Were England lucky to win the Ashes in 2005 ? ?

[luckyeddie]

A series loss to Pakistan thats got to say something and im sure that this Indian series will be close.

It says nothing at all regarding how England performed against Australia.

That's nothing anyone can take away.

As far as the India series is concerned - no, that won't be close. I'm going for 3-0.

 

[Top_Cat]

Indeed I find it hard to understand why the opposition having players in terrible form is 'bad luck...... And no-ball problems aren't maters of luck but pretty terrible discipline. I've never seen a series where so many 'wickets' came off no-balls or where there were so many bowled.

England were simply better. Even with McGrath and Gillespie fit and bowling well, I find it difficult to believe the result would have been different. Everything they tried worked and that, to me, was persistence and hard work paying off. How many teams in a five Test series have ever managed to keep Gilchrist, Martyn AND Hayden (aside from the 5th Test) quiet? Not very many and only Martyn got a couple of shocking decisions. England had plans and executed them beautifully. You just KNEW that Hayden and Gilchrist were going to be tested in areas they didn't like and they really fell down because, again, the execution of plans against their weaknesses was near-flawless. And once the batsmen started attacking the bowling, they didn't let-off. I still say Australia didn't play too badly; England just countered their plans very well.

 

[SJS]

They scored the required runs, took the required wickets held enough catches all by themselves with no help from umpires, the heavens or any of us. To say that they were lucky to win an entire series is ridiculous.

The problem is that because they won the Ashes, fans assumed they were now equal to if not better than Australia or at least all other sides of the world. To draw such inferences showed as shallow an understanding of the game as to call that win as being "lucky" now that they have lost to Pakistan and a tour opener in India.

 

[Salamuddin]

They scored the required runs, took the required wickets held enough catches all by themselves with no help from umpires, the heavens or any of us. To say that they were lucky to win an entire series is ridiculous.

The problem is that because they won the Ashes, fans assumed they were now equal to if not better than Australia or at least all other sides of the world. To draw such inferences showed as shallow an understanding of the game as to call that win as being "lucky" now that they have lost to Pakistan and a tour opener in India.

Swaranjeet Sahib, I brought the 'luck' debate up based on me recently having seen the DVD of that Ashes series. It had nothing to do with England's loss in Pakistan.

 

[SJS]

Swaranjeet Sahib, I brought the 'luck' debate up based on me recently having seen the DVD of that Ashes series. It had nothing to do with England's loss in Pakistan.

Salamuddin Sahib, I never said you did.

I am just talking in general about the tendency to go into ecstacies/raptures/hyperbole on a team winning and then plummeting into condemnation/recriminations/running-down-of-achievements when they lose. The same happens with individuals (Tendulkar a recent example and hope Dhoni isnt a future one) and teams both at the recieving end of exaggerated reactions.

It wasnt aimed at you or your post specifically.

 

[UncleTheOne]

A lot of mentions for Gillespie's lack of form during the series. I think he simply had all his confidence smashed out of him by the English batsman in the ODI's beforehand. I.e KP at Bristol. Also has mentioned before No balls, certain players not being included, Hayden and Gilchrist being horribly exposed etc aren't good luck.

 

[Sanz]

You dont win a test series against australia by being lucky. England played better than Australia and that's why they won the series and deserved to.

 

[marc71178]

Stuff like Gilchrist and Gilespie isn't bad luck, just bad form.

Gilchrist bad form?

He wasn't ever really givena chance to get form by the bowling.

 

[Francis]

I don't feel the need to argue some points made since I'd be repeating myself. But...

A lot of mentions for Gillespie's lack of form during the series. I think he simply had all his confidence smashed out of him by the English batsman in the ODI's beforehand.

That's wrong. In the 20/20 match, the very first match of the series, I believe Gillespie's first delivery was a wide. His second delivery was a wide. His third was fine. He fourth was a wde. It was the most inexplicable thing I'd ever seen that such a great bowler could all of a sudden start bowling terrible balls.

In the Bristol game with Kevin Pietersen, Gillespie got off to a similar start. By the end of the game the Aussies, as a whole, bowled more extras than England had balls left. Gillespie bowled most of the extras... which were bowled before KP came to the crease.

Again, completely inexplicable that somebody would just bowl like that after all he'd accomplished. I want him to get back into that Australian team solely out of curiousity to see how he'd do.

Also has mentioned before No balls, certain players not being included, Hayden and Gilchrist being horribly exposed etc aren't good luck.

For me, Gilchrist wasn't found out... or at least he was influenced. Daniel Vettori has said before that Adam Gilchrist has the best hand-eye co-ordination he'd ever seen. I agree. My hypothesis is that did anybody notice that when England were swinging the ball they were getting nicks? What happened when Gilchrist went out? There were times where he'd swipe at the ball, it would hit the bat, and he'd be caught.

There's no flaw in Gilchrist's batting style, but when Flintoff got the ball reversing away from him, Gilchrist - with his awesome eye, followed the ball and insted of hitting through it like he usually would, he'd swipe at it. It's not too different than bowling a slower ball and making a batsman hit early so as to hit the ball in the air. During the Super Series, Gilchrist rectified that I believe and made 94.

I guess it depends on what you consider "being found out" because Gilchrist being Gilchrist always went for the ball, with the ball swinging it becomes hard to place it inbetween the field. In that sense he was found out. But he was good enough to hit the ball, the swing made it hard to place.

It's really irrelevant when I think about it. Either way Freddie bunnied one of the best batsmen in the world... but he didn't dupe him, he set a field and bowled for it.

Hayden being found out is silly since all his dismissals were prototypical dismissals. That short off fielder never came into play that much and never took a catch. Hayden went out lbw or bowled off good deliveries. No real flaw... just great English bowling.

 

[Top_Cat]

There's no flaw in Gilchrist's batting style, but when Flintoff got the ball reversing away from him, Gilchrist - with his awesome eye, followed the ball and insted of hitting through it like he usually would, he'd swipe at it. It's not too different than bowling a slower ball and making a batsman hit early so as to hit the ball in the air. During the Super Series, Gilchrist rectified that I believe and made 94.

After being beaten how many times by Freddie outside off-stump from around the wicket early in that knock? That said.........

I guess it depends on what you consider "being found out" because Gilchrist being Gilchrist always went for the ball,

This much is true, that flaw has always been there against bowlers who could exploit it. The thing is, the flaw disappears if he decides it's his day. But generally, his weakness outside off-stump has always been there.

Hayden being found out is silly since all his dismissals were prototypical dismissals. That short off fielder never came into play that much and never took a catch. Hayden went out lbw or bowled off good deliveries. No real flaw... just great English bowling.

Yes and no. The contention is that Hayden has always been a bit leaden-footed against swing bowling (something which has surrounded him since he started at FC level, despite his success for QLD at the 'Gabba). The fact he was bowled/LBW to pacers who specialise in swinging the ball 5 out of 9 dismissals, was caught behind the wicket to balls swinging away twice at Birmingham to bowlers who again specialise in swinging the ball and was caught at short-cover with a VERY tentative prod to (again) a swing bowler means that contention has gained strength if anything. I mean, that's 8 out of 9 dismissals brought about by swing bowling. High-class swing-bowling, yes, but it was definitely a factor in knocking him over.

 

[Pratters]

You make and mar your own luck. England were worthy winners.

 

[Tom Halsey]

That's wrong. In the 20/20 match, the very first match of the series, I believe Gillespie's first delivery was a wide. His second delivery was a wide. His third was fine.

Wasn't that the first game of the NatWest? Not sure.

 

[aussie]

England were lucky on occassions but they deserved to win. The turning point of the series was definately on the 1s day at edgbaston when McGrath was injured & Ponting decided to field.

But i still feel that if Australia had been fielding at their usual high standards and had McGrath fully fit in all 5 test they would not have lost the ashes because Warne had every england batsman in problems & he struggled for any real sustained pressure from the other end after the 1st test, so for me if pigeon was their the fact the Dizzy out of form Kaspa was a bit on & off & Lee erratic bowling Australia would have been SURELY able to prevent england from scoring 3 consectutive 400 1st innings totals and the effect the englands bowlers had on australia's batsmen would have been evened up a bit.

I didn't mention the fact that i though if Australia's batsmen had been in top form because it was obvious that englands fast bowlers had worked out Australia's batsmen & no if & buts could have changed that fact.

 

[luckyeddie]

I just watched the Ashes DVD again recently and it struck me that yeah
lots of things did go England's way in the Ashes after the LOrds test.

Mcgrath being injured obviously but also Gillespie's and Kasper's loss of form and the toss.
Even the Aussie batsmen were below par although I do recognise some wonderful bowling on the part of the English which accounted for this.
It was obvious Australia were desperate to bat first in light of difficulties confronting their three premier pace bowlers.
But England won four tosses in a row and I do think it advantaged England to bat first given their strength was in bowling.

What do you guys think ?

Thinking about it (I do that sometimes), I'm beginning to think that one period of half an hour really did decide the Ashes.

The first was the half an hour leading up to the toss at Edgbaston when Glenn McGrath was nobbled by a small red spherical alien spaceship from a Australia-hating planet orbiting Aldebaran (similar in appearance to the Death Star in the Star Wars film) that landed immediately under his heel as he just happened to be putting his foot down. This same alien obviously then used some semblance of mind control in order to influence Ponting to come up with those famous words "We'll have a bowl, mate" shortly later - or perhaps he used bribery, coercion or blackmail involving some exotic yet alien bread-like product.

If that's the case, it was certainly lucky. Aliens don't usually visit Birmingham on a Thursday.

 

[Swervy]

If that's the case, it was certainly lucky. Aliens don't usually visit Birmingham on a Thursday.

well not the Aldebareans anyway

 

[open365]

But i still feel that if Australia had been fielding at their usual high standards and had McGrath fully fit in all 5 test they would not have lost the ashes because Warne had every england batsman in problems & he struggled for any real sustained pressure from the other end after the 1st test, so for me if pigeon was their the fact the Dizzy out of form Kaspa was a bit on & off & Lee erratic bowling Australia would have been SURELY able to prevent england from scoring 3 consectutive 400 1st innings totals and the effect the englands bowlers had on australia's batsmen would have been evened up a bit.

You think they lost the ashes because of dodgy fielding?

 

[Anil]

The first was the half an hour leading up to the toss at Edgbaston when Glenn McGrath was nobbled by a small red spherical alien spaceship from a Australia-hating planet orbiting Aldebaran (similar in appearance to the Death Star in the Star Wars film) that landed immediately under his heel as he just happened to be putting his foot down. This same alien obviously then used some semblance of mind control in order to influence Ponting to come up with those famous words "We'll have a bowl, mate" shortly later - or perhaps he used bribery, coercion or blackmail involving some exotic yet alien bread-like product.

i think that's true too....mcgrath's freak injury was the turning point of that ashes....

 

[adharcric]

England certainly had their share of luck, but they earned and deserved the Ashes victory. That said, Australia are still the better team.

 

[Swervy]

England certainly had their share of luck, but they earned and deserved the Ashes victory. That said, Australia are still the better team.

straight up...tell me why the Australians are a better team right at the moment.

 

[Autobahn]

True losing McGrath was a big slice of luck for england but at the same time it did expose a chink in the aussie armour, and that was simply that the attack became unbalanced with neither Lee, Kasprowicz or Gillespie able to pin back attacking sides before hand such as Glen had done.

England saw their chance and capitalized fully, for everyone has luck but it's the most sucessful ones that seize upon their good luck.