Who's going to win?

[cowboy up]

didnt see that game myself,sounds a bit silly of him though

 

[Uppercut]

Shameless plug coming up but whatever, the discussion RE our 05 celebrations interested me, and I thought an article I wrote last summer was relevant to it, so if you never read it at the time and are interested, see below

Cricket Web - Features: Changing History - A Dangerous Game

That's quite interesting. For so, so long I thought England's expectations hadn't lowered accordingly when the quality of the actual team dipped. They were ranked third in the world this time last year IIRC, and largely because of the players who weren't even in the team anymore. But going into the series against South Africa, bookies had them as favourites despite their players being so obviously much worse. They were England, so they'd win.

The team has improved immeasurably from last year's- Strauss and Cook are in much better form going into the Ashes, Bopara is a class above the 33 year old Vaughan, Collingwood is in tremendous touch as opposed to the horrific rut he was in last time round. Prior gives their batting a massive boost, Flintoff's fitness isn't perfect but I'm more confident of it now than i was last year and the balance of the batting looks much better.

Meanwhile, Broad has improved so much it's untrue. Anderson has finally found some consistency and is ripping sides apart, Swann is better than Monty ever was IMO and I expect a hell of a lot more from Onions than i would from Harmison. The only areas of the team that have weakened are behind the stumps and regarding Sidebottom's fitness.

Yet somehow, despite playing a team of similar quality to South Africa, England have gone from favourites to massive underdogs. The widespread feeling has been reversed perfectly- last summer I piled on South Africa for the series at 6/4, if i were to repeat the bet on Australia this year I'd be getting 4/6- and that has popular feeling spot on, too, judging by the results of this thread.

Nevertheless, I'm reluctant to predict anything other than an Aussie win. I'm not quite sure whether England are underrated this time round or they were just so, soooo overrated last year.

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

Shameless plug coming up but whatever, the discussion RE our 05 celebrations interested me, and I thought an article I wrote last summer was relevant to it, so if you never read it at the time and are interested, see below

Cricket Web - Features: Changing History - A Dangerous Game

**** me!

Your gunna cost someone at the Times a job!

 

[Uppercut]

**** me!

Your gunna cost someone at the Times a job!

Haha, Corrin's a miles better writer than most who write on sport for newspapers here (don't even get me started on the quality of some Australian media ).

 

[Smith]

The team has improved immeasurably from last year's- Strauss and Cook are in much better form going into the Ashes, Bopara is a class above the 33 year old Vaughan, Collingwood is in tremendous touch as opposed to the horrific rut he was in last time round. Prior gives their batting a massive boost, Flintoff's fitness isn't perfect but I'm more confident of it now than i was last year and the balance of the batting looks much better.

Well, to think they have won just one series in the last one year and that too was against an underprepared WI. I would agree with you that some aspects of England has improved, but not immeasurably as you suggest.

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

Haha, Corrin's a miles better writer than most who write on sport for newspapers here (don't even get me started on the quality of some Australian media ).

To be fair to the Australian writers, they do have to comply with the two syllable limit and only chose from the 500 aproved words.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

The team has improved immeasurably from last year's- Strauss and Cook are in much better form going into the Ashes, Bopara is a class above the 33 year old Vaughan, Collingwood is in tremendous touch as opposed to the horrific rut he was in last time round. Prior gives their batting a massive boost, Flintoff's fitness isn't perfect but I'm more confident of it now than i was last year and the balance of the batting looks much better.

Meanwhile, Broad has improved so much it's untrue. Anderson has finally found some consistency and is ripping sides apart, Swann is better than Monty ever was IMO and I expect a hell of a lot more from Onions than i would from Harmison. The only areas of the team that have weakened are behind the stumps and regarding Sidebottom's fitness.

And they lost 0-1 in WI.

Nah, I'm sticking with my 6-0 tip.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I cannot believe that people are still going on about Collingwood's MBE. Of course he didn't deserve it. It wasn't him that decided to award it. Get over it.

Talking about the comment he made to Warne and the resulting sledge that got Collingwood all quiet really.

 

[GIMH]

What did he say to Warne?

 

[Son Of Coco]

That's quite interesting. For so, so long I thought England's expectations hadn't lowered accordingly when the quality of the actual team dipped. They were ranked third in the world this time last year IIRC, and largely because of the players who weren't even in the team anymore. But going into the series against South Africa, bookies had them as favourites despite their players being so obviously much worse. They were England, so they'd win.

The team has improved immeasurably from last year's- Strauss and Cook are in much better form going into the Ashes, Bopara is a class above the 33 year old Vaughan, Collingwood is in tremendous touch as opposed to the horrific rut he was in last time round. Prior gives their batting a massive boost, Flintoff's fitness isn't perfect but I'm more confident of it now than i was last year and the balance of the batting looks much better.

Meanwhile, Broad has improved so much it's untrue. Anderson has finally found some consistency and is ripping sides apart, Swann is better than Monty ever was IMO and I expect a hell of a lot more from Onions than i would from Harmison. The only areas of the team that have weakened are behind the stumps and regarding Sidebottom's fitness.

Yet somehow, despite playing a team of similar quality to South Africa, England have gone from favourites to massive underdogs. The widespread feeling has been reversed perfectly- last summer I piled on South Africa for the series at 6/4, if i were to repeat the bet on Australia this year I'd be getting 4/6- and that has popular feeling spot on, too, judging by the results of this thread.

Nevertheless, I'm reluctant to predict anything other than an Aussie win. I'm not quite sure whether England are underrated this time round or they were just so, soooo overrated last year.

Collingwood scored 200-odd and 90 in a horrific rut...can't wait to see what he'll do now he's in form. Don't mind him as a player, but his dismissals last time seemed to have a lot to do with him being vulnerable around off-stump. Has that improved?

Bopara's 3 tests in. Onions less than that (!?).

I wouldn't have England as no chance and I think it'll be close. But unestablished players are being hyped up with no real justification it seems. Bopara's done all he can, but there are too many uncertainties about both teams to name either an overwhelming favourite I think.

 

[Son Of Coco]

What did he say to Warne?

He had a few words to say in Australia and got the 'and to think you got and MBE for scoring 7 at The Oval' in reply. His chin hit the ground and he lost the power of speech.

 

[Uppercut]

And they lost 0-1 in WI.

Sure did, and they're much the better team for it. The side that lost that test to the West Indies contained Bell, Harmison and Panesar. If they'd won, there'd be much more enthusiasm going into the Ashes- but in actual fact they'd be in a worse position, because those passengers would still be in the side.

 

[Uppercut]

Collingwood scored 200-odd and 90 in a horrific rut...can't wait to see what he'll do now he's in form. Don't mind him as a player, but his dismissals last time seemed to have a lot to do with him being vulnerable around off-stump. Has that improved?

Bopara's 3 tests in. Onions less than that (!?).

I wouldn't have England as no chance and I think it'll be close. But unestablished players are being hyped up with no real justification it seems. Bopara's done all he can, but there are too many uncertainties about both teams to name either an overwhelming favourite I think.

200-odd and 90? I'm comparing the side that took on South Africa last summer, not the one that went into the last Ashes. Although i'd have more confidence in this side than i would the Mahmood/Plunkett/Giles/G Jones collection.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Sure did, and they're much the better team for it. The side that lost that test to the West Indies contained Bell, Harmison and Panesar. If they'd won, there'd be much more enthusiasm going into the Ashes- but in actual fact they'd be in a worse position, because those passengers would still be in the side.

Fair enough, but those guys are replaced by unproven, inexperienced players. I just don't see how those guys can be conclusively said to be better yet.

 

[Uppercut]

Fair enough, but those guys are replaced by unproven, inexperienced players. I just don't see how those guys can be conclusively said to be better yet.

I suppose it's a replacement of players who have shown themselves not to be up to scratch with players who have shown very promising signs of being quality. Swann's most definitely better than Panesar, and Bopara's surely more likely to contribute than Vaughan. It's Onions who i'm least convinced of, but then I couldn't say conclusively that he'll do ****-all the way I could with Harmison.

 

[Uppercut]

To be fair to the Australian writers, they do have to comply with the two syllable limit and only chose from the 500 aproved words.

Haha, i'm sure there's some good Aussie journalism somewhere, but from what I've seen they favour controversial (i.e. BS) statements that get people talking over thoughtful opinion pieces.

 

[Son Of Coco]

200-odd and 90? I'm comparing the side that took on South Africa last summer, not the one that went into the last Ashes. Although i'd have more confidence in this side than i would the Mahmood/Plunkett/Giles/G Jones collection.

Ah, sorry. I read it as last time!

 

[Richard]

Hahaha. In that case I most certainly came out on top in the Uppercut-vs-Warne battle of 2006/07. My series average of infinity facing him is testament to that- he didn't get me out once.

You've got to be in a battle to win it TBH. The fact that Collingwood scored 151 runs off Warne in 2006/07 hints that Collingwood actually was.

 

[Richard]

If the discussion was about match averages against individual players then Collingwood may have had a point. It obviously wasn't, and Collingwood realised he'd made a mistake opening his mouth without thinking of something smarter to say when Warne replied. The look on his face was testimony to that.

Collingwood was probably just trash-talking - nothing more than "Warney's gonna hit one straight up here fellas" etc. As far as wittiness of comment is concerned, Warne came-out on top; as far as playing was concerned, Collingwood did.

To use your line of argument, 151 for once out can't make up for being ordinary your whole career. So Warne, a vastly more talented cricketer than Collingwood, has owned him for a number of years. Thus, he has the right to remind him of this as often as possible. Let's not forget who went spoiling for the fight here. Warne didn't just randomly bring it up.

That series was the only time Warne and Collingwood actually faced each-other. The rest of a career isn't really relevant in one-on-ones - it's just what each player does against the other. Allan Donald was a far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far better bowler than Michael Atherton was batsman, but Atherton came-out on top at Trent Bridge in 1998 because (even though he got out to Donald and got away with it) the scoresheet ended with him on 98*.

Warne's obviously an infinitely better cricketer than Collingwood, but in Ashes 2006/07, Collingwood came out on top between the two of them.

None of the players earned an honour for one good series. As someone pointed out, others have been doing much more important work in the community for 25 years. As you said, this isn't their fault, but it's not unusual that they'll cop it on the field for it.

You don't earn something after being given it, you earn it beforehand otherwise it's just a hollow accolade.

All of those OBEs\MBEs were hollow really - Collingwood's was just a bit more so than others. That's nothing at all to do with the players and officials, obviously.

 

[GIMH]

Freddie should have got MBE, OBE, CBE, Knighthood, Lordship and anything else in 05. The rest I can take or leave