you're not close to as good as Australia" because it doesn't work that way.

 

[greg]

Do it for more than just two years and in more than 3-4 series of top level competition.

As per India getting smashed- i doubt it but we will find out in 2007. If both teams play to their full potential, India should either win the series or draw it.

Is this the India who are putting up such an impressive performance against Zimbabwe today?

Atleast have the a better or even parity with AUS, RSA, IND and SL cumulatively after a few cycles of home and away tests ( ie, 5-6 years) and then we shall talk. Okay ?

I think we've already achieved that, haven't we?

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Yes and India's record away from home is so delicious, isn't it.

 

[C_C]

Is this the India who are putting up such an impressive performance against Zimbabwe today?

It is also the same India that has a 7-8 record against the #1 team over the last 10 years or so.

I think we've already achieved that, haven't we?

err...no.
even at the bare minimum ( 1 home and 1 away series), this is how ENG has done:

England vs AUS : won 3, lost 5, drawn 2
England vs IND : won 1 , lost 2, drawn 4
England vs SL : won 2 , lost 1, drawn 3
England vs RSA: won 4 , lost 3, drawn 3

overall : won 10, lost 11,drawn 12

and that is at the bere minimum- do it for 6-7 years instead of 2-3 before you try to give it credit as a team 'just a wee bit behind' one of the greatest teams in the history of the sport.

 

[greg]

It is also the same India that has a 7-8 record against the #1 team over the last 10 years or so.



err...no.
even at the bare minimum ( 1 home and 1 away series), this is how ENG has done:

England vs AUS : won 3, lost 5, drawn 2
England vs IND : won 1 , lost 2, drawn 4
England vs SL : won 2 , lost 1, drawn 3
England vs RSA: won 4 , lost 3, drawn 3

overall : won 10, lost 11,drawn 12

and that is at the bere minimum- do it for 6-7 years instead of 2-3 before you try to give it credit as a team 'just a wee bit behind' one of the greatest teams in the history of the sport.

What is this all about. We're talking about the CURRENT team. And the current team being "a wee bit behind" the CURRENT Australian team. Not Hussein's team from six years ago (which didn't do badly on the sub-continent btw). Nor Waugh's team from 2 years ago.

Why are you picking India and SL anyway? India have the worst record of any test side playing away from home EVER. (apart from Bangladesh). SL aren't much better.

 

[C_C]

And the current team being "a wee bit behind" the CURRENT Australian team. Not Hussein's team from six years ago (which didn't do badly on the sub-continent btw). Nor Waugh's team from 2 years ago.

Just how current is current ?
Current if you are talking about the last match or last series is largely irrelevant.
Same as 'current' defined by only TWO years of success largely against bottomfeeder teams... Current strictly speaking is at this very nano-second ( i am afterall an expert on calculus and a few years of dy/dx stuff teaches you a lot about how 'current' is current) and at this very nanosecond, Australia = Engnald= bangladesh = Nepal, isnt it ? ( since they are all inactive).
I hope you know the difference between instantaneous velocity and average velocity.......when it comes to cricket, i dont look in less than 6-7 year terms....put it this way- a stalwart's career lasts around 15 years.... half of that is a reasonable benchmark for establishing a trend.
To be just a wee bit behind OZ, you have to win nearly everywhere and do it consistently as well.

 

[greg]

Keep taking those pills.

btw you can probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of players who reach 15 years of test cricket. Looking back on the Australian team in 98-99 I guess we have to conclude that the current Australian team have still got a bit to prove

 

[C_C]

The reason i've picked IND and SL as worthy oppositions is because they have been consistently good for atleast 4-5 years and during that period, both have performed consistently.

 

[C_C]

Keep taking those pills.

Pills of logic ?
Do better than that - i know you are on cloud nine after your once in a lifetime ashes victory- wihch was well deserved by the way- but lets talk reality here.
England have a LOT to prove before they can be considered a 'good' team from historicity and are merely a team on the rise- they may become another australia, they may become pakistan of the 90s or they may crashland back to abyssimal depths.
Two years and bulk of success against 3 of the worst teams to play test cricket is hardly a barometer to go by.

 

[C_C]

btw you can probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of players who reach 15 years of test cricket. Looking back on the Australian team in 98-99 I guess we have to conclude that the current Australian team have still got a bit to prove

Aussie players who formed the bulwark of the team and have already played 10+ years ( expected to make the 15 year mark or already have) :

Steve Waugh
Mark Waugh
Shane Warne
Glenn McGrath
Ricky Ponting

That is already half of the fingers used up from one team alone.

Why dont you look up how many players have played 15 years of cricket ( give or take a year or two) before you talk outta yer **** ?

 

[greg]

Aussie players who formed the bulwark of the team and have already played 10+ years ( expected to make the 15 year mark or already have) :

Steve Waugh
Mark Waugh
Shane Warne
Glenn McGrath
Ricky Ponting

That is already half of the fingers used up from one team alone.

Why dont you look up how many players have played 15 years of cricket ( give or take a year or two) before you talk outta yer **** ?

lol. Mark Waugh didn't come close. I doubt McGrath will. Shane Warne might just make it. Ponting's got a fair way to go.

 

[PY]

The reason i've picked IND and SL as worthy oppositions is because they have been consistently good for atleast 4-5 years and during that period, both have performed consistently.

So the current Indian and Sri Lankan sides are 'good' but the current English team isn''t?

I give up.

 

[greg]

Anyway can we end this argument now? I am not interested in suggesting that England are somehow an "alltime great team". Just how good they are now, based on the evidence of my own eyes. Whereas you prefer to rely on statistics, which may or may not tell the whole story.

Of course they may fall away over the next few years. But I would humbly suggest that anyone who has watched England over the past few years would suggest that they are far more likely to improve. We will see.