Did England really make the Aussies 'pay for their luck'? I mean every time England had the advantage in that series they threw it away just as quickly. They scored 407 at Edgbaston but at the end of the day they were at least 100 short given the pitch, given the bowling and given the start. When they had the aussies dead and buried at the end of day 4, they miraculously let them back into the game by bowling far too short and managed to create the game of the decade out of one that they should have cake walked through.
Can't argue with that, really. That pitch was a 500+ pitch for sure and someone should have gotten a ton but that has to be tempered with the fact that they were playing the best side in the world and some for of a fightback is inevitable. The Aussies aren't just going to drop their heads and concede 600; someone like Warne (as he did) is going to come to the party eventually.
I think if australia were to have batted first in any of the last 4 test matches and managed to get runs on the board(even 350 odd) things would have been very different. The difference between Australia and England(and indeed number 1 and number 2) is that when the Aussies have the advantage they very seldom tend to lose it. Only once in that entire series(at the Oval during the Hayden-Langer partnernship) did Australia have the advantage. It didnt help that the conditions went so overly against them after that either.
Again, this is probably true. I don't think Australia would have totally dominated England had they batted first at least once but winning the toss so many times (and getting it handed to them once) was a distinct advantage. Part of me, however, reckons England would still have been quite competitive, though.
I think if we did a count, i wouldnt be surprised if England bowled just as many, if not more no balls than Australia. The fact that Australia got wickets off them while England didnt can surely only be put down as luck.
I know what you're saying but when you bowl so many no-balls which get 'wickets' as Australia did, then part of me thinks you deserve to be pummelled.
The dropped catches was an issue yes, and it does go down to the lack of discipline in the team, but one cannot exactly go on to credit England for playing brilliantly when someone is dropped 3 times on his way to a match and series saving 158. Or for that matter someone being dropped and bowled of a no ball to eventually go on and get 166.
No, you can't credit England with the initial drops that's true. What you can do, however, is credit both KP and Vaughan for realising that it was their day, that they'd had some luck (in the case of KP, quite a bit) and that they went on with it. Without both their innings', England's totals would have been quite poor and once he got past 50, KP's knock was really something special.
Undoubtedly the England attack was brilliant. But then again when you look back at it, 2 bowlers had the series of their careers in the very same series. Whether that can be put down as fortunate is debateable, but i for one can guarantee that Flintoff will probably never bowl anywhere near as well as he bowled that series. And i find it incredibly ironic that since the Ashes Flintoff hasnt reverse swung a ball to any sort of extent to match the way he was doing it in the Ashes. and its not like he was bending it around before that summer either
Or bowling consistently 90+ either, for that matter. Oh, I'm not denying that we're seeing some regression back to the mean with England right now and that a couple of players played out of their skins for sure. But the same thing happened to the Aussies after beating the WI in 1995; some poor performances followed especially away from home. England, albeit with many more injuries, are suffering from an Ashes hangover, which I mooted as a distinct possibility right after the Ashes and was nigh-on ridiculed for it.
I knew it was going to happen and it had nothing to do with England's ability or otherwise; it happens to every team.
i think the main concern was their bowling. If Mcgrath, Gillespie and Kaspa bowled in the way in which we know they can, things would have been completely different. Fact was that the Australian batsman were always even in that series in a class above Englands. However considering that they were up against Hoggard, Harmison, Freddie and Jones and while Englands were up against Warne, Warne, Lee and Warne made it a rather unfair battle.
More importantly the fact that England batted first 4 times in that series also favored them significantly. They got the best of the pitch, the best of the conditions and eventually the better of the bowlers.
Ridiculous. It was Warne, Warne, Warne, Warne, Warne......................and Lee.
Yes Australia were facing an attack which was in good nick, indeed. But, although I agree the bowling was what ultimately separated the two teams, England's batters also had a greater attacking intent. They seemed to have been given the freedom to play shots and it paid dividends. Plus, just about every English plan seemed to come off. When a wicket was needed, a wicket happened. It was uncanny. That was a combination of great planning (the bowling and field plans to Hayden, Ponting, Martyn and Gilchrist were outstanding all series) and good luck (that what they planned actually came off).
I lost count of how many times the commentators would say something like "OKay well Freddie has o pitch the ball in area x for Martyn with this field", Freddie would hit area x and boom, wicket. England's plans were good, execution excellent but finishing was poor.
However do you honestly think his bowling was anywhere near as poor as it was during the Ashes?
Maybe not QUITE as poor but it wasn't far off and once he was exposed, it quickly unravelled. I was tearing my hair out at how many times Dizzy would angle the ball in at middle-and-leg and it'd hit the mid-wicket fence like a shot. Eventually, England's batsmen were treating him with contempt; it was clear they didn't rate him as a threat at all.
