Why Australia have lost the Ashes

[greg]

Yup.
The same India team that holds a 7-8 record against the greatest team of the last 10-15 years and the same Sri Lanka that has had much more competitive series with Australia over the last 5-10 years than England.

Played 11, won 1 lost 7?

 

[Swervy]

Firstly Bradmans Invincibles were not dominant for 10 years... that team was dominant for maybe 5 years if that (any post war test result before 1948 should be taken with a pinch of salt)

It isnt all about being a proven success on an individual basis...the talent is there for everyone to see. CC, you are showing a complete disregard for the game of cricket...yes stats are important, but unless you watch the games, you really have no idea. The level of play that England have shown, no matter who they have, has been very very impressive.

If England lose India..what does that prove...most teams struggle in India, mainly due to the conditions more than anything else. .Fact is, England are playing the best cricket in the world at the moment. Australia pushed hard, and really when it comes down to it, considering McGraths injury, and the fact Australia were playing away from home, pushed England hard all the way,...but one cannot escape the fact that for the majority of the series England just looked all round a better team.

CC..just wondering..how long does a player need to be playing to prove themselves.

By the time Lillee had played 17 tests (with about 70 wickets to his name) he was considered the best bowler in the world.
After 20 test, Tendulkar averaged around 37, and yet he was widely considered to be a genuinely class play who had shown he was amongst the very best....but the only way to see that was by watching, not by a quick scan of the stats

 

[C_C]

Played 11, won 1 lost 7?

Indeed. But they were far more competitive than England were over the last two-three ashes series.

 

[Swervy]

I watch some cricket- mostly a week or two after the match has happened. But yes, i do go mostly by statistics and results because THAT is the bottomline. And England have no great batsmen and even 'excellent' batsmen- Tresco is good but some ways off the best openers of this era ( Langer,Hayden,Sehwag, Gibbs,Smith,etc) and Vaughan is dropping fast like a sinking stone....KP is unproven ( and i dont care if he had scored 1000 runs in the series, ONE series still counts as unproven to me) and Strauss is as well.....Thorpe, the only bona fide english batsman has retired...Flintoff is one of the weakest #6s in cricket today with the bat and Bell is...well...nevermind.
So remind me again, who does England have as quality and established batsmen ?

it would appear that you will only rate people as good if they have success in India!!!!! Dont forget all the other test playing nations as well, and India are merely average in the test arena at the moment.

Try telling the best team in the world that Flintoff is one of the weakest number 6's in the world, or that the opening pairing of Tresco and strauss isnt much to write home about, or that KP hasnt proven his worth.

The lack of acceptance of what is reality is incredible

 

[greg]

I watch some cricket- mostly a week or two after the match has happened. But yes, i do go mostly by statistics and results because THAT is the bottomline. And England have no great batsmen and even 'excellent' batsmen- Tresco is good but some ways off the best openers of this era ( Langer,Hayden,Sehwag, Gibbs,Smith,etc) and Vaughan is dropping fast like a sinking stone....KP is unproven ( and i dont care if he had scored 1000 runs in the series, ONE series still counts as unproven to me) and Strauss is as well.....Thorpe, the only bona fide english batsman has retired...Flintoff is one of the weakest #6s in cricket today with the bat and Bell is...well...nevermind.
So remind me again, who does England have as quality and established batsmen ?

Talk about having it several ways at once!

You rely mainly on statistics but you have completely ignored the statistics in the case of Trescothick, and Flintoff in recent years. Vaughan is "dropping like a stone" so is discounted, but Hayden is "one of the best openers of this era". Strauss hasn't been playing long but nobody surely can attach a completely "unproven" label to him considering his performances in South Africa and this series? On previous threads you were very keen to consider people like the Waughs as "part of this Australian team" yet we can't count Thorpe.

 

[Swervy]

Indeed. But they were far more competitive than England were over the last two-three ashes series.

This England team bears little resemblance to previous Ahes teams in both personel, captaincy and style of play.

 

[greg]

Indeed. But they were far more competitive than England were over the last two-three ashes series.

lol. This gets better! You are aware that England just BEAT Australia over a five match series?

 

[C_C]

Firstly Bradmans Invincibles were not dominant for 10 years... that team was dominant for maybe 5 years if that (any post war test result before 1948 should be taken with a pinch of salt)

They were dominant for about 7-8 years i think and you know my stance about pre late 50s/60s cricket. However, that doesnt mean that they wernt dominant in their era.

It isnt all about being a proven success on an individual basis...the talent is there for everyone to see. CC, you are showing a complete disregard for the game of cricket...yes stats are important, but unless you watch the games, you really have no idea. The level of play that England have shown, no matter who they have, has been very very impressive.

Indeed, England has been impressive this series and over the past two years, when they've played predominantly minnows.. But one series doesnt make a good team and two years are but a piffle.
You'd recall that India had two excellent years 1971 and 74 ( or thereabouts) where they didnt lose a series and beat almost every team they played.....but you dont see me jumping around based on those measely 2-3 years, do you ?

And yes, a lotta people have talent. Talent is like a highschool pre-requisite for university- it is essential but it doesnt garantee diddly squat.

CC..just wondering..how long does a player need to be playing to prove themselves.

In my books, they are utterly inconsequential unless they play for 4-5 years and/or 30-40 matches.... still, they are 'have the potential to be a great' category - for eg, Sehwag.
Once you start going past 50 tests, i start to rate them.
A series or two, as far as i am concerned, is Lawrence Rowe/Vinod Kambli/Steve Waugh territorry- utterly poor results can turn out to be alltime great player and bradmansque players can come crashing down.

By the time Lillee had played 17 tests (with about 70 wickets to his name) he was considered the best bowler in the world.
After 20 test, Tendulkar averaged around 37, and yet he was widely considered to be a genuinely class play who had shown he was amongst the very best....but the only way to see that was by watching, not by a quick scan of the stats

Tendulkar was considered a huge potential before he even started playing test cricket. But there is a difference between potential and established. KP and AS are not established at the least and Tresco/Vaughan are decent ( Tresco is good IMO).
And i never considered Lillee to be the best bowler after 17 matches..infact, i dont rate Lillee in the top 10 anyways.

 

[C_C]

it would appear that you will only rate people as good if they have success in India!!!!! Dont forget all the other test playing nations as well, and India are merely average in the test arena at the moment.

Try telling the best team in the world that Flintoff is one of the weakest number 6's in the world, or that the opening pairing of Tresco and strauss isnt much to write home about, or that KP hasnt proven his worth.

The lack of acceptance of what is reality is incredible

Well i do rate bowling performances against india highly. Not batting performances.
And like i said, one series is a drop in the bucket and that too, barely.
KP hasnt proven his worth - no player has proven his worth after 5 tests, doesnt matter if they take 100 wickets or score 2000 runs in those 5 matches.

One series is irrelevant. I am sure you could, by using the same argument, say that Laxman after 2001 was the equal of Tendulkar, Steve Waugh, Richards and Lara.

 

[Swervy]

Tendulkar was considered a huge potential before he even started playing test cricket. But there is a difference between potential and established. KP and AS are not established at the least and Tresco/Vaughan are decent ( Tresco is good IMO).
And i never considered Lillee to be the best bowler after 17 matches..infact, i dont rate Lillee in the top 10 anyways.

first off...you werent there..its not whether you or I considered Lillee to be the best after 17 tests, its whether the players and writers and the public at the time did...and they did in general

That last comment just sums it up..you really dont know what you are talking about, simply because you obviously never saw him bowl

 

[C_C]

lol. This gets better! You are aware that England just BEAT Australia over a five match series?

Yes.
But please post the win-loss % for all three teams ( ENG, IND and SL) over the last 3-4 series vs OZ.

 

[C_C]

first off...you werent there..its not whether you or I considered Lillee to be the best after 17 tests, its whether the players and writers and the public at the time did...and they did in general

That last comment just sums it up..you really dont know what you are talking about, simply because you obviously never saw him bowl

I have seen Lillee bowl extensively. There is a remarkable technology called video recorders. I suggest you read up about it.
And whether i was there or not is irrelevant- i have seen a lot of cricketers and i have compared their statistical excellence within their eras.
I dont consider Lillee in the top 10 pacers ever and i have justified it before- something that you havn't countered.

 

[C_C]

This England team bears little resemblance to previous Ahes teams in both personel, captaincy and style of play.

This english team has little semblance in personnel, style of play and captaincy beyond the last 2 years.
Which is why they need to prove themselves over a period of time - 5-7 years for me.

 

[C_C]

Talk about having it several ways at once!

You rely mainly on statistics but you have completely ignored the statistics in the case of Trescothick, and Flintoff in recent years. Vaughan is "dropping like a stone" so is discounted, but Hayden is "one of the best openers of this era". Strauss hasn't been playing long but nobody surely can attach a completely "unproven" label to him considering his performances in South Africa and this series? On previous threads you were very keen to consider people like the Waughs as "part of this Australian team" yet we can't count Thorpe.

1. Flintoff has been good with the bat for 20 oddtests while being pathetic for the 30 before it.
it is cumulative that matters - form is subjective and largely irrelevant. Form can be defined as the next stroke, this nanosecond, this innings, last 10 tests, whatever. Cumulative is what matters.

2. Tresco has done okay over the years but Hayden has done better. Keep that in mind. Yes, hayden is dropping fast but Vaughan never sustained the excellence of Hayden for more than 10-15 matches while Hayden sustained it for atleast 2-3x as long. Viv was declining too in the late 80s but nobody in their right mind would say that Gooch was a better player than Viv.

3. Strauss is unproven..anything less than 30-35 tests is irrelevant to me. If you dont evaluate Steve Waugh or Tendulkar after their first 30 tests, no reason why we should do the same for Strauss

4. I already counted thorpe ( i mentioned that he retired) but even thorpe wasnt anything more than just good.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I think there's little point in arguing if one if going to pretend that statistics are the only way to effectively judge cricket.

It was blatantly obvious to all who watched the games that Flintoff was England's best bowler in the recent Ashes series. Jones was good but also had some poor spells, while Flintoff (excluding perhaps the first test) was excellent in each and every test and every innings with the ball, regardless of how many wickets he took. The fact that he averaged 27 with the ball in the series doesn't indicate how well he bowled or even how much impact he had on the series with the ball, whereas someone who never watched the games and just looked at the statistics would say he had a good but not great series with the ball, he in fact had a completely unbelievable series with the ball.

As swervy said earlier (although I disagree with him about the England team as a whole being the best in the world), Flintoff is now the second best pace bowler in the world. The only competition he has for the spot is from Shoaib, and Flintoff has shown himself against the best opposition available in this series to be clearly the better bowler. The fact that he averages 32 with the ball in his career (although 24.75 over the last two years) is largely irrelevant.

 

[Swervy]

I think there's little point in arguing if one if going to pretend that statistics are the only way to effectively judge cricket.

It was blatantly obvious to all who watched the games that Flintoff was England's best bowler in the recent Ashes series. Jones was good but also had some poor spells, while Flintoff (excluding perhaps the first test) was excellent in each and every test and every innings with the ball, regardless of how many wickets he took. The fact that he averaged 27 with the ball in the series doesn't indicate how well he bowled or even how much impact he had on the series with the ball, whereas someone who never watched the games and just looked at the statistics would say he had a good but not great series with the ball, he in fact had a completely unbelievable series with the ball.

As swervy said earlier (although I disagree with him about the England team as a whole being the best in the world), Flintoff is now the second best pace bowler in the world. The only competition he has for the spot is from Shoaib, and Flintoff has shown himself against the best opposition available in this series to be clearly the better bowler. The fact that he averages 32 with the ball in his career (although 24.75 over the last two years) is largely irrelevant.

hehehe..what i meant was based on current , and recent performance

 

[C_C]

It was blatantly obvious to all who watched the games that Flintoff was England's best bowler in the recent Ashes series. Jones was good but also had some poor spells, while Flintoff (excluding perhaps the first test) was excellent in each and every test and every innings with the ball, regardless of how many wickets he took.

What matters in cricket is the statistics- that is what determines the result, from a cumulative perspective.
You can be a bowler who misses the edge every 3rd ball and end up with 50-1 while i can be a bowler who gets smacked every third ball and end up with 5-80 and i have done far better than you have, with the result in mind.

 

[C_C]

hehehe..what i meant was based on current , and recent performance

Based on current performance, ENG = Nepal = Mongolia = Russia = Australia = West Indies,since all of them are inactive at this moment

 

[Swervy]

I think there's little point in arguing if one if going to pretend that statistics are the only way to effectively judge cricket.

It was blatantly obvious to all who watched the games that Flintoff was England's best bowler in the recent Ashes series. Jones was good but also had some poor spells, while Flintoff (excluding perhaps the first test) was excellent in each and every test and every innings with the ball, regardless of how many wickets he took. The fact that he averaged 27 with the ball in the series doesn't indicate how well he bowled or even how much impact he had on the series with the ball, whereas someone who never watched the games and just looked at the statistics would say he had a good but not great series with the ball, he in fact had a completely unbelievable series with the ball.

As swervy said earlier (although I disagree with him about the England team as a whole being the best in the world), Flintoff is now the second best pace bowler in the world. The only competition he has for the spot is from Shoaib, and Flintoff has shown himself against the best opposition available in this series to be clearly the better bowler. The fact that he averages 32 with the ball in his career (although 24.75 over the last two years) is largely irrelevant.

just to continue what you are saying..a couple of workmates (big English cricket supporters who play in the Lancashire League, and cannot be considered to have little knowledge of the game) and I were looking at the series averages yesterday and were staggered by Lees bowling average of over 40. Just goes to show how little stats can tell a story..Lee I thought generally bowled excellently bar the odd innings

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

hehehe..what i meant was based on current , and recent performance

Australia beat India in India last year remember. England have been playing well for some time and they outplayed Australia in the most recent series, but then 6-12 months ago Australia had Kasprowicz and Gillespie bowling well, Martyn in the form of his life and so on, while for England Jones was struggling, Strauss wasn't in the team... and so on.

I didn't disagree with you about England outplaying Australia in the last series, but when you said that over the last year or two England had been playing the best cricket in the world. The cricket Australia was playing in 2004 was much more impressive than England belting the crap out of the West Indies, however good England were. The decline of a few players and some improvement from England led to the result in the Ashes series, which was a fair result but not representative of the year or two which came before it in my opinion.