How would you rate this series?

[Jono]

Didn't go to the wire though. It was, essentially, a two-test affair.

I was pissed off at the time that it was a three-match series, but in hindsight just think how brilliantly poised it would have been at 2-1 with two to play.

The high quality of cricket overrides the fact that there wasn't a last test decider. A tense finish with lower quality cricket (e.g. here) doesn't make it better than a terrific contest all the way through.

Plus, I'll argue this series was over on day 2 of this test

 

[aussie]

Why? Because Australia lost?

It was a terrific series. Topsy turvy... all 3 tests.

The series lacked that IND/AUS 01, WI/AUS 99, Ashes 05 feel for me.

AUS stood up no doubt. But they where always behind given the bowling mistakes they made. The return series was much more competitve.

If you want to talk about a top quality AUS vs SA series in AUS - 93/94, 97/98 or 63/64 (probably) would be better examples.

 

[PhoenixFire]

High quality cricket doesn't always equal an exciting series. Obviosuly '05 had both, but I think that despite the lower quality of the cricket, it was still a fascinating and very enjoyable series.

 

[pasag]

The series lacked that IND/AUS 01, WI/AUS 99, Ashes 05 feel for me.

AUS stood up no doubt. But they where always behind given the bowling mistakes they made. The return series was much more competitve.

If you want to talk about a top quality AUS vs SA series in AUS - 93/94, 97/98 or 63/64 (probably) would be better examples.

I think you were watching a different series to everyone else mate.

 

[Jamee999]

The series lacked that IND/AUS 01, WI/AUS 99, Ashes 05 feel for me.

AUS stood up no doubt. But they where always behind given the bowling mistakes they made. The return series was much more competitve.

If you want to talk about a top quality AUS vs SA series in AUS - 93/94, 97/98 or 63/64 (probably) would be better examples.

If the actual Aussies can be graceful in defeat, I'm sure you can too.

 

[aussie]

If the actual Aussies can be graceful in defeat, I'm sure you can too.

That point is not in reference to the Ashes. But the AUS v SA in AUS recently.

 

[oitoitoi]

As series go it was pretty average, though the final test being a decider is always a good thing. I suppose being an Ashes test will always amplify things for the fans. The standard of cricket wasn't great and the crowds were at times worryingly loutish (the booing of Ponting was frankly disgraceful), but the contest was relatively even overall which made up for a lot.

I thought in terms of standard of cricket the recent SA in AUS series was the best I'd personally ever seen, and it had some truly epic moments in it (amplified by the outstanding Australian grounds, I just love watching Australian tests, they're so beautiful on the screen, cricket the way it was meant to be) and was pretty up and down. Thought IND in AUS 07/08 was right up there too, but all the fallout from Sydney put a big cloud over proceedings (Laxman's hundred at Sydney was something really, really special, often forgotten), Tendulkar was incredible that series, and Ishant Sharma to Ponting at Perth was a revelation. The recent Pak SL series looked pretty damn good from just following the scorecards, I wish SL got more coverage and I really hope they get a proper tour of England soon, not some crap in May. SA in SL was pretty decent too I thought, Jayawardene guiding that big chase was an epic innings.

 

[Athlai]

Johnson's spell against SA in Oz was probably the best spell I've ever seen.

 

[oitoitoi]

Johnson's spell against SA in Oz was probably the best spell I've ever seen.

Thought his spell in Durban was better, that late inswinger at 96 mph, the first unplayable bowling performance since Wasim retired.

 

[aussie]

High quality cricket doesn't always equal an exciting series. Obviosuly '05 had both, but I think that despite the lower quality of the cricket, it was still a fascinating and very enjoyable series.

I enjoyed it. But AUS didn't help themselves with stupid seections, especially in the bowling attack. So SA just capitalized on them as good teams should.

For example. AUS should have never gone into the Perth test as Krejza as one of 4 bowlers. He bowled the brilliant ball to dismiss Alma in the 1st innings. But even though the pitch was an absolute rod, i would have much prefered AUS to lose with a sold 4-man pace attack since at least they would have picked their best team.

Same thing again @ the MCG. Picking a average spinner in Harutiz in a 4-man attack. If 4 seamers where picked, when Lee got injured at least you would have had 3 semers to bowl - thus Dumminy/Steyn wouldn't have had it so easy.



Same thing when SA tour ENG, we basically gave them the 2nd test when Pattinson was picked & Ambrose batted @ 6.

 

[aussie]

Thought his spell in Durban was better, that late inswinger at 96 mph, the first unplayable bowling performance since Wasim retired.

Dont think he actually ever reached 96 mph. But yea his Durban performance>>>>Perth performance in terms of lethalness.

 

[Pigeon]

Two evenly matched mediocre sides battling it out. The test rankings will reflect the "quality" of these teams.

The least bad team won.

I agree with this. This series was not a patch on the 2005 series. Had 2005 England played 2009 Australia, I can probably say 5-0 would have been result, and vice versa, definitely 5-0.

Certainly not the best series this year, but who cares.

 

[oitoitoi]

I agree with this. This series was not a patch on the 2005 series. Had 2005 England played 2009 Australia, I can probably say 5-0 would have been result, and vice versa, definitely 5-0.

Certainly not the best series this year, but who cares.

No way 5-0. No way. Reckon If that England side had played this Aussie side it would have been 3-1 England, if that Aussie side had played this English side, probably 4-0, unusual to get results in all tests in England.

 

[GIMH]

11/10

 

[Pigeon]

No way 5-0. No way. Reckon If that England side had played this Aussie side it would have been 3-1 England, if that Aussie side had played this English side, probably 4-0, unusual to get results in all tests in England.

Oh rain indeed is a factor I did not figure in. But I do think England would have rolled over Aus and would not have suffered a single defeat. Remember, that team had Flintoff at his prime godly best, Harmy and heck Simon Jones! And to top it, a young and devil may care Pietersen. Yes, the more I think about it, the more am convinced.

 

[oitoitoi]

Oh rain indeed is a factor I did not figure in. But I do think England would have rolled over Aus and would not have suffered a single defeat. Remember, that team had Flintoff at his prime godly best, Harmy and heck Simon Jones! And to top it, a young and devil may care Pietersen. Yes, the more I think about it, the more am convinced.

It's a tough one to call, remember that conditions were very different that series too, it was a lot more bowler friendly, much more sunshine this time round.

 

[Daryl Harper]

Poor series which was dogged throughout by many of the poor aspects of the game.
Weather/ umpiring which constantly present potential for the inferior side, or better appealers to fluke it.

 

[Langeveldt]

Poor series from the standard of the cricket and umpiring, but a very compelling one when it comes to ebbing and flowwing, shift of the initiative, and the usual Ashes theatre.. Top stuff and a good advert for test cricket

 

[Zinzan]

From a neutral perspective, a pretty even series played by 2 quite mediocre sides as indicated by their Test rankings of 4 & 5 respectively

 

[vic_orthdox]

The fact that only one side could really win by day 3 of each Test took something away from it all.