How will this series measure up to Ashes 2005?

[subshakerz]

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.

Yeah but that was the same in 2005. Hayden, Langer, Martyn, Gillespie, Vaughn, Ponting, Gilly, Trescothick had middling to below par series by their standards. In fact, it is fair to say the entire Aussie batting and pace lineup didn't click.

The 2005 series was defined by Warne, Flintoff and KP, and to a lesser extent Simon Jones.

We need to wait to see how their series turns up, but I think at present Cummins, Starc, Stokes, Broad and Khwaja can potentially produce series-defining performances.

 

[sledger]

Oh no, in 2005 England committed the cardinal sin of beating the team that was put in front of them! How awful!

 

[Molehill]

Yeah but that was the same in 2005. Hayden, Langer, Martyn, Gillespie, Vaughn, Ponting, Gilly, Trescothick had middling to below par series by their standards. In fact, it is fair to say the entire Aussie batting and pace lineup didn't click.

Hmmm, I wonder why that outstanding Aussie batting line up didn't click in 2005?

 

[Molehill]

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.

So there's no comparison to the 2005 Aussie team and the current lot? Yet you're arguing that the current lot would beat the 2005 England team (who beat the Aussie 2005 team)?

I go back to the very first response to your ridiculous notion.......are you on drugs???

 

[subshakerz]

So there's no comparison to the 2005 Aussie team and the current lot? Yet you're arguing that the current lot would beat the 2005 England team (who beat the Aussie 2005 team)?

I go back to the very first response to your ridiculous notion.......are you on drugs???

Sigh. Let me clarify.

The 2005 Australia team is better than any of the other teams.

However, they only lost to England 2005 because their best bowler, McGrath, got injured.

I believe Cummin's current team is a better all-round team than England 2005, so I don't think the current series is between two average sides.

However, I admit that in their home conditions, England 2005 can likely beat Cummin's team.

 

[subshakerz]

Hmmm, I wonder why that outstanding Aussie batting line up didn't click in 2005?

Because of England 4-prong pace attack. I give credit to them. But that wouldn't stop them from still losing to Australia in the series if they had fit McGrath, as we saw in the 1st test.

 

[Ashes81]

Of course not.

But Vaughn's England only beat that 2005 side because McGrath was unfit/absent. Inconvenient fact.

I don't agree with that but it's irrelevant anyway. And its certainly not a fact, its your opinion.

McGrath was injured and we won the series. Injuries are part and parcel of the game.

If we had a fit Archer, Wood and Leach we would be leading this series in my opinion. But we haven’t and we don’t.

This series is seriously exciting and if it goes down to the wire at the Oval then it will go down as an all time great series.

Quality wise it isn't up there with 2005 but for sheer drama, entertainment and competitiveness, it's been fantastic

 

[mackembhoy]

Yeah but that was the same in 2005. Hayden, Langer, Martyn, Gillespie, Vaughn, Ponting, Gilly, Trescothick had middling to below par series by their standards. In fact, it is fair to say the entire Aussie batting and pace lineup didn't click.

The 2005 series was defined by Warne, Flintoff and KP, and to a lesser extent Simon Jones.

We need to wait to see how their series turns up, but I think at present Cummins, Starc, Stokes, Broad and Khwaja can potentially produce series-defining performances.

Erm what 2005 Ashes did you watch?

He might not have scored a ton but he was second in the runs and set the tone of every innings.

Edgbaston and his 90 especially.

 

[Molehill]

Sigh. Let me clarify.

The 2005 Australia team is better than any of the other teams.

However, they only lost to England 2005 because their best bowler, McGrath, got injured.

I believe Cummin's current team is a better all-round team than England 2005, so I don't think the current series is between two average sides.

However, I admit that in their home conditions, England 2005 can likely beat Cummin's team.

England lost Jones for a match and a half too, conveniently forgetting that, especially as you've got him as one of the key players of the series.

This current Aussie team includes a walking wicket opener, a spinner the skipper won't use, and is only really still in the series because the English keeper can't catch. But yeah, it's beating 2005 England!!

 

[subshakerz]

England lost Jones for a match and a half too, conveniently forgetting that, especially as you've got him as one of the key players of the series.

This current Aussie team includes a walking wicket opener, a spinner the skipper won't use, and is only really still in the series because the English keeper can't catch. But yeah, it's beating 2005 England!!

I specifically said it likely won't.

 

[sledger]

I like how in 2005 Vaughan scored that massive century in 3rd or 4th test (can't remember which now) and still ended the series averaging less with the bat than Simon Jones.

 

[sledger]

But yeah the idea that Trescothick had a "middling" or "below par" series is trash. Bloke scored more runs than any Aussie player.

 

[Molehill]

I specifically said it likely won't.

I mean, you kind of did.

This Australian team is likely better than the 2005 England side.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I mean, you kind of did.

Chat **** get banged

 

[Uppercut]

2005 had a lot more bad cricket than people are remembering.

 

[sledger]

Yeah, people whining about Aus not having McGrath conveniently forgetting the fact that England played the entire series with a wicket keeper who couldn't keep or bat as well.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

2005 had a lot more bad cricket than people are remembering.

2005 had more good bowling than anything else and we caught nearly everything after Lords. This series has seen bad bowling, bad batting and lots of drops.

 

[sledger]

2005 had more good bowling than anything else and we caught nearly everything after Lords. This series has seen bad bowling, bad batting and lots of drops.

Geraint Jones made several howlers in the Old Trafford test iirc. And maybe at Trent Bridge too, can't remember. But I remember there was huge pressure on for him to be sacked.

 

[subshakerz]

2005 had more good bowling than anything else and we caught nearly everything after Lords. This series has seen bad bowling, bad batting and lots of drops.

From Australia it was only really Warne, barring some spells from Lee and McGrath. Also plenty of drops in 2005 too.

This series, Broad, Starc, Woods, and occasionally Cummins, have bowled tremendously well.

 

[subshakerz]

I mean, you kind of did.

Australia under Cummins yeah overall is better than England 2005 but likely loses in England. Nothing really insane about that opinion.