Series scorelines which inflated the difference between the two sides

[OverratedSanity]

England in the UAE.

Yeah this.

 

[weldone]

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

Australia were 134-6 in the first innings. They were below 175 AFAIR when the umpire decided that Symonds didn't nick the ball. Of course, he didn't nick the ball, because he almost middled it! Australia were looking at a total of less than 250 at that stage.

Then India makes 532.

After that, if you reverse the 2 howlers and the the 2 dodgy decisions in India's 2nd innings it's hard to see how India wouldn't win it.

The series went 1-2. So, winning the Sydney test would mean 2-1, keeping everything except pathetic umpiring as it is.

 

[Spark]

yes because if you drastically change a number of significant events then clearly everything that happened after that would have happened in exactly the same way. nothing wrong with that reasoning at all.

 

[OverratedSanity]

yes because if you drastically change a number of significant events then clearly everything that happened after that would have happened in exactly the same way. nothing wrong with that reasoning at all.

Airtight

 

[GIMH]

I think we can all agree that what the forum always longs for is another discussion of Sydney 08

Good work weldone

 

[weldone]

yes because if you drastically change a number of significant events then clearly everything that happened after that would have happened in exactly the same way. nothing wrong with that reasoning at all.

Removing the umpiring errors and keeping everything else the same is not an airtight way of prediction, but that's the most fair way of prediction imo. For example, if Symonds got out then Australia could lose the match by an innings and 126 runs, but I didn't predict that.

 

[morgieb]

Wasn't Sachin out early but not given as well?

If you're willing to play the umpiring game it's a two way street m8

 

[GIMH]

I think we can all agree that what the forum always longs for is another discussion of Sydney 08

Good work weldone

Was only joking ftr

Any further discussion of Sydney will result in me providing you with 8 GIMH infraction points.

 

[Zinzan]

Has to be NZ/Eng 2004 series in Eng for mine....the series was much more closely fought than the 3-0 scoreline to Eng suggested.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Has to be NZ/Eng 2004 series in Eng for mine....the series was much more closely fought than the 3-0 scoreline to Eng suggested.

Yeah, we were on a roll then and knew how to win. Was a few hairy moments for us but somehow we got through them. 3-0 was harsh on you.

 

[Flem274*]

We just couldn't bowl with the duke iirc. The batting went ok and fought through Harmison and Freddie but then our bowlers would make it look like a road. 3-0 is fair enough when half the team can't contribute.

 

[Furball]

Australia were 134-6 in the first innings. They were below 175 AFAIR when the umpire decided that Symonds didn't nick the ball. Of course, he didn't nick the ball, because he almost middled it! Australia were looking at a total of less than 250 at that stage.

Then India makes 532.

After that, if you reverse the 2 howlers and the the 2 dodgy decisions in India's 2nd innings it's hard to see how India wouldn't win it.

The series went 1-2. So, winning the Sydney test would mean 2-1, keeping everything except pathetic umpiring as it is.

You could've drawn the series if you hadn't lost 3 wickets in an over to Michael Clarke.

Just stew on that for a while.

 

[SteveNZ]

The 0-0 drawn series between us and Australia in 2001. Although I'm actually not sure what the result should've been...Australia were all over the first Test, then Steve Waugh gave us a golden opportunity we'd have taken if Cairns had've got one ounce more of the ball he hit to Lee at long off. We were killed in the 2nd Test and the heavens opened, then bossed the 3rd Test in Perth and probably would've won if Ian Robinson wasn't a complete idiot, and may have possibly lost if Waugh wasn't run out at the bowler's end.

Just a crazy series, and summer for that matter.

 

[Zinzan]

Yeah, we were on a roll then and knew how to win. Was a few hairy moments for us but somehow we got through them. 3-0 was harsh on you.

Yeah, I remember Strauss being incredibly lucky in the 2nd innings at Lords in particular.

 

[Zinzan]

The 0-0 drawn series between us and Australia in 2001. Although I'm actually not sure what the result should've been...Australia were all over the first Test, then Steve Waugh gave us a golden opportunity we'd have taken if Cairns had've got one ounce more of the ball he hit to Lee at long off. We were killed in the 2nd Test and the heavens opened, then bossed the 3rd Test in Perth and probably would've won if Ian Robinson wasn't a complete idiot, and may have possibly lost if Waugh wasn't run out at the bowler's end.

Just a crazy series, and summer for that matter.

Of course the other weird thing about that tour was the one-day tri-series that followed in which we couldn't beat SA for Jam, SA couldn't beat Aust & Aust struggled against NZ.

 

[Athlai]

When we were whitewashed 4-0 by Bangers in ODIs. Only one game was a paddling. The rest could easily have gone either way.

The result managed to torpedo our ODI ranking ever since as well.

1st ODI Bangers win by 9 runs in a D/L affected match.
2nd ODI rained off
3rd ODI Bangers win by 7 wickets, destroyed
4th ODI Bangers win by 9 runs
5th ODI Bangers win by 3 runs

Was infuriating. Bangladesh deserved the series but 4-0? Urgh.

 

[African Monkey]

The 0-0 drawn series between us and Australia in 2001. Although I'm actually not sure what the result should've been...Australia were all over the first Test, then Steve Waugh gave us a golden opportunity we'd have taken if Cairns had've got one ounce more of the ball he hit to Lee at long off. We were killed in the 2nd Test and the heavens opened, then bossed the 3rd Test in Perth and probably would've won if Ian Robinson wasn't a complete idiot, and may have possibly lost if Waugh wasn't run out at the bowler's end.

Just a crazy series, and summer for that matter.

Lets not forget that Justin Langer was out 1st ball of the Brisbane test but wasn't given, before going on to form a massive stand with Hayden. I remember us running right through their middle order until Gilchrist and Lee got them out of trouble. The same happened in the 2nd Test where Matthew Bell dropped Langer on 10 or so before he set the platform with Hayden once again, it was Shane Bond's debut iirc. We were awesome in the 3rd test where we should have won imo. That was where Warne saved Australia with his 99 in their 1st innings, helped again by Nathan Astle dropping him on about 10.

They were probably the better side overall, but I don't think they were that far ahead over the series. Also had to lol at the batting stance Matthew Bell employed back then. Looked all at sea and wasn't seen for another 6 years after that.

 

[ajdude]

I think we can all agree that what the forum always longs for is another discussion of Sydney 08

Good work weldone

should've said "weldone weldone"

 

[weldone]

You could've drawn the series if you hadn't lost 3 wickets in an over to Michael Clarke.

Just stew on that for a while.

Ya sure, but that's not the point of this thread I think.

 

[Furball]

If anything that series was kept articificially close by Ponting's sporting refusal to bowl Clarke more.