How will this series measure up to Ashes 2005?

[Ali TT]

Of course rain had a big part to play in 2005 with only about 130 overs played on days 2, 3 and 4 of the fifth test at the Oval. The Aussies were looking set to build a big first innings lead too with Hayden and Langer both scoring centuries.

England did cash in on the luck from the weather by running through the Aussies on the fourth day and batting out the final day.

 

[Molehill]

@Molehill are you still saying Geraint over YJB?

I think the point is that England are currently losing a series 2-1 they should be 3-0 up in. The two defeats can be directly linked to Bairstow (and a stupid declaration). Does a swashbuckling 99 in a drawn Test make up for those defeats? Nope.

Yes, he's the better player, but he's also the reason the Ashes are heading back to Australia.

 

[Victor Ian]

Is this series really going to go the way of delusional thinking to help people sleep at night? England should be 3-0 up? gtfo!

In the first test, it was mighty stupid of England to declare that first innings, but Australia were up to the task of winning it. It's easy to say England would have scored an extra 50 runs and won, but it's equally as easy to say Cummins would have just scored a century at the end to win. England's dumb **** curators prepared a flat pitch that was always going to be easy for tail enders to bat on and a 4th innings chase to succeed. It is just as likely that, had England batted on in the first innings, they could have been all out for a meagre amount of runs more. Joe Root having scored a hundred is no guarantee for not getting out next ball, and it is certainly no given that the guy at the other end doesn't **** up.

In the second test, it took one of Stokes' amazing innings to keep you guys in the game. Stokes is ****ing awesome, but that kind of **** is actually not the norm. England were very fortunate. Bairstow was likely about to get out anyways and his getting stumped actually helped stir the beast that is stokes. England were very very lucky in that game.

In the third test, you guys won it. Well done. But it was not comprehensive at all.

Finally, you had the fourth test. On the back of an amazing onslaught at the start, England racked up a huge score. But, bear in mind, Australia ****ed up their first innings on what was largely an unthreatening track. I feel jibbed, as an Australian that the weather stopped Marsh and Green settling in and scoring hundreds, followed by quickfire 50's from Cummins and Stark that would have given England a very tricky chase. Stokes would have featured again, but the amount of times he succeeds is actually less than he fails.

For all of the could have, would haves, any England fan who can not acknowledge that Australia has had ALL the worst of conditions until the 4th test - and even had the worst of conditions in it, are living in the land of delusion.

The truth of the matter is...Well done England on avoiding the universally expected 4-0. Great effort! Pat yourselves on the back. But don't pretend you are winners of anything. You can't even win the Ashes in your own backyard with Australia misfiring like never before.

 

[Molehill]

In the first test, it was mighty stupid of England to declare that first innings, but Australia were up to the task of winning it. It's easy to say England would have scored an extra 50 runs and won, but it's equally as easy to say Cummins would have just scored a century at the end to win. England's dumb **** curators prepared a flat pitch that was always going to be easy for tail enders to bat on and a 4th innings chase to succeed. It is just as likely that, had England batted on in the first innings, they could have been all out for a meagre amount of runs more. Joe Root having scored a hundred is no guarantee for not getting out next ball, and it is certainly no given that the guy at the other end doesn't **** up.

In the second test, it took one of Stokes' amazing innings to keep you guys in the game. Stokes is ****ing awesome, but that kind of **** is actually not the norm. England were very fortunate. Bairstow was likely about to get out anyways and his getting stumped actually helped stir the beast that is stokes. England were very very lucky in that game.

You've conveniently not mentioned Bairstow's keeping. That's where most England fans feel the opportunities were lost, not a stupid run out or the Manchester weather. If he had actually failed to regain fitness then I suspect the result would've been different.

 

[sledger]

Nah come on, bad form or not, England did not fail to win the series because of Bairstow.

 

[Victor Ian]

You bring Bairstow we put all our fielders in non catching positions

 

[Molehill]

Nah come on, bad form or not, England did not fail to win the series because of Bairstow.

No, obviously the stupid declaration and even dafter batting at Lord's are also to blame. But if he takes those catches (particularly in the First Test), then England undoubtedly win that game.

 

[Victor Ian]

No, obviously the stupid declaration and even dafter batting at Lord's are also to blame. But if he takes those catches (particularly in the First Test), then England undoubtedly win that game.

I was watching the 2001 series to relive the good times. Surprisingly, I saw Gilly drop a regular catch. Then Warne. Then Ponting! Thing is, all teams drop catches. The great attacks create so many opportunities, that you don't notice. If you are harping on about 1 catch, it's actually because your attack is ****. Talking about 'if he caught that catch' is kind of first chance average territory.
England has a good attack but it's not all bairstows fault. Take away his 70 runs in the first test and Cummins doesn't even bat.

 

[Molehill]

I was watching the 2001 series to relive the good times. Surprisingly, I saw Gilly drop a regular catch. Then Warne. Then Ponting! Thing is, all teams drop catches. The great attacks create so many opportunities, that you don't notice. If you are harping on about 1 catch, it's actually because your attack is ****. Talking about 'if he caught that catch' is kind of first chance average territory.
England has a good attack but it's not all bairstows fault. Take away his 70 runs in the first test and Cummins doesn't even bat.

I sometimes do that with 2010/11....Boxing Day my particular fave.

But that 2001 Aussie team was so superior, the drops didn't really alter the results of matches. Only a generous declaration and Butcher playing the innings of his life created anything outside the norm.

I know it's ifs and buts, but this does feel like a missed opportunity. In close matches, catches do matter. I believe Bairstow's clangers in that match cost considerably more than what he contributed with the bat.

 

[GIMH]

The cost of those catches is not solely down to him though. If Carey’s drops cost less, that doesn’t make those drops any better or worse in terms of whether he should have caught them. (Obviously Carey has dropped little, and kept very well, but the point stands)

Jones’ drops cost less than Bairstow’s because the attack created more chances. There was a drop at Headingley from Bairstow that cost pretty much nothing because we got the man next over. It seems absolutely bizarre to base your analysis on one keeper versus another on cost of drops.

And all things aside I am a big butterfly effect believer. The idea that one catch being held would then see the rest of the innings proceed as it did is not realistic.The biggest impact dropped catch for me was therefore when Stokes dropped Lyon at Edgbaston.

Finally, back to the original point, I don’t think even Geraint Jones would pick himself over Bairstow at this point.

 

[Andy19]

It depends on this last day than we can compare both series. however this Current Australia team is better than 2005 England Team in my opinion.

We must Remember Current Australia side hasn't lost England Since 2015 that's 8 years!.

Australia 2023> England 2005 & England 2023.

 

[OverratedSanity]

It legitimately could've been in the argument for best series ever if not for rain. It's kinda ending with a whimper after being so amazing halfway through.

 

[andruid]

Harbhajan was never an ATG, not even ATVG.

He was a great match winner for sure, was a part of many iconic wins. I will always remember him for the beauty he bowled to Umar Akmal in 2011 WC semis who at one time started hitting sixes with ease and almost took the game away from India.

He had such an artsy action though

 

[Slifer]

As a neutral great series all things considered. But for the weather, England likely would've come back and won from 0-2 down. But good on them for drawing this last test. Needless to say that overall for me, Australia are still the better team.

 

[Ali TT]

2005 still comes first for me, but this is second. Obviously as an England fan, 2010/11 has a special place but not a competitive series, nor any of the others down under for quite some time. 2009 and 2019 were topsy-turvy but the matches themselves mostly one-sided, conversely 2013 had closer matches but in the end England ran away with it. 2015 was far more one-sided than the final scoreline.

 

[loterry1994]

I don’t know if I even rate this series better than 2019 series. You had lot of flatter pitches and not as much in it for the bowlers. Lots of ugly wickets and batsmen throwing it away for both sides. I loved seeing Archer steaming in that series as well

 

[GIMH]

.

I don’t know if I even rate this series better than 2019 series. You had lot of flatter pitches and not as much in it for the bowlers. Lots of ugly wickets and batsmen throwing it away for both sides. I loved seeing Archer steaming in that series as well

I think it was better than 19 because only one of the result matches in that was close so it didn’t have the same level of tension.

 

[Molehill]

.

I think it was better than 19 because only one of the result matches in that was close so it didn’t have the same level of tension.

Quite similar to 2019 in that it finished 2-2 and England were robbed of a victory by rain!!

But agreed, only one match was especially close in 2019 and this year you didn't have to watch Smith/Labuschagne bat for hours.