2009 Sides vs 2005 Sides

[Richard]

Langer underperformed by his standards.

I don't think so somehow. He played very well against some generally outstanding bowling - something he did do at other points in his career but not really extraordinarily often (due in no small part of course to the fact that more of the attacks than not that he faced were piss weak). For me Langer can be very proud of his 2005 Ashes, unlike pretty much anyone other than Warne.

Interesting you say that Hayden was worked out. He was coming off a good twelve months of bad form in test matches at the time, which would have been career ending if it was not for the hundred in the final test.

I don't think he was in bad form for those 12 months either - I think he'd simply been, yes, worked-out. Kyle Mills always had his number, and Shoaib Akhtar did in that series against Pakistan as well. Hoggard merely carried this on (and he did it in 2006/07 as well - only Rudi Koertzen's refusal to give two plumb lbws stopped this from being in full view), he was certainly not the first orchestrator.

Martyn was the unlucky player of the series. He'd just had a huge year in international cricket and was dropped on the back of the Ashes alone, even though he'd been sawn off on no less than two occasions (really bad decisions too).

I know. Nonetheless, he was a batsman in supreme nick reduced by both the bowling and the Umpiring to a complete waste of space in the last four Tests.

Clarke was a relatively new player at that stage, and had some technical weaknesses in his game which were exploited by more than England - remember he was dropped a series or two later.

He was dropped just 2 (proper) Tests later - he played the opening two games against West Indies then was out because Hussey had to stay when Langer returned. Clarke was not really very good until he went and scored 309 for once out in the 2005/06 domestic season. That was the first time he truly hinted at being a Test-class batsman, and he has demonstrated this since coming back in in 2006/07.

It was a series in which so many factors combined to give such a memorable and enjoyable series of cricket - underperforming Australian stars, a huge sense of belief among the English team, career best performances from Flintoff, Simon Jones and Hoggard, some really horrible umpiring, wickets from no balls, sugary mints and misplaced cricket balls.

Not to mention dropped catches - although England put down quite a few more than Australia, their bowling was so superior to the Australians' that the chances just kept coming. And the no-balls weren't just significant for wickets with them (again, though England bowled more no-balls they were lucky that no wickets fell to them whereas the Aussies weren't) - some of the matches were of such fine margins that the gifted runs might easily have been significant.

As for the Umpiring, to describe it as "really horrible" is a vast exaggeration. There were a couple of utter shockers (Katich's lbw that pitched about half a foot outside leg being the most extreme example) but mostly it was about as you'd expect in a five-match Test series. It favoured the stronger team (England on that occasion) as it always will, but it was not of a deplorably low standard.

 

[Redbacks]

looks like England beat a mediocre side then....

edit: was a good thing for Australian cricket, how about England?

 

[Richard]

My assessment of those who played for Australia in 2005:
Langer - decent player at the top of his game;
Hayden - poor batsmen who had been worked-out for six months and continued to be in the series;
Ponting - outstanding batsman who was made to look merely good by the excellence of the bowling in the series;
Martyn - decent player who was in the last four games made to look a pauper by the excellence of the bowling and the unfortunate conspiracy of what relatively few bad Umpiring decisions there were several times going against him;
Clarke - poor player (at that stage) whose weaknesses were exposed;
Gilchrist - player who could be superlative or very poor depending on what bowling was sent down at him. In this series, it was the latter.
Warne - outstanding bowler on top of his game who also benefited from some rather loose batting;
Brett Lee - pretty poor bowler who occasionally punched above his weight in the series;
Kasprowicz - relegated to the bench by the time the series rolled around and had passed his peak by that time and was very poor;
Gillespie - had gone from outstanding to diabolical in a short time and had his inadequacy fully exposed;
McGrath - quite magnificent on the series' opening afternoon, uninspiring for the rest of it (was far less than fully fit for quite a bit of this time)
Tait - not even taken on tour with the intention of playing, merely gaining experience. Was clearly not up to it and it remains to be seen whether he ever will be or not.

All, of course, with hindsight. I'd have confidently predicted only a few of these pre-series.

As for it being a good thing for English cricket, it was the best thing that'd happened since about 1953. Generated collossal interest at just the time it was needed (with cricket being moved off free-to-air TV the following summer). If there are any long-term benefits it'll take a generation for them to unfold. The short-term benefits were clearly nullified by injury to many of the key players of the series.

 

[stephen]

Richard, I think that you have poor memory of the terrible standard of umpiring in that series.

At least three game-changing LBW decisions were given against Australia (two against Martyn and one against Katich). And none of those three were line calls either - they were terrible, shocking and third rate by grade cricket standards.

In fact the umpiring was of the poorest standard I've seen, with the exception of the "sawn off Tendulkar series" here in Australia a couple of years back.

The only Australian batsman who actually was found out in that Ashes series was Gilchrist. His batting never fully recovered after that series, and it was the point at which he went from superman to a mere mortal.

Oh and Richard, your analysis of Hayden is so far off the mark it's a wonder if you've ever seen a game of cricket. He was poor for a good amount of time leading up to the 2005 series. It was not that he'd been figured out (though the short mid on was a very good tactic against him), only that he was out of form and had been for some time. In the two series after that Ashes, against South Africa he was one of Australia's strongest performers - because he'd worked himself back into form. He, Ponting and Hussey carried Australia's batting for around two years after that, but particularly in the South Africa series' Hayden really stood up.

Brett Lee was a good bowler who was exceptionally unlucky in that series, and ended up with figures not befitting the effort and quality of his bowling. The real problem was that he was carrying the fast bowling attack while McGrath was injured and Dizzy, Kasper and Tait were terrible.

What really came across strongly in that series was how vital good preparation is. Australia were arrogant and did not prepare adequately and got soundly beaten.

Yet at the end of the day three runs would have swung the series.

 

[Richard]

Richard, I think that you have poor memory of the terrible standard of umpiring in that series.

At least three game-changing LBW decisions were given against Australia (two against Martyn and one against Katich). And none of those three were line calls either - they were terrible, shocking and third rate by grade cricket standards.

In fact the umpiring was of the poorest standard I've seen, with the exception of the "sawn off Tendulkar series" here in Australia a couple of years back.

I've seen at least 8 or 9 series' where Umpiring has been patently worse than that 2005 Ashes. The Martyn lbws where he nicked them were certainly not shockers - they were just the inevitable mistakes that happen from time to time. The only decisions I can recall in that series which was of "should never happen" standard was Katich's lbw at Trent Bridge and the Geraint Jones obvious nick behind that wasn't given out.

It frankly smacks of the misplaced belief that Umpiring influenced the series enormously, and cost Australia, to believe that it was some of the worst of its time. In five Tests, mostly there'll be more errors than there were in that series. I've seen more errors than there were in those five Tests in some three-Test series'. If that's the second-worst you've seen I'd suggest you've a) not been taking much notice of Umpiring in other series' or b) haven't seen many other series' or c) as I say above, are simply biased.

The only Australian batsman who actually was found out in that Ashes series was Gilchrist. His batting never fully recovered after that series, and it was the point at which he went from superman to a mere mortal.

Well, not really - he'd done that 18 months previously, as I've also said before.

Oh and Richard, your analysis of Hayden is so far off the mark it's a wonder if you've ever seen a game of cricket. He was poor for a good amount of time leading up to the 2005 series. It was not that he'd been figured out (though the short mid on was a very good tactic against him), only that he was out of form and had been for some time. In the two series after that Ashes, against South Africa he was one of Australia's strongest performers - because he'd worked himself back into form. He, Ponting and Hussey carried Australia's batting for around two years after that, but particularly in the South Africa series' Hayden really stood up.

Hayden didn't recover form in 2005/06 - things merely went back to how they had been before. The bowling wasn't good enough, and the pitches too flat, to work him out, same way it hadn't been 2001/02-2004.

Hayden was worked-out by Kyle Mills, Shoaib Akhtar and Matthew Hoggard in 2004/05 and 2005 - just keep bowling big inswingers at him and he was always a sitting-duck. All career.

Brett Lee was a good bowler who was exceptionally unlucky in that series, and ended up with figures not befitting the effort and quality of his bowling.

Disagree completely. Lee was poor for most of the time, unlucky on occasions, and outstanding on occasions. What bad luck he suffered was more than made-up for by extreme good fortune in the 2006/07 series - the last couple of Tests of it anyway.

What really came across strongly in that series was how vital good preparation is. Australia were arrogant and did not prepare adequately and got soundly beaten.

Australia's lack of preparation hardly helped, but they could very easily have prepared as well as could reasonably be expected and still lost.

Yet at the end of the day three runs would have swung the series.

Not if one of those bad decisions - Kasprowicz being given n\o when he was plumb lbw 1st ball - had been got right.

 

[Athlai]

Hey Rich you should throw up some 2005 sides for all Test nations, would be interesting to see how they compare with each other considering how even the Poms and the Convicts were at that stage.

 

[Richard]

South Africa's first-choice XI was something along the lines of:
Smith
de Villiers
Rudolph
Kallis
Gibbs
Prince
Boucher
Pollock
Boje
Nel
Ntini

However, at the start of 2004/05 it was a much weaker one.

And India might've been something like:
<black hole>
Sehwag
Dravid
Tendulkar
Laxman
Yuvraj Singh
Karthik
Pathan
Kumble
Harbhajan Singh
<black hole>

Sri Lanka:
Atapattu
Jayasuriya
Sangakkara
M Jayawardene
Dilshan
<black hole>
Vaas
<black hole>
Fernando (essentially black hole)
Maaalinga
Muralitharan

 

[Athlai]

South Africa's first-choice XI was something along the lines of:
Smith
de Villiers
Rudolph
Kallis
Gibbs
Prince
Boucher
Pollock
Boje
Nel
Ntini

So a pretty solid bowling attack, and a few gems in the batting. Certainly stronger today even without the greatness of Pollock.

And India might've been something like:
<black hole>
Sehwag
Dravid
Tendulkar
Laxman
Yuvraj Singh
Karthik
Pathan
Kumble
Harbhajan Singh
<black hole>

A side without todays Gambhir yet with some great batsman all the same and a helluva spin bowling attack. The pace bowling lets it down but at home this side is still right up there.

Sri Lanka:
Atapattu
Jayasuriya
Sangakkara
M Jayawardene
Dilshan
<black hole>
Vaas
<black hole>
Fernando (essentially black hole)
Maaalinga
Muralitharan

Give this team an extra world class bowler or two and it could have been a great one. Two good openers, two great middle order players and a solid one in the wings. The great Murali as well as Vaas and the emerging Malinga. Very much a team that could decimate a side or fall to pieces on any given day.

 

[Howsie]

I think it's pretty clear that both the Aussie and England teams are weaker then the 2005 versions.

 

[Richard]

Yeah of course it is - that isn't the point. The point is to try to examine just how and why such a thing is so.

 

[Athlai]

The rest:

Vincent
Cumming
Fleming (*)
Astle
Styris
McMillan
McCullum
Vettori
Franklin
Bond
Martin

Butt
Afridi
Khan
Inzamam-ul-Haq (*)
Yousuf
Kamil
Razzaq
Akmal
Kaneria
Akhtar
Asif

Gayle
Hinds
Sarwan
Lara
Chanderpaul
Samuels
Bravo
Ramdin
Collymore
King
Lawson

 

[Uppercut]

Hmm, the New Zealand side isn't as much better as i thought it would be.

 

[Athlai]

Hmm, the New Zealand side isn't as much better as i thought it would be.

Just missed out on Richardson and Oram.

 

[Richard]

Hmm, the New Zealand side isn't as much better as i thought it would be.

I often find NZ tends to be a case of looking back casually a few years and thinking "boy things were much better then" then finding-out that in reality they were only marginally better.

 

[Uppercut]

I often find NZ tends to be a case of looking back casually a few years and thinking "boy things were much better then" then finding-out that in reality they were only marginally better.

Well, no, the test results were certainly better. It's only the players that weren't really that much better.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Not if one of those bad decisions - Kasprowicz being given n\o when he was plumb lbw 1st ball - had been got right.

We can play this game all night. Jones was the plumbest thing ever hit on the toe, very early in his partnership with Flintoff which would have left Australia chasing a fair bit less from memory. Certainly a more decisive decision than Kaspa's.

 

[Richard]

Funny how no-one ever talks about that decision when it, being much earlier in the match, was far more pivotal and far more justifiable than the Kasprowicz-out one. If people complain that that cost Australia the Test, it'd be some way closer to being fair enough than complaining the Kasprowicz-out one did.

It's the over-emphasis on that Kasprowicz-out decision that irks me.

 

[Richard]

Well, no, the test results were certainly better. It's only the players that weren't really that much better.

That was essentially what I mean, though personally I don't think NZ performed all that well at all in the 2002-2005 sort of time.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah of course it is - that isn't the point. The point is to try to examine just how and why such a thing is so.

The players in the teams now aren't as good as the ones who were there in 2005.

[/Thread]

 

[zaremba]

I'm up for Prior playing as a batsman & Foster keeping in the Ashes though.

I'd be happy with this. Prior isn't a great keeper by any stretch of the imagination (he's comfortably the 3rd best keeper at Sussex) but he has already shown that he's up to the job as a batsman, and when not keeping he's a quite outstanding fielder.