Was 2-2 a fair result?

[Prince EWS]

England were definitely the better team in the conditions across the series. An away side getting outplayed but clinging on for a draw is always pretty honourable though.

 

[Charger Salmons]

A moment of poor sportsmanship changed the whole momentum of the series.
If my kids had done what Carey did I'd have kicked their arses into Cow Corner, legal or not.
The Barmy Army helped win at least one test with their mental disintegration of Australia.
I like to think even the most gormless of their players might have wondered why the Long Room Coffin Dodgers were roused from their catatonic state into such anger.
But that apart ( and be honest here the only reason Warner is still in the team and dictating his retirement terms is because he knows who else knew about Sandpapergate ) I thought the draw a fair result.
Both teams played wonderfully and crap in the same innings.
And we didn't lose the Ashes.
That is all that matters.
Except winning them of course.

Sir Charger Salmons ( OBE, STD, Private in the Barmy Army )

Marvellous.

 

[Ali TT]

A 2-2 draw after a five test series is about as fair as you can get in cricket.

It's not like a 2-test one where one side wins by 250+ runs in one match while the other sneaks home by the tiniest of margins in the second.

 

[Slifer]

No. England would've won 3-2 but for weather afaic. And I'm a neutral when it comes to these teams.

 

[subshakerz]

No. England would've won 3-2 but for weather afaic. And I'm a neutral when it comes to these teams.

I think England knew rain was coming beforehand the last two days. It's not like it suddenly came and snatched a victory away. That meant they had a small window of time to seal the victory and credit to Labu who repelled England. So perhaps the draw was fair.

 

[Slifer]

I think England knew rain was coming beforehand the last two days. It's not like it suddenly came and snatched a victory away. That meant they had a small window of time to seal the victory and credit to Labu who repelled England. So perhaps the draw was fair.

Assuming the match was unaffected by rain, then England are very likely winners. Therefore, England would've won the series 3-2.

 

[honestbharani]

Yes

 

[Victor Ian]

Assuming the match was unaffected by rain, then England are very likely winners. Therefore, England would've won the series 3-2.

This is bad logic. The rain very likely turned a win into a loss for Australia in the last test. No rain and Khawaja and Warner have likely tonned up on the fourth day. No rain and that ****ing ball was bashed around before it started seaming in the morning conditions and was being bowled with by tired bowlers at end of day. No rain and smith and head kept batting after they got in, rather than restarting and partaking in a collapse.

But most importantly...wickets only fell when I was not watching. No rain on day 5 and I didn't fall asleep and smith or head saw it home with a century. The drawn series is mostly my fault, actually.

 

[subshakerz]

This is bad logic. The rain very likely turned a win into a loss for Australia in the last test. No rain and Khawaja and Warner have likely tonned up on the fourth day. No rain and that ****ing ball was bashed around before it started seaming in the morning conditions and was being bowled with by tired bowlers at end of day. No rain and smith and head kept batting after they got in, rather than restarting and partaking in a collapse.

But most importantly...wickets only fell when I was not watching. No rain on day 5 and I didn't fall asleep and smith or head saw it home with a century. The drawn series is mostly my fault, actually.

Australia were still a long way away in the last test even if rain didn't interfere.

Whereas in the fourth test, England seemed to have it in the bag.

However, as I mentioned, it doesn't feel much like England were robbed though, since we all knew in advance rain was affecting 4th and 5th day in the 4th test, and they had to take advantage of the opportunity of the window of play to run through Australia, but Labu stopped them.

 

[Spofforth]

If you take the rain out of the equation, and England play inches better earlier in the series it's an easy 4-1 win.
Ancient history now but overall England were the better team and 2-2 seems flattering for the Aussies.

If that's how you see it, the Aussies picked a team and strategy for the weather/draw in match 4. Being so negative about it backfired, but without that forecast it's a different kettle of fish. Aus only needed to be inches better in the previous match and it would have been 3-0 at that stage anyway.

... "if your aunty had balls she'd be your uncle" sums up the "if only" stuff.

 

[G. S. Kohli]

"Rain God"insult the Great Quality game of cricket so series ends 2/2 otherwise eng win 3/2

 

[Ashes81]

I think if the Aussies had won 3-1 it wouldn't have been a fair reflection of the series but 2 each was probably about right.

 

[Burgey]

Congratulations England on their moral victory in the netball World Cup tonight too. Been a big week for them not actually winning stuff.

 

[loterry1994]

Lot of people talk about the rain helping Aus draw the 4th test which is true. But the rain I thought played a major factor in England winning the last test if Aus hadn’t of went off the ground on day 4 they could of lowered the target even more going into day 5 as they had a lot of the momentum and the ball didn’t seem to be doing as much that day. Day 5 it rained a whole session also when Smith and Head were looking in good touch.

 

[loterry1994]

Again think England were slightly better in the end and got it together more as the series went on. While Aus bowlers looked on their last legs most of them especially test 4 and 5 and the negative field sets didn’t help either pretty much all their bowling averages went up after test 2.

The batting also thought Aus batters kind of went into their shell a bit after test 2 and scored unnecessarily slower around maybe 2.5 runs an over didn’t put enough pressure onto the bowlers. To have what 3 of the top 5 in icc rankings before this series in head, Smith and Marnus I think all score under 35 average was pretty disappointing. You also add Warner, Green and Carey who didn’t do much with the bat also

 

[danzydab]

3-2 England was a fair result.

Lords was the only test Australia dominated and outplayed England, it took a freak innings from Stokes to reduce the deficit.

 

[CartyDurham]

Yes

 

[Line and Length]

2-2 was a fair result but England won on points.

They scored 3079 runs for the loss of 85 wickets compared to Australia's 2010 for the loss of 93. That averages out at 36.22 per wicket compared to 32.37

3 times England exceeded 350 runs - a total Australia reached twice.
England's s best innings total (592) far exceeded Australia's best (416).
England's lowest completed innings total (237) was marginally better than Australia's (224)

I provide this information for the likes of @Andy19 and @Qlder

 

[Victor Ian]

2-2 was a fair result but England won on points.

They scored 3079 runs for the loss of 85 wickets compared to Australia's 2010 for the loss of 93. That averages out at 36.22 per wicket compared to 32.37

3 times England exceeded 350 runs - a total Australia reached twice.
England's s best innings total (592) far exceeded Australia's best (416).
England's lowest completed innings total (237) was marginally better than Australia's (224)

I provide this information for the likes of @Andy19 and @Qlder

Very good. But you forgot that Australia hit more boundaries, which is all that matters

 

[Line and Length]

Very good. But you forgot that Australia hit more boundaries, which is all that matters

Simply because Cummins frequently had all his fieldsmen on the boundaries to cut off 4s while conceding 1s and 2s.