How will this series measure up to Ashes 2005?

[Molehill]

Hayden in particular was terrible in that series until the very last game. He absolutely should not be getting in that side over Khawaja. Langer I can accept but honestly he was pretty mediocre too.

Meanwhile Australia's non-Ponting middle order in that series was dog****. I don't think any of them should get in.

Khawaja is pretty much the first name on the batting sheet, I was more pondering how you'd get Hayden over Smith (both men boosted by one decent innings).

Just looked again at those averages, I seem to remember Martyn and Katich getting a couple of dubious ones where DRS may have saved them. But Katich was never really top class, Martyn on the other hand had a stinker of a series.

 

[Spark]

Khawaja is pretty much the first name on the batting sheet, I was more pondering how you'd get Hayden over Smith (both men boosted by one decent innings).

Just looked again at those averages, I seem to remember Martyn and Katich getting a couple of dubious ones where DRS may have saved them. But Katich was never really top class, Martyn on the other hand had a stinker of a series.

Series average is utterly meaningless over such a small sample size, I couldn't care less about them frankly.

Hayden's innings came at the very end of a series after four Tests of rank failure against Hoggard especially. Smith has already played one decisive match-defining innings in three Tests, the two aren't comparable.

 

[subshakerz]

If Bairstow could catch, England would be 3-0 up and this series done and dusted.

Aus did have a superior spinner, but he's long since gone. Not talking about anywhere else, talking about an Ashes series in England.

Well we already agree that England 2005 would have an edge in my view if playing at home only. Main advantage if Flintoff is ATG form plus Jones being deadly here.

 

[SteveNZ]

I feel like 2005 v 2023 might be like the MJ v LeBron debate. I'm an MJ guy, I remember 2005 being the greatest of all duels between two teams overflowing with world class players who were either at their peak or produced world class moments. But then I look at the averages, and it really doesn't stack up as convincingly as I thought in terms of who performed outstandingly.

2005 has Warne which I think gives it a huge boost, that was god level **** from the King. Maybe that's what tips it. The 2nd Test in 05 had the biggest finish. And maybe it's the egos, the aura that gives 05 more of a glow, too (not that this one doesn't have that, mind you). Plus in 05, there was zero social media. We had nothing but the day's play, the on-field interviews + newspapers. Plus my later to be released Ashes DVD which I wore to a stub, it was that good. Now, you're saturated with highlights, social media feedback, online articles, the works. Maybe that dilutes it.

I started off this post thinking it was night and day, but I'm really not sure it is (next two Tests pending, if England doesn't win the 4th Test that obviously puts a significant spanner in the works)

 

[Spark]

My overwhelming memory of 2005 from an analytic POV was that Australia was consistently and comprehensively outplayed with bat, ball and field for the overwhelming majority of the series. and was constantly bailed out by the ATG series performance to end all ATG series performances by Warne (and not just with the ball! Warne and Lee had to bail Aus out with the bat to somewhere approaching respectability numeroustimes in that series) and the occasional great performance by a few others.

But my overriding feeling watching and listening to that series was that England was the comfortably better team at the time and we were constantly swimming uphill - bear in mind I was still quite young and wasn't a super experienced cricket water so I didn't perhaps appreciate just how historically special that Australian team was on paper. We couldn't deal with Simon Jones and Flintoff with the ball, we were consistently rattled by England's aggression with the bat (much moreso than England have been able to 'rattle' Aus in this series!), and we were indisciplined in the field - that over where McGrath should have had Vaughan twice at OT still haunts me. That Australian certainly didn't look special as a team in that series, it was mostly just Warne and the occasional helper.

This series is different. This has been a genuinely even contest for most of the runthrough, with the only really consistent period of dominance either side has enjoyed being Day 3-4 at Lord's for Australia.

 

[Nas207]

My overwhelming memory of 2005 from an analytic POV was that Australia was consistently and comprehensively outplayed with bat, ball and field for the overwhelming majority of the series and was constantly bailed out by the ATG series performances to end all ATG series performances by Warne (and not just with the ball! Warne and Lee had to bail Aus out with the bat to somewhere approaching respectability numeroustimes in that series) and the occasional great performance by a few others.

But my overriding feeling watching and listening to that series was that England was the comfortably better team at the time and we were constantly swimming uphill - bear in mind I was still quite young and wasn't a super experienced cricket water so I didn't perhaps appreciate just how historically special that Australian team was on paper. We couldn't deal with Simon Jones and Flintoff with the ball and we were consistently rattled by England's aggression with the bat (much moreso than England have been able to 'rattle' Aus in this series!). That Australian certainly didn't look special as a team in that series, it was mostly just Warne and the occasional helper.

This series is different. This has been a genuinely even contest for most of the runthrough, with the only really consistent period of dominance either side has enjoyed being Day 3-4 at Lord's for Australia.

Yeah, as an England fan my memory is it was far and a way the highest level of cricket i have ever witnessed from an England side (before or since). Australia was an ATG side in decline who managed to stay competitive thanks to several insane individual performances.

This current England side is nowhere near that quality, but they do have a very aggressive style which makes for entertaining games obviously.

 

[Adders]

Yeah, as an England fan my memory is it was far and a way the highest level of cricket i have ever witnessed from an England side (before or since). Australia was an ATG side in decline who managed to stay competitive thanks to several insane individual performances.

This current England side is nowhere near that quality, but they do have a very aggressive style which makes for entertaining games obviously.

2010/11 side was better imo.

There has been some really sloppy cricket played by both sides in the these 3 tests IMO. I think whichever side ends up losing they are going to kick themselves and see it as a series they could/should have won.

But if the final scoreline reads 3-2 with the last 2 tests going down to the wire....it's gonna be hard not to rate this as one of if not the greatest Ashes series. Even if the quality of cricket hasn't always been all that.

 

[Nas207]

2010/11 side was better imo.

There has been some really sloppy cricket played by both sides in the these 3 tests IMO. I think whichever side ends up losing they are going to kick themselves and see it as a series they could/should have won.

But if the final scoreline reads 3-2 with the last 2 tests going down to the wire....it's gonna be hard not to rate this as one of if not the greatest Ashes series. Even if the quality of cricket hasn't always been all that.

Overall perhaps but i still think during that 05 series the quality was higher, particularly the bowling.

 

[Molehill]

My overwhelming memory of 2005 from an analytic POV was that Australia was consistently and comprehensively outplayed with bat, ball and field for the overwhelming majority of the series. and was constantly bailed out by the ATG series performance to end all ATG series performances by Warne (and not just with the ball! Warne and Lee had to bail Aus out with the bat to somewhere approaching respectability numeroustimes in that series) and the occasional great performance by a few others.

But my overriding feeling watching and listening to that series was that England was the comfortably better team at the time and we were constantly swimming uphill - bear in mind I was still quite young and wasn't a super experienced cricket water so I didn't perhaps appreciate just how historically special that Australian team was on paper. We couldn't deal with Simon Jones and Flintoff with the ball, we were consistently rattled by England's aggression with the bat (much moreso than England have been able to 'rattle' Aus in this series!), and we were indisciplined in the field - that over where McGrath should have had Vaughan twice at OT still haunts me. That Australian certainly didn't look special as a team in that series, it was mostly just Warne and the occasional helper.

This series is different. This has been a genuinely even contest for most of the runthrough, with the only really consistent period of dominance either side has enjoyed being Day 3-4 at Lord's for Australia.

The one thing I'd say to that is that it was largely the same Australian team that played the 2006/07 series that whitewashed England (yes we had a lot of issues in that series, but it still showed how good that Aussie team was). Warne always said that in 2005 the key was the 4 English seamers, there was simply no let up and they kept on coming at them. It was still a seriously high quality Aussie team, they just had no answer to the English seamers. And I have no doubt that the 2023 Aussie team would suffer a similar fate.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah, as an England fan my memory is it was far and a way the highest level of cricket i have ever witnessed from an England side (before or since). Australia was an ATG side in decline who managed to stay competitive thanks to several insane individual performances.

This current England side is nowhere near that quality, but they do have a very aggressive style which makes for entertaining games obviously.

Highest level of cricket by England was in Australia in 2010. Any England team can dream of three innings victories in Australia. We can wait another century for that to happen.

 

[Nas207]

Highest level of cricket by England was in Australia in 2010. Any England team can dream of three innings victories in Australia. We can wait another century for that to happen.

Very likely. I was only able to watch parts of that series due to personal situation at the time so i am biased. My memory of it is poor.

My main point is its hard to know the quality of cricket through stats. Nothing beats the eye test

 

[SteveNZ]

My overwhelming memory of 2005 from an analytic POV was that Australia was consistently and comprehensively outplayed with bat, ball and field for the overwhelming majority of the series. and was constantly bailed out by the ATG series performance to end all ATG series performances by Warne (and not just with the ball! Warne and Lee had to bail Aus out with the bat to somewhere approaching respectability numeroustimes in that series) and the occasional great performance by a few others.

But my overriding feeling watching and listening to that series was that England was the comfortably better team at the time and we were constantly swimming uphill - bear in mind I was still quite young and wasn't a super experienced cricket water so I didn't perhaps appreciate just how historically special that Australian team was on paper. We couldn't deal with Simon Jones and Flintoff with the ball, we were consistently rattled by England's aggression with the bat (much moreso than England have been able to 'rattle' Aus in this series!), and we were indisciplined in the field - that over where McGrath should have had Vaughan twice at OT still haunts me. That Australian certainly didn't look special as a team in that series, it was mostly just Warne and the occasional helper.

This series is different. This has been a genuinely even contest for most of the runthrough, with the only really consistent period of dominance either side has enjoyed being Day 3-4 at Lord's for Australia.

That's interesting, because the narrative at the time was that England only got a sniff because of the two Tests McGrath didn't play (Edgbaston and Trent Bridge) they won both. But in reflection, what you're saying stands up. England had 3 guys average over 40 with the bat and 3 guys average under 30 with the ball. Australia had 1 over 40 with the bat and two under 40 with the ball (Warne 19, McGrath 23).

But there were so many moments, as there has been in this series. Maybe that's what makes cricket more than averages does. The dropped catches (Warne at The Oval, Bairstow ad nauseum, Root x a lot, Stokes off Lyon in the first Test), the no ball wickets, the controversial run outs (Bairstow, Ponting run out by Gary Pratt), injury dramas (McGrath, Wood not playing Tests 1 or 2)...it's just insanely intriguing.

 

[SteveNZ]

Very likely. I was only able to watch parts of that series due to personal situation at the time so i am biased. My memory of it is poor.

My main point is its hard to know the quality of cricket through stats. Nothing beats the eye test

This should be in the sign-on email for this forum. Great call

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Yeah moments are what sport is basically all about.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Also story arcs. Five tests means you get a lot of them, whereas with 2-test series you don't get anything good.

 

[Nas207]

Also story arcs. Five tests means you get a lot of them, whereas with 2-test series you don't get anything good.

Should go all out and have a 9 test series

 

[Molehill]

Should go all out and have a 9 test series

If we did that in Australia, England could use upwards of 50 players!!

 

[GIMH]

Seriously, how is anyone considering the current form of Bairstow over Jones? Jones may have dropped a couple in 2005, but at no point did he cause us to lose a Test we should have won. Bairstow already has two of those on his CV and was lucky it wasn't three. Their batting averages are currently pretty similar and as experience shows, Bairstow as a keeper is unlikely to improve his much either (something else which is frankly bewildering with his ongoing selection, it's not like there isn't previous for his batting being poor when keeping). I'm struggling to decide between Giles/Mo.

Strauss
Trescothick
Root
KP
Stokes
Flintoff
Jones
Moeen/Giles
Wood
Broad
Jones

The consequence of the drops is as much about the team as it is the person who drops them. That’s the big flaw in your reasoning. I’m not going through counting them but the numbers are similar as are the batting outputs. I stand by Bairstow having the higher ceiling and would pick him of the two.

 

[Uppercut]

2010 England’s pace bowling maybe wasn’t quite at 2005 levels, though it was still very good. Spin bowling, batting, fielding, and general discipline were all miles better.

 

[subshakerz]

My overwhelming memory of 2005 from an analytic POV was that Australia was consistently and comprehensively outplayed with bat, ball and field for the overwhelming majority of the series. and was constantly bailed out by the ATG series performance to end all ATG series performances by Warne (and not just with the ball! Warne and Lee had to bail Aus out with the bat to somewhere approaching respectability numeroustimes in that series) and the occasional great performance by a few others.

But my overriding feeling watching and listening to that series was that England was the comfortably better team at the time and we were constantly swimming uphill - bear in mind I was still quite young and wasn't a super experienced cricket water so I didn't perhaps appreciate just how historically special that Australian team was on paper. We couldn't deal with Simon Jones and Flintoff with the ball, we were consistently rattled by England's aggression with the bat (much moreso than England have been able to 'rattle' Aus in this series!), and we were indisciplined in the field - that over where McGrath should have had Vaughan twice at OT still haunts me. That Australian certainly didn't look special as a team in that series, it was mostly just Warne and the occasional helper.

This series is different. This has been a genuinely even contest for most of the runthrough, with the only really consistent period of dominance either side has enjoyed being Day 3-4 at Lord's for Australia.

Without a fit McGrath, Australia were outplayed by England for the majority of the series, until Warne brought them back in the game towards the end.

So yes this series has definitely been more competitive than 2005.