Were England lucky to win the Ashes in 2005 ? ?

[sqwerty]

What, precisely, does the ODI series have to do with anything?
Jones is not a good ODI bowler, Harmison is not a good Test bowler, Tremlett and Lewis didn't play in the Tests (thank God), Hoggard didn't play in the ODIs (thank God), and Gough didn't play in the Tests (after bowling pretty poorly in the ODIs in any case).
Just because Hussey succeeded in the ODIs doesn't say anything as to whether he would've succeeded in the Tests. He might have done, yes, but the ODIs cannot be used to suggest that.

I'm sick of this type of argument because it is fundamentally baseless.

Yeesss we all know one day cricket is different than test cricket and yessss we all know different bowlers were taking part in both series. Thanks for that scoop.

The fact is though that Hussey was in punishing form against English bowlers on English soil. You couldn't say that about any of the other Aussies in that series. Who cares if the one day game is weighted towards the batsman and is different in many ways to test cricket...by comparison he was a standout against all batsmen from both sides under the same conditions.

The argument that ODI's are different than tests therefore his form is irrelevant carries bugger all weight as far as I'm concerned when you consider he has all the shots in both forms of the game, no glaring weaknesses and was in dominant form.

Players like Hussey wouldn't even be playing test cricket if he hadn't proven himself in the one day game in the first place.

 

[roseboy64]

Yes, luck was a part of them winning but only a small portion. Ultimately they performed better when it mattered and thus won.

 

[prossj]

i think that england were lucky to win the ashes because we didn't have mcgrath for 2 games and Hussey was not in the side

 

[Neil Pickup]

i think that england were lucky to win the ashes because we didn't have mcgrath for 2 games and Hussey was not in the side

So, basically, what you're trying to say is you're a one man team?

 

[Slats4ever]

nah just that he's one of the many people on this forum who's saying england was quite lucky.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Meh. We won.

Don't actually think I've answered this before - but I don't really believe that you can ever win something without deserving to do so, at any level in any sport. Even if a couple of other factors fall your way, which admittedly they did, you have to work your backsides off to hold and maintain your position and your status

 

[Richard]

I'm sick of this type of argument because it is fundamentally baseless.

Yeesss we all know one day cricket is different than test cricket and yessss we all know different bowlers were taking part in both series. Thanks for that scoop.

The fact is though that Hussey was in punishing form against English bowlers on English soil. You couldn't say that about any of the other Aussies in that series. Who cares if the one day game is weighted towards the batsman and is different in many ways to test cricket...by comparison he was a standout against all batsmen from both sides under the same conditions.

The argument that ODI's are different than tests therefore his form is irrelevant carries bugger all weight as far as I'm concerned when you consider he has all the shots in both forms of the game, no glaring weaknesses and was in dominant form.

Players like Hussey wouldn't even be playing test cricket if he hadn't proven himself in the one day game in the first place.

Anything which happens in ODIs has nothing to do with Tests as far as I'm concerned.
You can never use ODIs to prove anything about Tests.
So I don't feel that Hussey's form or anything else (eg Australia being the better side) counts for anything in the England-Australia ODIs pre-Ashes.

 

[Richard]

Meh. We won.

Don't actually think I've answered this before - but I don't really believe that you can ever win something without deserving to do so, at any level in any sport. Even if a couple of other factors fall your way, which admittedly they did, you have to work your backsides off to hold and maintain your position and your status

So people who've expressly broken rules which are clear for all and won stuff have deserved to do so? (Eg people who've used banned steroids)

 

[Neil Pickup]

So people who've expressly broken rules which are clear for all and won stuff have deserved to do so? (Eg people who've used banned steroids)

Clearly not what I implied.

 

[Richard]

No?
You said "anyone winning anything has to deserve it" (words to that affect)
I would dispute that strongly, even more in individual sports than in team ones.
In individual sports luck can have a huge bearing on any given match-up. So can cheating.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Cheating invalidates the whole line of logic put above and is not what I'm arguing.

You can lose something without deserving to lose - but not win.

 

[Richard]

Well, if you think so you think so, but I don't.
I find that a bit idealistic, frankly.
It's a bit "oh, no, can't deprive someone of a victory".
I could name countless Test-series where the result has flattered one team and\or been harsh on another - there are many Test-series where the final scoreline is not an accurate reflection of the cricket played.
Two such instances are England-Australia 2005 and England-South Africa 2003.
The 2005 scoreline didn't in any way reflect England's utter dominance after The First Test (which would have been better placed in the last 8 series), and the 2003 scoreline massively flattered England while doing a little of a disservice to South Africa.

 

[Swervy]

Well, if you think so you think so, but I don't.
I find that a bit idealistic, frankly.
It's a bit "oh, no, can't deprive someone of a victory".
I could name countless Test-series where the result has flattered one team and\or been harsh on another - there are many Test-series where the final scoreline is not an accurate reflection of the cricket played.
Two such instances are England-Australia 2005 and England-South Africa 2003.
The 2005 scoreline didn't in any way reflect England's utter dominance after The First Test (which would have been better placed in the last 8 series), and the 2003 scoreline massively flattered England while doing a little of a disservice to South Africa.

I agree that there are many series scorelines that flatter one team, but those two series you have named there are two that absolutely do not fall into that category

edit..forget what I ahve just said

 

[Richard]

So South Africa didn't roundly outplay England in 2003? Pull the other one.
England didn't completely dominate Australia for most of the post-Lord's series in 2005? Despite the extreme closeness and wonderfully exciting nature of virtually every ball of the series, the fact is if you knock Lord's into the previous series there would never be a time where England were anything other than dominant.

 

[Richard]

edit..forget what I ahve just said

Why? Changed your mind, have you?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Exeter City 0-1 York City, February 2004.

We (Exeter) had 18 shots, hit the woodwork twice, had one cleared off the line and the York keeper pulled off a couple of blinders. York had one shot, on a counter attack, gifted to them by a woefully underhit backpass.

We didn't deserve to lose... but York fully deserved the win.

 

[Richard]

I don't dispute that for a second.
Not all happenings are like that.
Say something similar happened, but with York having 0 shots on target and winning 0-1 through a culpable own-goal.
Then York would be lucky.

 

[GIMH]

So what if you were without McGrath for two tests, we were without Jones for the 5th test, and the 2nd innings of the 4th, and the closing stages of Old Trafford also, and at Edgbaston, Old Trafford and Trent Bridge there was no bowler more effective, Warne excluded.

You could play devil's advocate and argue that with Jones fit for The Oval we may have dismissed Australia quicker, set them a big target then bowled them out again for vitory, and the same goes for the 3rd innings at Trent Bridge, thereby making our run chase much lower and less stressful, and giving the final result a more reflective result. And it could also be sugggested that we would have taken the final wicket at Old Trafford if SJ hadn't left the field with cramp.

So in fact, I guess you could say if we had been luckier with the fitness of Simon Jones, we would have won the Ashes 4-1

In fact we were unlucky that Pietersen dropped Clarke when he was on 23 at Lord's, maybe we'd have won that as well but for that bout of luck. Then it could have been 5-0.

 

[Matteh]

I don't dispute that for a second.
Not all happenings are like that.
Say something similar happened, but with York having 0 shots on target and winning 0-1 through a culpable own-goal.
Then York would be lucky.

York deserve the win....because they had one chance...and they scored from it
whereas Exeter wasted all of their dominance

 

[Richard]

Yes, I know, I said that quite clearly.
I then hypothecised another circumstance where they wouldn't really have deserved a win.