centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
A couple of other forecasts not as bad as the ones I saw originally. We can probably expect 3-3.5 days of play I suppose.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
How will this series measure up to Ashes 2005?
- Thread starter subshakerz
- Start date
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
Anderson will replace Robinson
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
They were called a great team earlier in this thread. Responses are to that framing.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
I think his point was that McGrath played at OT.
Yeah but he was definitely not 100% and by then the momentum had swung quite clearly in England’s favor…anyway no point re-litigating what happened 18 years ago. England were the better side in the last 4 tests, simple as that.
Not sure they were. Someone said the 2005 series was played between two extremely good sides. Don't think anyone claimed the England side was ATG (although it could be argued by England's own standards it would rank as one of our greatest).
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
They were exceptionally lucky like in 2019 and 2022.
If it really burns folks up inside so much whenever England win something, let the fortune rain down. World cup final this year, Hardik needs to hit a six off Woakes's last back to win the tournament. And he does it... but hold on, the ball hits a passing pigeon and the deflection sees the ball land inches short of the rope and trickle over for four. England win by one run!
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
A deep anti-English insecurity sits in many. It is barefaced and laughable.
It's not England winning but more like the legendary status that 2005 side has achieved. It was a great test series, but that's about it.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
It meant more than that to us, and that’s all that matters really
Not sure thats true. People are saying it was an ATG performance in that series, and they wouldve beaten either team in this series handily. Not sure what's hard to understand here. We are comparing the level of cricket in that ashes series and the current one, nothing else.
Its hard for non-english fans to understand the importance. To this day when you meet a fan its like 50% they became one due to that series. It took cricket mainstream when for the previous decades it had been progressively losing popularity and basically dying a slow death.
Not so much the side but the series, but then it's impossible to see the two separately. It'll probably remain the most iconic sporting moment of my lifetime and, I suspect, for many English cricket fans of my generation. I am sure you have your own, and I won't begrudge you them.
Victor Ian
International Coach
Why can't anyone accept that England in 2005 had a great bowling attack. They had 4 very capable seamers all bowling well at the same time. That is what makes a great team that regularly wins. Then you just need capable batsmen to give the bowlers something defendable. England had that. If you get great batsman, well, then you get and ATG team. Australia was ATG, but their batsmen were old and wrinkly by then, and Gillespie had passed his expiry date and went lumpy very quickly.
Both the current teams fail on the 4 performing bowlers front, and batsmen are misfiring all over the place. 2005 England would smash the current teams, on performance. If Australia rocked up with 'Smith' and not Gerry Warner and Labu not having lost it, and if our 3rd & 4th bowler could be something ok, then maybe they could make a good fist of it. But, 2005 England takes it on relentless bowling.
That's my take
Both the current teams fail on the 4 performing bowlers front, and batsmen are misfiring all over the place. 2005 England would smash the current teams, on performance. If Australia rocked up with 'Smith' and not Gerry Warner and Labu not having lost it, and if our 3rd & 4th bowler could be something ok, then maybe they could make a good fist of it. But, 2005 England takes it on relentless bowling.
That's my take
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
I think there is a difference between a great attack and an attack in great form. As good as that England side were, you tend to typically expect them to have more longevity to achieve greatness either individually or collectively.
But England 2005 had going for them was a very talented attack all in great form at the same time. Even Giles had his moments and when they replaced Jones with a batter, Collingwood could still bowl the odd tidy spell and keep the batsmen honest.
Victor Ian
International Coach
Nah. You are starting to try and define what comes after ATG. Call it what you want...great, atvg, couldabeen, whatever. It is such a fat grouping it doesn't matter.
But you got what I meant. At that moment, they were as potent as Australia (minus half a McGrath and 1 gillespie)
But you got what I meant. At that moment, they were as potent as Australia (minus half a McGrath and 1 gillespie)
Molehill
Cricketer Of The Year
Martyn also got an unplayable delivery from Giles, which was perhaps his most unluckiest moment!!
Bijed
International Regular
I don't remember the inside edge ones with Katich (not denying them, mind), but I definitely recall him being given LBW to one that had pitched outside leg and was going way over.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
You can't be ATG for just a single series.
And I think the current side would give the 2005 team a good contest. They are good at punching above their weight.
Last edited:
flibbertyjibber
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Harbhajan was