How would you rate this series?

[pup11]

I think Cardiff was a beauty of a test, eventhough from an Aussie perspective the result didn't go our way, but it did set the series up quite beautifully, but from there the series really didn't live upto its billing, as all the remaining tests were pretty one-sided, of course each test had its moments, but all in all the series was pretty average AFAIC.

As Jono said, it was the history and rivalry of the series that kept everyone interested, otherwise in terms cricketing quality there wasn't much to write home about, also agree that the low standard of umpiring also took the gloss off, of the such a high profile series.

 

[Dissector]

One problem with the series was that the headline players like Flintoff, KP and Ponting didn't really do much.If for example Flintoff had taken 5 wickets in that first innings instead of Broad and for good measure hit a hundred in the second innings this series would be remembered as a completely memorable finale for Freddie. But it was really the lesser players who managed to steal the show particularly at the Oval.

 

[zaremba]

4th v 5th.

But basically now it's won I don't much care about the quality of the cricket. Winning's the thing.

 

[GotSpin]

Fairly disappointing despite our loss. Seemed to be a battle between one broken side and one mediocre side that was further ruined by terrible umpiring.

 

[Jono]

The fact that only one side could really win by day 3 of each Test took something away from it all.

Exactly.

Day 4 and 5 SA vs. Aust in Perth, and day 3 and 4 SA vs. Aust in Melbourne was some terrific cricket.

 

[tooextracool]

The quality of cricket of the 2005 series is sometimes seriously played up. Granted that McGrath provided a master class at Lords and was virtually unplayable throughout that test, and that Jones and Flintoff were frequently as good as it got, but there was plenty of poor cricket in that series from both sides. Australia, with the exception of Shane Warne were frequently atrocious with the ball, in the first innings of some of those tests when Warne wasn't able to get much turn out of the wickets, that Australian attack was even more toothless than the one that played in 2009, to the point where 'I thought England really have to **** up in order to get out to this lot'. Sure enough, they almost always did because a) they are England and b) because then just like now they were a poor batting outfit.

It's all fine to look at the players on both sides and say that there were better players on paper then compared to the ones now, but just because the names were more recognized it doesn't mean the quality was much higher. The fielding that series was absolutely atrocious as well, certainly nothing compared to what we've seen in the recent series. 2005 was a great series no doubt, and better than the sequel, but both sides underperformed that series (I'd rate England's performance in SA in 2004 higher than their performance in that series) and Australia were inferior to almost any Australian side that we had seen play in the 5 years preceding it this decade(with the exception of the side that played India in 2003/04).

The brilliance of Warne, Flintoff and Jones in that series (and occasionally Trescothick and McGrath), sometimes overshadows how mediocre the rest of the players were.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Ponting's ton @ OT certainly in the top half-dozen (to be very conservative) I've ever seen. Was facing some good bowling too.

There were also some great little cameos too: Lee charging in at Trent Bridge and getting Fred and KP when it looked like we were waltzing it, the Lee/Kasper rearguard at Edgbaston, Fred's gallumping 70-odd when we were looking like folding in the same test & even Gilo cleaning the the Aussie top order at OT in the first innings when the seamers for once hadn't gotten the breakthrough.

No, for me 2005 is up there with regards to quality of cricket.

 

[Jarquis]

So disappointed I can't give a fair assessment down to the fact I didn't see enough of it .
Not sure I'll ever watch an Ashes series again tbh.
2005 I didn't know what cricket was so had no interest until the very last moment. We won.
06/07 I woke up every morning to watch the afternoon and evening sessions before I went to school. We were whitewashed.
2009 I didn't manage to watch the matches live due to having no Sky, We won..
I am superstitious ftr.

 

[GIMH]

In 18 months time if you mention that you have Sky Sports, I'll be getting a train down to Cornwall and destroying all the satellite dishes and cable wires, just in case. Stay away!

TBF I thought I was a jinx on us in this series; I went to two days of the series. The first day that i went to, we were on top in the match and the whole day was rained off. Then the second day, was day one at Headingley. Then on Friday i was stuck in a meeting with no interwebz or anything, and my phone buzzed and buzzed as Broad ran through the Aussies. Then I get on the train to go home, stick the cricinfo ball-by-ball on, and we drop three wickets in what felt like a minute. I was honestly tempted to not watch at all on Saturday and Sunday.

 

[tooextracool]

Ponting's ton @ OT certainly in the top half-dozen (to be very conservative) I've ever seen. Was facing some good bowling too.

There were also some great little cameos too: Lee charging in at Trent Bridge and getting Fred and KP when it looked like we were waltzing it, the Lee/Kasper rearguard at Edgbaston, Fred's gallumping 70-odd when we were looking like folding in the same test & even Gilo cleaning the the Aussie top order at OT in the first innings when the seamers for once hadn't gotten the breakthrough.

No, for me 2005 is up there with regards to quality of cricket.

Oh there was plenty of good cricket that summer, but there was plenty of shocking cricket as well. Ian Bell batting like the 2009 version of Bopara, Vaughan inexplicably missing the straight deliveries, Hoggard and Harmison serving up dross at various different points in the series, Gillespie's overall uselessness, Kaspa's nonthreatening bowling, Shaun Tait's hopelessness, Brett Lee's waywardness, Hayden's inability to face the inswinger, Geraint Jones scoring runs, England's plight against spin and tendency to collapse, Strauss's lack of ability against Warne (and his laughable dismissal) to name but a few.

That series was largely a battle between England's bowlers vs Australia's batsmen and its important to make a note of that. The only difference is that England's 2005 bowlers >>>England's 2009 bowlers and Australia's 2005 batters >Australia's batters 2009.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Thought you were a Geraint Jones fan TEC.....

 

[GIMH]

Fielding and no-balls were the main poor cricket that I remember

 

[slippyslip]

I enjoyed it. People were always going to trash it since 2005 holds such a lofty position in their cricket memories.

I think it was a very challenging series for both teams. Weather was typically English. Both sides had ups and downs and fought back.

If you think it was boring compare it to the 2001 series and see if you still say it.

 

[tooextracool]

Thought you were a Geraint Jones fan TEC.....

Would entrust Lanky the Giraffe to play for England over Geraint Jones tbh. Talented though Jones was, just completely brain dead when it came to batting.

 

[morgieb]

6/10. Was kind enjoyable even if England won, but lacked the thrillers of '05.