How will this series measure up to Ashes 2005?

[Vincent]

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

Well, the real fact is that if there were no umpiring howlers and on one was allowed to cheat, pommies wouldn't have won 2005, 2019 ashes and 2019 WC.

 

[GIMH]

Nope, not a fact and is entirely speculative

 

[Vincent]

Nope, not a fact and is entirely speculative

It's entirely true.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Well, the real fact is that if there were no umpiring howlers and on one was allowed to cheat, pommies wouldn't have won 2005, 2019 ashes and 2019 WC.

???
Poms won the 2005 Ashes, but drew/tied both in 2019

 

[Vincent]

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.

2nd test edgbaston
KP gloved his first ball - a quick rib-tickler from Brett Lee - through to Adam Gilchrist. Australia would have reviewed and England would have been 20 runs lighter. Simon Jones was later stone-dead to a Lee full toss, and England only added two more runs.

Aussies are innocent. Even sandpaper didn't change the condition of the ball. So, ball tampering has only been done by non-aussies.

 

[Vincent]

???
Poms won the 2005 Ashes, but drew/tied both in 2019

Stokes was out in Headingley, but wasn't given.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

You're supposed to ease into the trolling, it makes it less obvious.

 

[SteveNZ]

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.

Yeah, I mean that's entirely possible. McGrath was insane at Lord's, and certainly him not being there was not only a boost for England not having to face him, but would have given them confidence as well in terms of a maybe this is the moment sort of thing. Maybe England win, maybe they don't if he plays, and I guess the mystery and inability to prove that either way is what keeps message boards like this one firing.

 

[Vincent]

You're supposed to ease into the trolling, it makes it less obvious.

It's not a hickey.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Stokes was out in Headingley, but wasn't given.

I thought you meant the series

 

[SteveNZ]

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.

Completely agree. This is another situation where you can't look at his series average and say wickets at 41, he was ineffective. The old cricinfo trap. He took big wickets at vital times, and taking 1-180 at The Oval I think unfairly stains what he did in that series. Great at Lord's, big in the 2nd dig at Edgbaston with Warne, threatened to embarrass England chasing 130 in the 4th Test and also shouldered the load with Warne at Old Trafford. Also worth remembering he had the big scalp of KP at the Oval, only for Warne to do the only thing he'd done wrong all series (if you ignore hooking out on 90, or standing on his stumps in the Edgbaston chase). Plus Lee scored vital runs at times, too. Edgbaston should've been an epic match winner.

 

[Vincent]

I thought you meant the series

If they lose that test, they lose the series by 3-1.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

McGrath's absence is why it shifted. It's why Vaughn was smiling at the toss when Ponting decided to bowl.

Yeah, I mean that's entirely possible. McGrath was insane at Lord's, and certainly him not being there was not only a boost for England not having to face him, but would have given them confidence as well in terms of a maybe this is the moment sort of thing. Maybe England win, maybe they don't if he plays, and I guess the mystery and inability to prove that either way is what keeps message boards like this one firing.

There is no mystery. It's blindingly obvious they lose. They barely beat Australia without a fit McGrath. A fit McGrath over a 5 match series is not going to make it easier to beat Australia.

 

[wpdavid]

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)

Yes, I agree with that actually, and that Ali over-stated things with that initial observation. But looking at recent posts, that's been sorted anyway. Also your comments about our 2nd innings at Edgbaston are spot on. It occurred to me after posting last night that the one situation where the fear had absolutely not been removed was when Warne was involved, whether that was with ball or bat. Our brains just seemed to turn to blancmange whenever he turned up to one side of the crease or the other.

 

[wpdavid]

McGrath's absence is why it shifted. It's why Vaughan was smiling at the toss when Ponting decided to bowl.

Obviously that's a huge factor, but I don't reckon it fully explains 407 in 80 overs on Day 1. Gillespie, Lee, Kasper and Warne were hardly pie-chuckers.

 

[subshakerz]

Obviously that's a huge factor, but I don't reckon it fully explains 407 in 80 overs on Day 1. Gillespie, Lee, Kasper and Warne were hardly pie-chuckers.

McGrath, moreso than Warne, had a mental hold on England for the past four series until that points and continuing into the Lord's test. It's no surprise that they responded to his absence with cutting loose.

 

[Adders]

McGrath's absence is why it shifted. It's why Vaughn was smiling at the toss when Ponting decided to bowl.



There is no mystery. It's blindingly obvious they lose. They barely beat Australia without a fit McGrath. A fit McGrath over a 5 match series is not going to make it easier to beat Australia.

I'm failing to understand why this is even a discussion? So what? A test series.....especially a test series is about the squads strength not the best 11. I have never once heard anyone say if we'd have had simon Jones, Michael Vaughan and Trescothick in 06/07 the series would have looked different......they were major omissions for Eng.

It's a nonsense discussion ffs.

 

[morgieb]

Who's sock is Vincent? His posting so far makes him sound way too knowledgeable about certain CW memes.

 

[OverratedSanity]

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.

It's a factor for sure but England also had the upper hand on Australia at Old Trafford. I think they lost a lot of time to rain so fair to say with a bit more weather luck they win that one comfortably. England weren't the only ones that got the good fortune .

 

[subshakerz]

I'm failing to understand why this is even a discussion? So what? A test series.....especially a test series is about the squads strength not the best 11. I have never once heard anyone say if we'd have had simon Jones, Michael Vaughan and Trescothick in 06/07 the series would have looked different......they were major omissions for Eng.

It's a nonsense discussion ffs.

Because in this thread the 2005 England side is made to seem bigger than they really are under the assumption that they beat an ATG Australia side. Except without their most important bowler, that ATG side wasn't nearly as great, and with him, the gulf between the two sides was quite wide.