Greatest ever Ashes series?

[Tapioca]

It was widely put about at the time (according to Simon Rae, at least) that the 'guilty men in English eyes were.... Jimmy Burke and Keith Slater, and the two fast men, Gordon Rorke and Ian Meckiff'.

Fingleton called his book about the 1958/9 series 'Four Chukkas to Australia'

 

[Tapioca]

Anyway, not that anyone asked, here's my 10 most memorable England vs Aus tests since I started watching the game in 1971.

Weren't the English wins in Australia in 1994/5 and 1998/9 better than the 1993 and 1997 Tests that you have listed ?

 

[aussie]

Poor old Kim Hughes - the captaincy was the ruin of what should have been a very fine test career, AFAICS. Who else was batting in 1981? Dyson, Trevor Chappell, Yallop, Wood, & Kent? Not a lot of quality there.

Anyway, not that anyone asked, here's my 10 most memorable England vs Aus tests since I started watching the game in 1971.
1. Massie's game at Lord's in 1972
2. The first test in 1974/5 (Brisbane?), as it was the first sighting of Lillee & Thomson in full flight. IIRC, Greig made a superb hundred.
3. The Centenary Test in 1977
4. Leeds in 1977 - Boycott's 100th 100, great English bowling, Randall's fielding & England's first Ashes series win in England for over 20 years
5. & 6. Leeds & Edgbaston in 1981. Obviously.
7. The one we won by 3 runs in 1982/3, when Botham took the winning catch on the rebound from tavare after Border & Thomson had almost won it for Aus.
8. Old Trafford in 1993, if only for the Gatting Ball.
9. Edgbaston in 1997 - a quite delirious first session and unbelievably good batting by Hussain & Thorpe. Our only win in a live Ashes match since 1986/7.
10. Old Trafford in 1997, if only out of respect for S. Waugh's twin tons on a spiteful pitch against a more than decent England attack. They won the game and effectively won the series too.

what about england's wins in 2001 at headingley & the 12 run win at the MCG in1998 should be in that list mate

 

[wpdavid]

The 1972 series has many times been described as one of the most exciting ever, and that's what constitutes a good series for me, even if the sides weren't especially good (and let's face it - we don't know for certain whether they were just very good or average, because West Indies weren't too much better).
Yes, Massie's sensational performance was the highlight, but the match at The Oval, Australia twice coming from behind to level, also featured some terrific cricket.
As for our only live win since 1987... sorry, but a live Test for me constitutes whether the series can still be tied, not won, so The MCG 1998\99 was live as far as I'm concerned.

Fair enough on your point about 1998/99, and in response to the other guys you can put that in my list instead of Old Trafford 1993 with my blessing.

I'm just interested in who has actually described the 1972 series as one of the most exciting ever. It was OK, for the reasons you said, and I enjoyed it, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the standard wasn't great. The main issue with the age of England's side is there was plenty of evidence that they were in decline. They'd lost a series at home to India the previous year and got absolutely slaughtered at home to WI the following year, whose attack was not remotely as good as it would later become. An ageing side is OK if they deserve to be picked, but several of that side didn't.

As for Aus, obviously in 1972 the backbone of what would become the great mid70's side was there, but their attack was not great. Massie, as you probably know, did nothing after that series, and beyond him we're looking at guys like David Colley partnering Lillee. In the first test, they even had Greg Chappell as first change, which tells us something.

 

[wpdavid]

what about england's wins in 2001 at headingley & the 12 run win at the MCG in1998 should be in that list mate

I know this is subjective, but I find it hard to get excited about the 2001 win, as it owed so much to Gilchrist's generous declaration, and it was a dead rubber anyway. Don't get me wrong, Butcher's knock was great, but in a sense the win was artificial. Fair enough about 1998 though, which I would have included if I'd thought for a bit longer about the list.

 

[Richard]

Fair enough on your point about 1998/99, and in response to the other guys you can put that in my list instead of Old Trafford 1993 with my blessing.

I'm just interested in who has actually described the 1972 series as one of the most exciting ever. It was OK, for the reasons you said, and I enjoyed it, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the standard wasn't great. The main issue with the age of England's side is there was plenty of evidence that they were in decline. They'd lost a series at home to India the previous year and got absolutely slaughtered at home to WI the following year, whose attack was not remotely as good as it would later become. An ageing side is OK if they deserve to be picked, but several of that side didn't.

As for Aus, obviously in 1972 the backbone of what would become the great mid70's side was there, but their attack was not great. Massie, as you probably know, did nothing after that series, and beyond him we're looking at guys like David Colley partnering Lillee. In the first test, they even had Greg Chappell as first change, which tells us something.

The first time I ever heard the '72 series described as one of the most exciting ever was on a video with David Gower narrating (doubt it was his words, just those of the script-writers). They then gave brief highlights, including Massie's 16-for and the Chappell-Chappell stand at The Oval. So I decided to try and find some more, and from what I could see there was some scintillating cricket - those two being the highlights - especially the Oval game. Lillee and Mallet's working away at the first-innings, the Chappells establishing a commanding position, Underwood dragging England back into the game, Lillee picking-up the top and middle-order while Wood, then D'Oliveira, held the fort, then Knott hammering Lillee around to set-up a tough target; Stackpole and Ian Chappell coasting, then the turnaround again before Paul Sheahan and Marsh finished the job.
Maybe it was different watching it as it actually happened, I don't know - but it was fantastic on the highlights, especially knowing what hinged on it.

 

[Richard]

I know this is subjective, but I find it hard to get excited about the 2001 win, as it owed so much to Gilchrist's generous declaration, and it was a dead rubber anyway. Don't get me wrong, Butcher's knock was great, but in a sense the win was artificial.

Yet have you thought about what the consequences would have been of a 5-0 loss?
We'd been on a high for 15 months - maybe a little longer - and we genuinely were entering a series with our best chance for ages. Then everything started to go wrong in it's horribly familiar way (injuries, dropped catches and batting collapses). We were visiting India afterwards, it was already apparrent that Gough and Stewart weren't going to be there, and so we were looking at a heavy defeat. And then we'd have come in off a 5-0 loss that, as Duncan put it, would have set us back in a way that wasn't really possible to gauge.
Yet Mark Butcher saved us from all that, and played one of the most fantastic knocks you could wish to see in the process. Dead-rubber, yes, but to describe Gilchrist's declaration as generous is typical hindsight and IMO quite ludicrous. How often do teams chase 300 in Test-cricket? Let alone on pitches behaving as nastily as that one was in the morning? I'd safely bet that there wasn't a sane person watching that game who gave us a prayer at 33-2. Gilchrist's declaration was the logical and sensible thing to do - no-one could possibly have guessed in their wildest dreams that our win was realistic or even possible.

 

[wpdavid]

The first time I ever heard the '72 series described as one of the most exciting ever was on a video with David Gower narrating (doubt it was his words, just those of the script-writers). They then gave brief highlights, including Massie's 16-for and the Chappell-Chappell stand at The Oval. So I decided to try and find some more, and from what I could see there was some scintillating cricket - those two being the highlights - especially the Oval game. Lillee and Mallet's working away at the first-innings, the Chappells establishing a commanding position, Underwood dragging England back into the game, Lillee picking-up the top and middle-order while Wood, then D'Oliveira, held the fort, then Knott hammering Lillee around to set-up a tough target; Stackpole and Ian Chappell coasting, then the turnaround again before Paul Sheahan and Marsh finished the job.
Maybe it was different watching it as it actually happened, I don't know - but it was fantastic on the highlights, especially knowing what hinged on it.

The Oval test in 1972 was definitely the best of the series, for all the reasons you outlined. The other result tests were pretty onesided affairs. But don't forget that the Ashes were already decided by then, so, although it allowed Aus to share the series, it didn't alter who had the urn. I don't want to sound like I think it was a poor series, because it wasn't, but I'm just surprised to see it listed in people's top 5 or 6.

 

[wpdavid]

Yet have you thought about what the consequences would have been of a 5-0 loss?
We'd been on a high for 15 months - maybe a little longer - and we genuinely were entering a series with our best chance for ages. Then everything started to go wrong in it's horribly familiar way (injuries, dropped catches and batting collapses). We were visiting India afterwards, it was already apparrent that Gough and Stewart weren't going to be there, and so we were looking at a heavy defeat. And then we'd have come in off a 5-0 loss that, as Duncan put it, would have set us back in a way that wasn't really possible to gauge.
Yet Mark Butcher saved us from all that, and played one of the most fantastic knocks you could wish to see in the process. Dead-rubber, yes, but to describe Gilchrist's declaration as generous is typical hindsight and IMO quite ludicrous. How often do teams chase 300 in Test-cricket? Let alone on pitches behaving as nastily as that one was in the morning? I'd safely bet that there wasn't a sane person watching that game who gave us a prayer at 33-2. Gilchrist's declaration was the logical and sensible thing to do - no-one could possibly have guessed in their wildest dreams that our win was realistic or even possible.

One for the agree to differ pile. My take on it was that we were comprehensively thrashed in most of the other games, so 4-1 didn't make me feel much better about our place in the world than 5-0. Sure it was preferable at the time, but I don't think it had any lasting significance. In my humble opinion, anyway, and not only because I can recall us winning in India immediately after a 5-0 drubbing at the hands of world class opponents.

 

[Richard]

The Oval test in 1972 was definitely the best of the series, for all the reasons you outlined. The other result tests were pretty onesided affairs. But don't forget that the Ashes were already decided by then, so, although it allowed Aus to share the series, it didn't alter who had the urn. I don't want to sound like I think it was a poor series, because it wasn't, but I'm just surprised to see it listed in people's top 5 or 6.

Well... I've never really thought there were that many fantastic ones to compete.
1981 obviously; 1902 is too far back for me to think much about it; 1953, even though most of it was pretty drab stuff the creaking of the balance is always a wonderful thing to look back on; 1932\33 was obviously the stuff of legend but for all the wrong reasons and as such I'm loath to include it; the Final Test of 1968 must be up there with the best finishes to any series but the rest of it was like 1953 soppingly boring; 1985 was obviously hugely satisfying from an English POV but could hardly be described as exhilarating...
You know, it's just the fact that it's asking a hell of a lot to have 3 really good matches in a series, never mind 5. Very few series are exhilerating the whole way through, and I've always thought 1972 was simply a bit better than most.

 

[Richard]

One for the agree to differ pile. My take on it was that we were comprehensively thrashed in most of the other games, so 4-1 didn't make me feel much better about our place in the world than 5-0. Sure it was preferable at the time, but I don't think it had any lasting significance. In my humble opinion, anyway, and not only because I can recall us winning in India immediately after a 5-0 drubbing at the hands of world class opponents.

Hmm... we'll never know or approach it whether it had lasting significance, but I can certainly see it doing so.
Our 1984\85 win in India is hardly comparable to 2001\02, either.

 

[wpdavid]

Well... I've never really thought there were that many fantastic ones to compete.
1981 obviously; 1902 is too far back for me to think much about it; 1953, even though most of it was pretty drab stuff the creaking of the balance is always a wonderful thing to look back on; 1932\33 was obviously the stuff of legend but for all the wrong reasons and as such I'm loath to include it; the Final Test of 1968 must be up there with the best finishes to any series but the rest of it was like 1953 soppingly boring; 1985 was obviously hugely satisfying from an English POV but could hardly be described as exhilarating...
You know, it's just the fact that it's asking a hell of a lot to have 3 really good matches in a series, never mind 5. Very few series are exhilerating the whole way through, and I've always thought 1972 was simply a bit better than most.

Fair enough, and it's good to read some sensible comments about 1953. The other thing that surprises me is the compete absence of the 1954/5 series from people's reckoning. Two good sides with lots of world class performers to the fore, and some cracking games. What more could people want?

 

[wpdavid]

Hmm... we'll never know or approach it whether it had lasting significance, but I can certainly see it doing so.
Our 1984\85 win in India is hardly comparable to 2001\02, either.

OK, I'll bite ......

Why's that?

 

[JBH001]

Fair enough, and it's good to read some sensible comments about 1953. The other thing that surprises me is the compete absence of the 1954/5 series from people's reckoning. Two good sides with lots of world class performers to the fore, and some cracking games. What more could people want?

Actually, for some reason that series had completely slipped my mind.

It was a lot better than the 1953 series - a lot more competitive etc.
Yeah, that was a very good series.
Probably one of the best.

 

[nookie_lk]

i think that this Ashes series is gonna be the best one ever !!!

 

[Richard]

Hmm... enormously optimistic that.

 

[Richard]

OK, I'll bite ......

Why's that?

Were India nearly as invincible at home in those days as they have been since the 1990s?

 

[Richard]

Fair enough, and it's good to read some sensible comments about 1953. The other thing that surprises me is the compete absence of the 1954/5 series from people's reckoning. Two good sides with lots of world class performers to the fore, and some cracking games. What more could people want?

I've never been able to get anything of 1954\55, all I've ever known is that it was Tyson's series.
It's incredibly hard to get stuff of the away series before the 1990s.

 

[Swervy]

Were India nearly as invincible at home in those days as they have been since the 1990s?

without looking back at the records, my gut feeling is that India were actually tougher to beat back then, in that quite often the draw was the prime objective, especially after going 1-0 up...

 

[Richard]

India in the early-mid-1980s were nowhere near as invincible as they were 1988-2000.