Series scorelines which inflated the difference between the two sides

[morgieb]

What series in your opinion had scorelines that didn't accurately reflect the gap between the two sides that was on display in that series?

 

[GIMH]

2013 English Ashes I guess. Two very close Tests that went our way, one draw that Oz had the better of and one game dominated by England

And of course the fifth Test which amazingly we came within two or three overs of winning

 

[fredfertang]

1997 Ashes

3-2 to Australia no reflection at all of what really happened - sadly it wasn't in the least bit close in reality

 

[African Monkey]

2011/12 NZ vs SA where we lost 1-0. We would have lost 3-0 if it wasn't for rain.

 

[morgieb]

I'll also add the 09 Ashes. England timed their **** ups better and rain didn't help - had 450 overs been bowled at Cardiff and Edgbaston, it probably would've been 3-2.

 

[Howe_zat]

India beating Australia 2-0 in 2010. Two very close tests iirc.

 

[Teja.]

India beating Australia 2-0 in 2010. Two very close tests iirc.

I'd say the first was the closest test I've watched and second was well-fought but fairly comfortable.

1-0 to India would've been fairer.

 

[morgieb]

India beating Australia 2-0 in 2010. Two very close tests iirc.

Second wasn't that close, but yes. I think we can get a lot of two-Test series like that though, such as the one you played against the Lankans a few months back.

 

[GIMH]

I'll also add the 09 Ashes. England timed their **** ups better and rain didn't help - had 450 overs been bowled at Cardiff and Edgbaston, it probably would've been 3-2.

Cardiff, fair enough, though I personally imagine Monty and Jimmy were good for another 150 which would have left you a tricky little chase Edgbaston though, it annoys me when people say this. We bowled brilliantly first innings, then once we reached your total batted completely differently to how we would have done had the game been where it was up to in terms of overs (probably late in day two, rather than four...). We then bowled Bopara once we got to the final session and knew we weren't getting the win. I'm not saying we would have won that Test had it reached its duration, but to look at the final position and make out Australia had the better of the game is nonsense.

 

[Bahnz]

Not sure about inflating the difference between the two sides, but the scoreline in the 1999 test series between England and New Zealand (2-1) deflated the difference between the two teams. We won the 2nd and 4th tests comfortably, were denied by rain in the 3rd test, and choked, losing from a dominant position in the first test. The 0-0 result in Australia in 2001 was also massively flattering for us given the Aussies would've beaten us comfortably in both of the first 2 tests had it not been for the rain.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

1997 Ashes

3-2 to Australia no reflection at all of what really happened - sadly it wasn't in the least bit close in reality

Agree with this, won a great first match with one of our best displays in years but as soon as the Aussies got going it was so onesided and the drawn match would have been a crushing defeat for us also before we inevitably won the dead rubber at the Oval which we always did when the Aussies had their flip flops on and their feet up with job done.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

1971 England 0 India 1

England dominated India for all but one session of the entire series and could have won the series 3-0 but for rain and a single bowling spell by Chandra.

 

[morgieb]

Not sure about inflating the difference between the two sides, but the scoreline in the 1999 test series between England and New Zealand (2-1) deflated the difference between the two teams. We won the 2nd and 4th tests comfortably, were denied by rain in the 3rd test, and choked, losing from a dominant position in the first test. The 0-0 result in Australia in 2001 was also massively flattering for us given the Aussies would've beaten us comfortably in both of the first 2 tests had it not been for the rain.

Yeah good point. Though ironically in the first you ended up much closer to victory than us.

 

[morgieb]

Cardiff, fair enough, though I personally imagine Monty and Jimmy were good for another 150 which would have left you a tricky little chase Edgbaston though, it annoys me when people say this. We bowled brilliantly first innings, then once we reached your total batted completely differently to how we would have done had the game been where it was up to in terms of overs (probably late in day two, rather than four...). We then bowled Bopara once we got to the final session and knew we weren't getting the win. I'm not saying we would have won that Test had it reached its duration, but to look at the final position and make out Australia had the better of the game is nonsense.

Weren't you in the middle-lower order by the time the score starting getting close? I dunno if you would have scored significantly more runs conventionally than what you actually did - the lower order chancing their arm worked well.

And Bopara only bowled 8 overs. Don't really think that's relevant.

That said, I was only 15 at the time and living on the other side of the world, so maybe I'm forgetting things.

 

[GIMH]

Of course Bopara's eight overs are relevant. If you factor in that he couldn't bowl from both ends, that's at least 16 overs where we had given up the ghost. IIRC we had Broad & Colly at the other end - Broad had been having a diabloical series so Strauss bowled him specifically to try and get him some form (it worked).

Possibly a fairer point is the one about our batting, having checked the scorecard Prior & Freddie were already at the crease when the scores were levelled, and Freddie was pretty much reduced to batting that way by that point.

I'm not taking anything away from oz on that day - Clarke & North played blinders to save the game. But it was clear with a fair whack of the day left that the game would be saved and so followed some of your archetypcal processional day five grind to a draw cricket. That Australia ended a fair bit ahead was not a reflection on how the game had progressed.

England had been in the ascendancy for what cricket there had been, then Australia had a strong day five. Neither side had victory snatched away. Had there been 450 overs it is anyone's guess what may have happened. My point was that to say but for rain at Cardiff/Brum it would have been 3-2 is way wide of the mark. With five days at Edgbaston, either side could have won. But England won more sessions in the game

 

[uvelocity]

the last ashes - 10 nil would have been more appropriate

 

[Cabinet96]

England in the UAE.

 

[weldone]

2007-08 Border-Gavaskar Trophy, but that's mainly because India should've won Sydney with fair umpiring (surely, unless howlers in India's 2nd innings make you forget Symonds' clear nick in the 1st innings), and thus the series.

 

[Furball]

2013 English Ashes I guess. Two very close Tests that went our way, one draw that Oz had the better of and one game dominated by England

And of course the fifth Test which amazingly we came within two or three overs of winning

The first Test was kept close by dreadful umpiring. Agar should've been out for about 10.

 

[OverratedSanity]

2007-08 Border-Gavaskar Trophy, but that's mainly because India should've won Sydney with fair umpiring (surely, unless howlers in India's 2nd innings make you forget Symonds' clear nick in the 1st innings), and thus the series.

Regardless of how awful the umpiring was, it's a stretch to say we would've won the Sydney match, much less the series.