How will this series measure up to Ashes 2005?

[Adders]

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.

So what?.......what point are you trying to make here? They did beat an ATG side.

The point your missing is that the side was a squad of 15 not the best 11. Nathan Lyon and Leach are huge losses for their teams in this current series......if the back up options prove to be lacking then that's the game. Arguing what if is just futile and irrelevant.

 

[Molehill]

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.

You're completely ignoring the Kaspro lbw when over 50 were needed that DRS would also have overturned. It wouldn't have even been close if Silly Billy had given that out.

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.

McGrath missed 4 innings during the series. You seem to have forgotten that England's best Jones also missed 3.

 

[trundler]

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.

You're saying a one series wonder like Jones (without the aid of Murray mints) is equal to McGrath? Ffs

 

[Adders]

You're saying a one series wonder like Jones (without the aid of Murray mints) is equal to McGrath? Ffs

Where exactly did I say that?

 

[subshakerz]

You're completely ignoring the Kaspro lbw when over 50 were needed that DRS would also have overturned. It wouldn't have even been close if Silly Billy had given that out.



McGrath missed 4 innings during the series. You seem to have forgotten that England's best Jones also missed 3.

He was not fully fit except Lord even when he played.

 

[subshakerz]

So what?.......what point are you trying to make here? They did beat an ATG side.

The point your missing is that the side was a squad of 15 not the best 11. Nathan Lyon and Leach are huge losses for their teams in this current series......if the back up options prove to be lacking then that's the game. Arguing what if is just futile and irrelevant.

Point is England 2005 were a very good but not great side.

 

[Molehill]

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.

Steve, as our resident 2005 expert (I probably watched 95% of balls bowled but you're impartial), could you confirm how many runs were still needed when Kaspro was given not out lbw by Bowden (would've been overturned on DRS). My memory says it was about 56 but could be wrong.

 

[Molehill]

Point is England 2005 were a very good but not great side.

And you still think this 2023 side, with a walking wicket for an opener, an ineffective 3rd seamer, no spinner and a misfiring middle order would beat England 2005?

 

[Qlder]

What I remember from 2005 is that Vaughan said something like England had to play out of their skins and Australia had to have really bad days for England to win

....and the stars aligned

This series is not like that

 

[Molehill]

What I remember from 2005 is that Vaughan said something like England had to play out of their skins and Australia had to have really bad days for England to win

....and the stars aligned

This series is not like that

Australia 2005 were head and shoulders the best team in the world. When they got beaten (can only really think of India or England) it took some outstanding performances to do so.

Australia 2023 is theoretically the best team in the world, but there's precious little between about 4 teams. It doesn't need stars to align for them to get beaten, to be honest, it just needs a keeper who can catch!!

 

[Vincent]

You're completely ignoring the Kaspro lbw when over 50 were needed that DRS would also have overturned. It wouldn't have even been close if Silly Billy had given that out.

Would you mind sharing that clip? Also, there were more wrong decisions given which favoured pommies in the Trent Bridge.

 

[wpdavid]

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.

There's definitely something in this, so please don't think I'm trashing your point for the sake of it. Just exploring the conversation really. Looking back, it absolutely makes sense that they saw Edgbaston Day 1 as something they couild take advantage of. No McGrath, and only a first day pitch in Birmingham for Warne. Especially the openers, who set about all four of the Australian bowlers in a way that we hadn't seen before, whereas KP and Flintoff batted like they always did. I still think there was a mental dynamic that we wouldn't have seen in previous series even when McGrath was absent, which must have happened occasionally.

I find the whole 'fear' factor quite interesting. The thought I'm trying to articulate (maybe not very well) is that McGrath's dominance was not because they feared him, it was simply because there were days when he was far too good for them. Obviously they had massive respect for him and knew what he was capable of, but I don't think it was primarily a mental thing. Look back to England's first innings in the previous two home Ashes series, and we didn't find ourselves 20 for 5, or whatever it was at Lord's in 2005. With Warne, on the other hand, I think there was a mental thing as well as the fact that he was an ATG bowler. Maybe because we have generally been hopeless against leg spin because we hardly ever come across it. Maybe it all goes back to his impact in 1993 with the ball of the century and all that. I don't know. Maybe it's simply that Warne was a genius. But when I look at days when the pressure got too much for England's batsmen against Warne (the third innings at Edgbaston, the fourth innings at Trent Bridge, the first innings at The Oval and, next time around, their second innings at Adelaide of course), the capitulation felt like it was above and beyond the quality of what they were facing.

I have no idea how much of that makes sense. Just thinking aloud and enjoying the exchange of ideas.

 

[Whistler]

I think people have sort of missed the point of what makes a great cricket series. It’s not necessarily about who had the greatest players in which era etc. It’s more to do with thrilling and exciting cricket that is played by the cricketers that each nation puts up at the time. The 2023 England team may not have the traditional skills that the 2005 team had but they are playing their own brand of cricket. Australia are putting up the best players they can and are probably only second-best to India in the last 5 year cycle. The result is a close and exciting series. No team has ever come from 2-0 behind to win an Ashes series, which in itself makes this Ashes just as enthralling as 2005.

 

[sledger]

I think people have sort of missed the point of what makes a great cricket series. It’s not necessarily who had the greatest players in which era etc. It’s more to do with thrilling and exciting cricket that is played by the crickets that each nation puts up at the time. The 2023 England team may not have the traditional skills that the 2005 team had but they are playing their own brand of cricket. Australia are putting up the best players they can and are probably only second-best to India in the last 5 year cycle. The result is a close and exciting series. No team has ever come from 2-0 behind to win an Ashes series, which in itself makes this Ashes just as enthralling as 2005.

Don't worry, it's being deliberately missed so that whinging can be done.

But but but England wouldn't have won if they hadn't...er....won. Waaah.

 

[wpdavid]

I think people have sort of missed the point of what makes a great cricket series. It’s not necessarily who had the greatest players in which era etc. It’s more to do with thrilling and exciting cricket that is played by the crickets that each nation puts up at the time. The 2023 England team may not have the traditional skills that the 2005 team had but they are playing their own brand of cricket. Australia are putting up the best players they can and are probably only second-best to India in the last 5 year cycle. The result is a close and exciting series. No team has ever come from 2-0 behind to win an Ashes series, which in itself makes this Ashes just as enthralling as 2005.

Plus it is an article of faith for those of us who remember the 2005 series that it's the greatest ever, of course. As for this summer, England need to make it 2-2 at Old Trafford to make it an ATG series. If Aus win at OT, yes it's been entertaining (not that I was entertained by England's wastefulness in the first two tests, but maybe that's my problem), but it would just feel like one of those 1990s series to me.

 

[Molehill]

Would you mind sharing that clip? Also, there were more wrong decisions given which favoured pommies in the Trent Bridge.

Have a look at 51 mins, should clear it up for you.

LIVE 2005 Ashes Archive Classic! | Edgbaston Final Day | #AshesRewind - YouTube

I like how Holding even says "Billy hasn't had the best of matches". His biggest mistake was still to come.....

There's also a thread from here outlining all the errors from the series.
2005 series - Umpiring error tally | CricketWeb Forum

 

[Molehill]

I think people have sort of missed the point of what makes a great cricket series. It’s not necessarily about who had the greatest players in which era etc. It’s more to do with thrilling and exciting cricket that is played by the cricketers that each nation puts up at the time. The 2023 England team may not have the traditional skills that the 2005 team had but they are playing their own brand of cricket. Australia are putting up the best players they can and are probably only second-best to India in the last 5 year cycle. The result is a close and exciting series. No team has ever come from 2-0 behind to win an Ashes series, which in itself makes this Ashes just as enthralling as 2005.

Have a look at 1936-37.

I think most of us are arguing the somewhat bizarre point originally made by Subshakerz that 2023 Aus beats 2005 England.

 

[Whistler]

Have a look at 1936-37.

I think most of us are arguing the somewhat bizarre point originally made by Subshakerz that 2023 Aus beats 2005 England.

I stand corrected. 1936-37 Ashes sounds like it was a belter too!

 

[wpdavid]

A propos of nothing, McGrath's record at Lord's really is obscenely good. I remembered 1997 and 2005 but 2001 had got lost in the general crappiness of that series. Sure enough, there's another 5 for bugger all in the first innings. So much for the idea that visiting bowlers struggled with the slope.

 

[wpdavid]

I stand corrected. 1936-37 Ashes sounds like it was a belter too!

Trust me, it was rubbish. I remember it well.