You do realise that England were building up a head of steam in early 2005, as well? It's not quite the same as now (where they're plumbing to new depths).Australia are overwhelmingly the better side as of April 2009 - as Australia of April 2005 were.
Thus, Australia should win - comfortably. But so they should have in 2005. It turned-out a couple of their key players (Gillespie and Katich, and possibly Martyn) got a lot worse in a very short time, and several of England's (Simon Jones, Flintoff, Pietersen in the sense that he'd never played before) got a hell of a lot better (and have since gotten worse since again).
Oh, England of 2004/05 are miles ahead of England of 2008/09 (and 2008, and 2007/08, and 2007, and 2006/07, and 2006, and 2005/06...) for sure. But still, there was absolutely no real indication that Simon Jones was Test-class never mind as good as he was sometimes in 2005; there was no indication Flintoff was going to be as sensationally fantastic as he was for the last four Tests of 2005; and obviously Kevin Pietersen hadn't played before then so we had no clue what was going to happen when he did.You do realise that England were building up a head of steam in early 2005, as well? It's not quite the same as now (where they're plumbing to new depths).
I agree about Kevin Pietersen and to an extent about Simon Jones (although he did deliver a few good spells, like in Port Elizabeth), although Andrew Flintoff was arguably reaching a peak with bat and ball. That being said, he definitely saved his best for the 2005 Ashes.Oh, England of 2004/05 are miles ahead of England of 2008/09 (and 2008, and 2007/08, and 2007, and 2006/07, and 2006, and 2005/06...) for sure. But still, there was absolutely no real indication that Simon Jones was Test-class never mind as good as he was sometimes in 2005; there was no indication Flintoff was going to be as sensationally fantastic as he was for the last four Tests of 2005; and obviously Kevin Pietersen hadn't played before then so we had no clue what was going to happen when he did.
There were signs that Gillespie was losing his form in New Zealand (and indeed, ever since New Year's Day - he was never the same after being dropped twice in one over at the start of the Sydney Test). The same applies to Kaspr - which is probably why both had such dismal series.Australia, meanwhile, had lost a vital, vital bowler (Gillespie) and two good middle-order batsmen (Katich and Martyn), and no-one realised that until the Ashes series started. In fact it only happened with the two WA batsmen after the First Test.
Exactly. It's easier to turn in a superb performance when you have form and confidence behind you than when you don't, even though Australia's side is 'merely' very good.Maybe you have a point, incidentally, in that going from good to superlative is rather more likely than going from shocking to very good (which England will have to do if they're to win this series).
It's true that, in New Zealand, both were well below the standard they'd been at for the last 12 months - but did anyone seriously expect them to be as utterly diabolical in England as they ended-up being?There were signs that Gillespie was losing his form in New Zealand (and indeed, ever since New Year's Day - he was never the same after being dropped twice in one over at the start of the Sydney Test). The same applies to Kaspr - which is probably why both had such dismal series.
Yeah, you're right. No-one would've seriously betted on them being that bad and everything is much clearer with hindsight. I myself didn't see the signs of their receeding form (pre-Ashes, that is) until after the Ashes was won by England.It's true that, in New Zealand, both were well below the standard they'd been at for the last 12 months - but did anyone seriously expect them to be as utterly diabolical in England as they ended-up being?
I'd say anyone who claims they seriously did was lying.