Best one-sided series?

[uvelocity]

i was trying to think of something really wide, but not quite as wide as janelle jono

 

[marc71178]

Any recent home series for SA.








Except this one

You do realise that for it be one-sided they need to actually win all the games don't you?

 

[Hooksey]

You do realise that for it be one-sided they need to actually win all the games don't you?

Since when?

 

[marc71178]

How can a series be one sided but not finish in a whitewash (unless there's a huge weather interruption when a match is all but over?)

 

[Hooksey]

How can a series be one sided but not finish in a whitewash (unless there's a huge weather interruption when a match is all but over?)

You've already provided an instance where your blanket statement doesn't apply

 

[marc71178]

Yes, one that has rarely happened to actually prevent a whitewash.

 

[Hooksey]

Yes, one that has rarely happened to actually prevent a whitewash.

Still makes this statement wrong >

You do realise that for it be one-sided they need to actually win all the games don't you?

 

[Jono]

Bump.

Good test albeit some attritional cricket at times. Test obviously not one sided like the previous tests but it was still somehow a comfortable win from Australia, but nevertheless I found it great viewing.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Those stats are all fairly misleading though. Losing seven of the previous nine was due to the opposition/location rather than the general ****ness of the Australan team. They would still realistically have beaten most teams fairly comfortably, just not India and England away from home (or SA). The low career averages are mostly related to brief test careers, since for instance I doubt too many people would have thought Rogers and Smith looked like sub-37 career average players (though Rogers could easily end up that way). And the series in England was fairly evenly contested for a 3-0 result: only Lords was one-sided, England never scored over 400 once, had only one batsman averaging over 40 for the series, and Australia had the first innings lead in four out of five tests.

Switch the home field advantage and add a bit of experience to the Australian team and I think the signs were there that it was going to be a close series. The real shock is the sheer one-sidedness. and Johnson. My memory of the 05/06 series was that up until Perth most people still thought England had a really good chance to win the series. Brisbane was a thrashing but England basically dominated the Adelaide test until the fourth day and should certainly never have lost it, and even bowled Australia out cheaply in Perth. By comparison this series has just felt non-competitive, mostly because of the abysmal batting performance.

My memory of the aftermath of the Adelaide Test was that, while the win was awesome, it was almost disappointing as it spelt the end of a competitive series.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

My memory of the aftermath of the Adelaide Test was that, while the win was awesome, it was almost disappointing as it spelt the end of a competitive series.

Yeah probably poor phrasing on the Perth thing as the final day in Adelaide was just too dismal to come back from. My feeling up until day 4 of that test was that England might well win it and then Australia would have to play really well to get the momentum back in Perth. The last day changed the whole tone.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Enjoyed the SL-WI series of 2001 a lot, purely for the way Lara batted

 

[wpdavid]

How can a series be one sided but not finish in a whitewash (unless there's a huge weather interruption when a match is all but over?)

Or a win when the series ha been decided - Ashes in 2002/03, 2001, 1993 and 1974/74 spring immediately to mind.

Or a series can end up being one-sided after initially looking close, such as Aus beating WI 5-1 in 1975/6. Or England winning 5-1 in 1978/79 after Aus had brought it back to 2-1.

Or simply the odd draw, such as the 1989 and 1990 Ashes.