Best one-sided series?

[morgieb]

Actually the standard of the first three Tests was quite good IMO. Just turned into a victory lap in the last two though.

 

[Spark]

Thought the standard of cricket was fairly high barring the third innings in Perth tbh

 

[GIMH]

Actually the standard of the first three Tests was quite good IMO. Just turned into a victory lap in the last two though.

Brisbane???

 

[Xuhaib]

SA in England last year. It was not a whitewash but Sa never looked like loosing any game but it was highly entertaining cricket. Amla 300 first game then Bell looked like saving the test until Steyn blew they away with the 2nd new ball. KP onslaught on Steyn second test. The third test again had Sa on top thorughout England's lower order at the end did entertain a fleeting thought of upset but then Sa still prevailed comfortably enough. There was off field drama as well with KP and his team mates.

 

[Arachnodouche]

One sided series are more fun when it's the underdog doing well but how often does that really happen?

 

[Jono]

SA in England last year. It was not a whitewash but Sa never looked like loosing any game but it was highly entertaining cricket. Amla 300 first game then Bell looked like saving the test until Steyn blew they away with the 2nd new ball. KP onslaught on Steyn second test. The third test again had Sa on top thorughout England's lower order at the end did entertain a fleeting thought of upset but then Sa still prevailed comfortably enough. There was off field drama as well with KP and his team mates.

That's just a series where a team is better. Not really a series where a team is ****ing up the other team.

 

[Daemon]

2011 World Cup, 2013 Champions Trophy

 

[3703]

Been thinking this too. Amazing series so far, Johnson's inspired spells have lit the series, and the sport in this country, right up, and it has been thrilling no matter what side you're on it seems. I haven't seen such well executed short pitched stuff ever really. The return of a bit of aggression has made for striking cricket too, but more importantly the energy. Boof's brand of cricket is exciting, he seems to want a moving game at all costs. That has been key imo. There hasn't been any meandering. Good way to play, will bring people through the gates and capture the interest of youngsters.

 

[burr]

'And if anyone had been pondering over how a team that had lost seven of its previous nine Tests, had one batsman averaging over 37 in Tests (compared to six in the opposition ranks), and was gambling on the recall of a strike bowler who had taken 30 wickets at 42 in his previous 11 matches over three years, could rampantly cauterise an opponent against whom it had won two Tests out of the previous 15, then ponder no longer.'

Courtesy Andy Zaltzman from Cricinfo.

No wonder it had the surprise element!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Those stats are all fairly misleading though. Losing seven of the previous nine was due to the opposition/location rather than the general ****ness of the Australan team. They would still realistically have beaten most teams fairly comfortably, just not India and England away from home (or SA). The low career averages are mostly related to brief test careers, since for instance I doubt too many people would have thought Rogers and Smith looked like sub-37 career average players (though Rogers could easily end up that way). And the series in England was fairly evenly contested for a 3-0 result: only Lords was one-sided, England never scored over 400 once, had only one batsman averaging over 40 for the series, and Australia had the first innings lead in four out of five tests.

Switch the home field advantage and add a bit of experience to the Australian team and I think the signs were there that it was going to be a close series. The real shock is the sheer one-sidedness. and Johnson. My memory of the 05/06 series was that up until Perth most people still thought England had a really good chance to win the series. Brisbane was a thrashing but England basically dominated the Adelaide test until the fourth day and should certainly never have lost it, and even bowled Australia out cheaply in Perth. By comparison this series has just felt non-competitive, mostly because of the abysmal batting performance.

 

[Hooksey]

We are only 3/5 of the way through the series. Too early to judge the series until what we see Tests 4 and 5 hold.

 

[Xuhaib]

Those stats are all fairly misleading though. Losing seven of the previous nine was due to the opposition/location rather than the general ****ness of the Australan team. They would still realistically have beaten most teams fairly comfortably, just not India and England away from home (or SA). The low career averages are mostly related to brief test careers, since for instance I doubt too many people would have thought Rogers and Smith looked like sub-37 career average players (though Rogers could easily end up that way). And the series in England was fairly evenly contested for a 3-0 result: only Lords was one-sided, England never scored over 400 once, had only one batsman averaging over 40 for the series, and Australia had the first innings lead in four out of five tests.

Switch the home field advantage and add a bit of experience to the Australian team and I think the signs were there that it was going to be a close series. The real shock is the sheer one-sidedness. and Johnson. My memory of the 05/06 series was that up until Perth most people still thought England had a really good chance to win the series. Brisbane was a thrashing but England basically dominated the Adelaide test until the fourth day and should certainly never have lost it, and even bowled Australia out cheaply in Perth. By comparison this series has just felt non-competitive, mostly because of the abysmal batting performance.

Probably they would have lost in UAE and SL too maybe not as convincing but still would have if you cant win in 5 out of 7 top nations then yeah you are staring down the barrel.

 

[Jassy]

In the same way that the WACA Test was headed for a draw into day 5 you mean?

That series was a lot more one-sided than this one has been. On Day 1 of each Test England have been in the ascendancy/on par after losing the toss each time. The final results have been big I accept but the gulf in 2011 was huge.

What? No way India in England was more one-sided then this. Heck India even managed a first innings lead in that series. When did England come even remotely close to doing that here? Don't just go by the margin alone, add in all the wickets Australia have had left at the time of declaring. Seriously if you don't think the Lord's and Oval tests were headed for draws, I cannot help you.

 

[Jassy]

Probably they would have lost in UAE and SL too maybe not as convincing but still would have if you cant win in 5 out of 7 top nations then yeah you are staring down the barrel.

By that definition, I'd imagine most teams are staring down the barrel. Everyone seems to be winning mostly at home these days, SA excluded.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It kinda feels like one of those "blackwashes" the Windies used to (it seemed) inflict on the hapless English ever series in the 80s, although I think we only lost every test of the series twice in that decade.

As these were my formative cricketing years it seemed incredible to me that England could even compete with these supermen with their lightening quick bowlers and swashbuckling stroke-makers much less beat them.

One would try to take succor from small acts of Blighty heroism in the face of such brutality. This time we've only really had Stokes's (admittedly impressive) ton or, to stretch a point, Broad's bag at the Gabba, but that looked as if it was from another series entirely, one where England could bowl Australia out for <300 (tick) and score a decent total in reply (cross).

Anyway, cliffs notes: England have been too altogether too placid and compliant for it to be that entertaining.

 

[Jono]

Anyway, cliffs notes: England have been too altogether too placid and compliant for it to be that entertaining.

Hasn't been WI vs. NZ lol-collapse though. They've been blown away with ripping deliveries (Harris and Mitch to Cook) or just being made to look scared from sheer pace. Its been thrilling to watch.

England in 06 barring first dig Adelaide just seemed outclassed. Even in Perth with the close 1st innings.

 

[MrPrez]

Any recent home series for SA.








Except this one

 

[BoyBrumby]

Hasn't been WI vs. NZ lol-collapse though. They've been blown away with ripping deliveries (Harris and Mitch to Cook) or just being made to look scared from sheer pace. Its been thrilling to watch.

England in 06 barring first dig Adelaide just seemed outclassed. Even in Perth with the close 1st innings.

Have been some rippers, yes.

However, and whilst acknowledging that no-one really enjoys facing proper pace despite what they may say, some of the dismissals have made it look as if some of our chaps are a little gun-shy, which doesn't sit that well.

Hats off to the Aussies, not taking anything away, but I still can't believe the distance between the teams is as wide as it's been made to appear so far.

 

[uvelocity]

oh it's wide brumbers, its wide as a harmy loosener

 

[Jono]

oh it's wide brumbers, its wide as a harmy loosener

shocked you didn't make a ***ual joke here.