How will this series measure up to Ashes 2005?

[Qlder]

England of 05 would destroy this Oz side. Make no mistake

Not without their Murray Mints

 

[subshakerz]

England of 05 would destroy this Oz side. Make no mistake

In England maybe they would win. But that Vaughn side was destroyed by Pakistan a few months later.

But Cummins has a better overall team for all conditions. Better middle order, better pace attack, better spinner.

 

[Line and Length]

Yeah but only when McGrath got injured.

The full strength 2005 team beat England comfortably in the 1st test and would have won the series comfortably as well had McGrath not tripped.

Pure conjecture.

 

[subshakerz]

Pure conjecture.

It's not conjecture because that is exactly what happened in the 1st test. England came at Australia hard but McGrath utterly destroyed them in response. They clearly hadn't broken his mental hold over them and that would have proven the difference.

That changed once he got injured, which was the stroke of luck England needed.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

England of 05 would destroy this Oz side. Make no mistake

Both 05 sides would destroy both current sides. Nothing more needs saying.

 

[subshakerz]

Both 05 sides would destroy both current sides. Nothing more needs saying.

I think you underrate this Cummins side.

 

[Line and Length]

It's not conjecture because that is exactly what happened in the 1st test. England came at Australia hard but McGrath utterly destroyed them in response. They clearly hadn't broken his mental hold over them and that would have proven the difference.

That changed once he got injured, which was the stroke of luck England needed.

Surely you have to recognise that a performance in one Test doesn't automatically result in the same performance in the next. Any such assumption is conjecture.

 

[Spark]

Surely you have to recognise that a performance in one Test doesn't automatically result in the same performance in the next. Any such assumption is conjecture.

Of course it's conjecture but if we dismissed every hypothetical as mere conjecture and left it at that then this place would get awfully dull indeed.

 

[subshakerz]

Surely you have to recognise that a performance in one Test doesn't automatically result in the same performance in the next. Any such assumption is conjecture.

Well, put it this way, given the tight margins England won by in Edgbaston and Trent Bridge against a McGrath-less Australia, do I think a fully fit McGrath, Australia's premier bowler and England's menace, would have made the decisive difference and turned the series result the other way? Yes, I definitely do. Once McGrath's control was gone, the entire pace bowler lineup lost its radar and England racked three successive 400 plus 1st inning totals.

It is disingenuous to treat this like some baseless speculation. Australia lost their best bowler and then lost the series. It is that simple.

No doubt England would have been more competitive as the series went on, but were they good enough to beat a fully fit Australia across 5 tests? Absolutely not.

 

[Spark]

I think there is absolutely no way that England score 400 on the first day at Edgbaston if McGrath doesn't trod on that ball. One because there isn't the huge psychological disruption of Glenn McGrath not playing half an hour before the toss and two, well, it's Glenn ****ing McGrath. That doesn't change everything about how that series progresses - I am a strong critic of the idea that you can assume one thing changes but everything subsequent to that stays the same - but it changes a lot, and pretty uniformly in Australia's favour. Short of Warne popping a shoulder that was the worst possible thing that could have happened to Australia at that time.

 

[Burgey]

Also, no one tried to cheat in 2005....

Mints made England '05 Ashes swing kings: Trescothick

www.theage.com.au

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I think you underrate this Cummins side.

I think you overestimate it to be a far greater side than it is.

 

[subshakerz]

I think you overestimate it to be a far greater side than it is.

I only judge it by the results so far.

Dominant at home. Competitive in SC. WTC winners. Currently leading in the Ashes away against a resurgent BazBall side that has excelled against all other sides before them.

Have the best pace bowler, best middle order, best opener and best all-round spinner in the world.

They have a few weaknesses and haven't played their best this series, but if they win this series, to me they rank in the top Aussie sides of all-time.

 

[subshakerz]

I think there is absolutely no way that England score 400 on the first day at Edgbaston if McGrath doesn't trod on that ball. One because there isn't the huge psychological disruption of Glenn McGrath not playing half an hour before the toss and two, well, it's Glenn ****ing McGrath. That doesn't change everything about how that series progresses - I am a strong critic of the idea that you can assume one thing changes but everything subsequent to that stays the same - but it changes a lot, and pretty uniformly in Australia's favour. Short of Warne popping a shoulder that was the worst possible thing that could have happened to Australia at that time.

Well, to me, it is much more of an assumption to think England could still finish off a fully-fit Australia that was heading into Edgbaston brimming with confidence than to assume that the fully-fit Australia end up winning that series. The latter to me is overwhelmingly likely.

 

[Molehill]

Well, put it this way, given the tight margins England won by in Edgbaston and Trent Bridge against a McGrath-less Australia, do I think a fully fit McGrath, Australia's premier bowler and England's menace, would have made the decisive difference and turned the series result the other way? Yes, I definitely do. Once McGrath's control was gone, the entire pace bowler lineup lost its radar and England racked three successive 400 plus 1st inning totals.

You're conveniently forgetting the other 2 Tests that McGrath did play. Old Trafford required one of Ponting's great tons to escape with a draw whilst Australia would have been left trying to chase down an unlikely 340 at The Oval if the weather hadn't intervened across the match. England were the better team across the final 4 Tests with or without McGrath and even at Lord's they very much made their intentions known that they were here for a battle.

And if Billy ****ing Bowden understood the lbw law, the final chase wouldn't even have been close at Edgbaston.

 

[subshakerz]

You're conveniently forgetting the other 2 Tests that McGrath did play. Old Trafford required one of Ponting's great tons to escape with a draw whilst Australia would have been left trying to chase down an unlikely 340 at The Oval if the weather hadn't intervened across the match. England were the better team across the final 4 Tests with or without McGrath and even at Lord's they very much made their intentions known that they were here for a battle.

And if Billy ****ing Bowden understood the lbw law, the final chase wouldn't even have been close at Edgbaston.

You are conveniently forgetting that McGrath wasn't fully fit in those and clearly below his best but rushed into the side.

 

[subshakerz]

Back to the topic though, I will concede that the standard of cricket in the 2005 Ashes was higher, more by virtue of the ATG players involved. Having said that, don't slag the quality of cricket in this series. Khwaja, Cummins, Starc, Smith, Root, Stokes, Wood and Broad have all produced top drawer performances here and there.

And its not like in 2005 everyone was firing on all cylinders. Hayden & Langer were meh, Clarke was still fresh, Gilly was terrible, the Aussie pacers sans McGrath struggled massively. There were more brilliant passages of play though.

However, this series thus far has equally if not more entertaining in terms of closeness and the uncanny fact that no team has been clearly ahead for most of three tests.

 

[Molehill]

You are conveniently forgetting that McGrath wasn't fully fit in those and clearly below his best but rushed into the side.

You seem to be placing rather too much faith in one fast bowler to win you a match. You forget that you're taking out the best spinner the world's ever seen who took 40 wickets in the series and replacing him with Murphy!!

 

[Molehill]

Back to the topic though, I will concede that the standard of cricket in the 2005 Ashes was higher, more by virtue of the ATG players involved.

However, this series thus far has equally if not more entertaining in terms of closeness and the uncanny fact that no team has been clearly ahead for most of three tests.

I agree with that. But another factor is that some great players in this series have not exactly turned up so far. Smith, Labuschagne, Anderson, Root are have all failed to reach their normal standards despite a couple of tons by 2 of them.

 

[subshakerz]

You seem to be placing rather too much faith in one fast bowler to win you a match. You forget that you're taking out the best spinner the world's ever seen who took 40 wickets in the series and replacing him with Murphy!!

What do you mean? I am not comparing Australia 2005 to the current lot, there is no comparison.

McGrath was central to the dominance of that 2005 side. He set the pace and control. He was their MVP as he was in the last three Ashes before that.