How will this series measure up to Ashes 2005?

[subshakerz]

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.

I think it shows how dependent Australia were on McWarne to maintain their dominance.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

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.

All started by Ducan Fletcher and Nasser Hussain who dragged us up from our lowest ebb and built a team that Vaughan could take high then Flower and Strauss took things to greater heights later. For all the plaudits Vaughan and Strauss got we can't forget the role of Nasser at the beginning.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I think it shows how dependent Australia were on McWarne to maintain their dominance.

I always think the sudden rapid decline of Gillespie hurt them harder than they ever realised.

 

[Ali TT]

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

Quite. You end up with New Zealand becoming World Test Champions

 

[Ali TT]

I always think the sudden rapid decline of Gillespie hurt them harder than they ever realised.

The good thing about that Summer is how the T20I, one day triangular and bilateral series before the tests all set the scene for it. KP annihilating Gillespie and Kaspo in Bristol exposed a huge weakness in the Aussie attack ahead of the test matches, removing any sense of fear his teammates had.

 

[SteveNZ]

The good thing about that Summer is how the T20I, one day triangular and bilateral series before the tests all set the scene for it. KP annihilating Gillespie and Kaspo in Bristol exposed a huge weakness in the Aussie attack ahead of the test matches, removing any sense of fear his teammates had.

Interesting take, given they got thumped in the first Test and were a deflected glove away from 2-0 down. I think that might be a bit overstated to say any fear was removed.

 

[wpdavid]

Interesting take, given they got thumped in the first Test and were a deflected glove away from 2-0 down. I think that might be a bit overstated to say any fear was removed.

With respect, I think you're understating what happened in most of the second test. 400 runs on Day 1 was testament to some sort of mental shift, as was the dismantling of the Australian batting in the whole of their first innings and most of their second innings. Yes, England very nearly choked during the final session of the game, but prior to that they had dominated Australia for most of the previous three days. Even allowing for McGrath's absence, something had shifted.

 

[Vincent]

Pommies won that series only due to umpiring howlers and ball tampering. McGrath stepping on the ball wasn't much of an issue.

 

[Adders]

Are you from Spain by any chance Vincent?

 

[Vincent]

Are you from Spain by any chance Vincent?

If Murray Mints are available there as well, then sure.

 

[GIMH]

Pommies won that series only due to umpiring howlers and ball tampering. McGrath stepping on the ball wasn't much of an issue.

Amazing how Aussies have collective amnesia on the decisions that went their way during that series.

No rules were broken by our treatment of the ball. FACT sucka

 

[SteveNZ]

Pommies won that series only due to umpiring howlers and ball tampering. McGrath stepping on the ball wasn't much of an issue.

I'm currently reading Steve Smith's Men, you might want to pick up a copy.

Anyone who thinks ball tampering has only happened in the times people have got caught (Atherton, Smith/Warner/Bancroft, du Plessis, Murray mints, Chris Pringle 1990 et al) are naive to say the least. The ones who got caught were too reckless, the ones who didn't do it were the outliers. Then Australia were stupid enough to go with a plan hatched by Warner when he was taking his family to Bunnings for a sausage.

Hell, I once played with an international (played a lot of Test and ODI cricket) who completely swapped a ball in the break of a senior club game, for one he'd doctored at home. I also know that fingernails and foreign substances are rife in FC cricket away from cameras.

And which umpiring howlers? I'd suggest McGrath stepping on a ball was a major issue, given he averaged 23 in the series, next best was Brett Lee at 41,and Australia lost that Test by 2 runs.

 

[SteveNZ]

With respect, I think you're understating what happened in most of the second test. 400 runs on Day 1 was testament to some sort of mental shift, as was the dismantling of the Australian batting in the whole of their first innings and most of their second innings. Yes, England very nearly choked during the final session of the game, but prior to that they had dominated Australia for most of the previous three days. Even allowing for McGrath's absence, something had shifted.

I just think it's a bit sloppy to suggest England's fear was removed before the first Test. They were incredibly jumpy with the bat at Lord's, and scored 182 to back up a 100-run first innings lead at Edgbaston. The 3rd innings is often where fear is shown (god knows I know it as a NZ fan who formed a decade out of **** 3rd innings efforts) and England pooed themselves with indecision against Warne and Lee. They had semi-choked well before the final day.

I feel like if I went on Mastermind, the 2005 Ashes would be my subject. I can still watch youtube videos and be gripped by what went on (this is not to suggest I know it all and don't challenge my opinion, FYI)

 

[Ali TT]

Interesting take, given they got thumped in the first Test and were a deflected glove away from 2-0 down. I think that might be a bit overstated to say any fear was removed.

I just think it's a bit sloppy to suggest England's fear was removed before the first Test. They were incredibly jumpy with the bat at Lord's, and scored 182 to back up a 100-run first innings lead at Edgbaston. The 3rd innings is often where fear is shown (god knows I know it as a NZ fan who formed a decade out of **** 3rd innings efforts) and England pooed themselves with indecision against Warne and Lee. They had semi-choked well before the final day.

I feel like if I went on Mastermind, the 2005 Ashes would be my subject. I can still watch youtube videos and be gripped by what went on (this is not to suggest I know it all and don't challenge my opinion, FYI)

Ok, maybe removing all fear was a bit hyperbolic but KP's innings did expose that the Aussie bowling depth was weak, something England went on to exploit through the test series.

England might well have lost the series had McGrath watched his step, but he didn't and they won, and that's what history records.

 

[SteveNZ]

Ok, maybe removing all fear was a bit hyperbolic but KP's innings did expose that the Aussie bowling depth was weak, something England went on to exploit through the test series.

England might well have lost the series had McGrath watched his step, but he didn't and they won, and that's what history records.

This I all agree with 100%. Gillespie Kasper especially exposed as cannon fodder, and even Lee (although he had his moments) wasn't seen as someone to be feared.

And yeah, revisionist history is a waste of time. England won. Magnificently

 

[Ali TT]

This I all agree with 100%. Gillespie Kasper especially exposed as cannon fodder, and even Lee (although he had his moments) wasn't seen as someone to be feared.

And yeah, revisionist history is a waste of time. England won. Magnificently

Plus it's very rare that sides play the same XI over a five test and injuries are part of the game.

I'd add that it's worth remembering that Ponting could've mitigated the loss of McGrath by batting first that morning but the recent Birmingham tornado had messed with his brain. So while the injury to McGrath was bad luck (albeit due to their careless preparation), putting England in to smash them all round Egblaston was their own failure

 

[Anil]

I'd suggest McGrath stepping on a ball was a major issue, given he averaged 23 in the series, next best was Brett Lee at 41,and Australia lost that Test by 2 runs.

Yes, if McGrath hadn't tripped on a cricket ball early in the series, Australia would have won the Ashes in spite of all of Flintoff's considerable heroics...

 

[SteveNZ]

Yes, if McGrath hadn't tripped on a cricket ball early in the series, Australia would have won the Ashes in spite of all of Flintoff's considerable heroics...

At no time did I say that old gun. Kasper actually went ok with the ball in the first innings, and scored 20 in the fourth that McGrath likely wouldn't have. So I'm not saying Australia win with McGrath. But when you lose a guy of McGrath stature and you lose by 2 runs, it's fair to say it's impactful.

 

[Anil]

At no time did I say that old gun. Kasper actually went ok with the ball in the first innings, and scored 20 in the fourth that McGrath likely wouldn't have. So I'm not saying Australia win with McGrath. But when you lose a guy of McGrath stature and you lose by 2 runs, it's fair to say it's impactful.

Sorry I meant I am saying it. I don’t think that Kasper, as decently as he bowled was anywhere near as impactful as McGrath would have been and his absence was absolutely the difference between a win and a narrow loss in the 2nd test and overall in the series as well. That was my opinion at the time and I still stand by it while acknowledging a terrific effort from Flintoff and an impressive fight back by England. End of the day, you can only play the team in front of you and England did that very well but McGrath’s injury was the leveler (and I know Warne was also terrific in that series) that allowed them to come back and win.

 

[GIMH]

This I all agree with 100%. Gillespie Kasper especially exposed as cannon fodder, and even Lee (although he had his moments) wasn't seen as someone to be feared.

And yeah, revisionist history is a waste of time. England won. Magnificently

Was a strange series for Lee. I found him threatening as a fan, at times. You look back, the numbers don’t paint a good picture. And there were obviously times he got tap. But I always had a sense of fear when he ran in.