Were England lucky to win the Ashes in 2005 ? ?

[Matteh]

I guess it's possible to see it as luck...

but when basically every Australian batsman fails to make a half decent score for an entire series (there are of course exceptions like Ponting's innings but that was only one innings in an entire series) and when England are capable of batting...there's going to be problems...

In the bowling area...England's pace attack was on fire, admitted less so in the case of Harmison but he still took wickets....Australia effectively only had McGrath, Lee and Warne in any form....Gillespie, Kasprowicz, Tait were all fairly average.....and when McGrath got injured that reduced the effectiveness of the Australian bowling attack even further...

Basically, England for once, took their chances and won

 

[Richard]

In the bowling area...England's pace attack was on fire, admitted less so in the case of Harmison but he still took wickets

Got a load of tailenders out in The First Test, yes. Other than that, he did precisely sod-all of note, so could quite fairly be said to have contributed little or nothing to the victory.

Basically, England for once, took their chances and won

England dropped every bit as many catches as Australia, and bowled as many no-balls - it's just that it didn't cost them as much as it did Australia.

 

[luckyeddie]

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

Doesn't hold out much hope for the future then if you have to rely on Glenn McGrath having a well-oiled zimmer frame.

 

[luckyeddie]

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

So are you advocating that people ought to pass an intelligence test before being allowed to post?

Australian representation will be down to the staff, Sqwerty, you and Social.

 

[Richard]

That'd be social.
I'd expect luckyeddie to think that England had been lucky, at least, and probably Australia too.

 

[parttimer]

Yes they were lucky. The Katich LB was the turning point of the series. The rest of the decisions against aus part. against Marto and Ponting were also crucial, but happened in a vacuum, as most of the Poms in here seem to think..Is that LE being a pompous git again, well i never

 

[luckyeddie]

That'd be social.
I'd expect luckyeddie to think that England had been lucky, at least, and probably Australia too.

Oh, something.

 

[luckyeddie]

Yes they were lucky. The Katich LB was the turning point of the series. The rest of the decisions against aus part. against Marto and Katich were also crucial, but happened in a vacuum, as most of the Poms in here seem to think..Is that LE being a pompous git again, well i never

 

[Blaze]

Who cares? Australia will win 5-0 this year anyway

 

[Swervy]

Why? Changed your mind, have you?

I misread what you said, and I thought it would be more polite to admit that rather than delete the post

 

[sqwerty]

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.

couldn't disagree with you more in this instance. I mean it's not like we're comparing ODI's to say Ice Hockey for god's sake. To say you can't compare form in the two forms of the game is somewhat naive in my opinion.

Like I said....if Hussey hadn't shown what he had shown in one day cricket he wouldn't have played a single test match to this day.

so I'll guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[sqwerty]

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.

depends what you consider 'dominant'

Yes post lords England were always in a stronger position and yes Australia were always playing catch up.

But ultimately the series hung on a thread and if Kaspa scored 2 more runs in that second test it would have been far from 2-1 England

 

[sqwerty]

So are you advocating that people ought to pass an intelligence test before being allowed to post?

Australian representation will be down to the staff, Sqwerty, you and Social.

HEY how about that!...it's nice to be recognised !

 

[sqwerty]

Yes they were lucky. The Katich LB was the turning point of the series. The rest of the decisions against aus part. against Marto and Ponting were also crucial, but happened in a vacuum, as most of the Poms in here seem to think..Is that LE being a pompous git again, well i never

Katich LB??...I don't even remember that.

As far as I'm concerned all those bad decisions don't mean crap. That's cricket. Dropped catches?? same again...though admittedly Australia paid dearly for a few of those but good on England for making them pay.

If you want a turning point, surely you can't look past McGrath treading on the ball before the 2nd test. Not so much for the fact that his ability with the ball may have ensured Australia stayed on top but for the fact that he destroyed England in his man of the match performance at Lords and gave Australia so much confidence and momentum which was then totally reversed by his injury.

Surely psychologically, England would have gained as much from that incident as Australia lost and it showed in the way Trescothick came out blazing.

As for Ponting's decision to bowl...I reckon that has been blown out of all proportion and he copped way too much for it. Given that all the talk in the week leading up to that match had been how the ground was flooded and was going to seam around it's hard to be too crictical. And having seen how easily England capitulated in the first test I reckon Ponting had every right to believe his bowlers would do the job again...with or without McGrath....and whether or not the deck was seaming or flat.

The more I think about incidents in that series the more I'm convinced it was the most amazing series ever.

 

[James90]

The luck in the series certainly went England's way but I think the series was decided by the fact that England won the big/pivotal moments.

 

[Richard]

Yes they were lucky. The Katich LB was the turning point of the series. The rest of the decisions against aus part. against Marto and Ponting were also crucial, but happened in a vacuum, as most of the Poms in here seem to think

Rubbish, the series had already turned by then. England were utterly dominant by the time of the Katich lbw.
If Katich hadn't been sawn-off so unfairly, the target would probably have been a bit bigger... and as such it'd probably have been achieved more easily because the shabby complacancy that allowed Brett Lee to get 3 wickets wouldn't have happened.

 

[Richard]

couldn't disagree with you more in this instance. I mean it's not like we're comparing ODI's to say Ice Hockey for god's sake. To say you can't compare form in the two forms of the game is somewhat naive in my opinion.

Like I said....if Hussey hadn't shown what he had shown in one day cricket he wouldn't have played a single test match to this day.

so I'll guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

So you think Hussey's 6 or 7 years of excellence in the domestic-First-Class game counted for nothing, do you?
The two forms of the game have many differences, and nothing that happens in one proves anything in the other.

 

[Richard]

depends what you consider 'dominant'

Yes post lords England were always in a stronger position and yes Australia were always playing catch up.

But ultimately the series hung on a thread and if Kaspa scored 2 more runs in that second test it would have been far from 2-1 England

It would - but a massive injustice as the game should never, ever have got anywhere near so close as it did. Kasprowicz was absolutely plumb 1st ball with still 40 or whatever it was needed.

 

[parttimer]

Rubbish, the series had already turned by then. England were utterly dominant by the time of the Katich lbw.
If Katich hadn't been sawn-off so unfairly, the target would probably have been a bit bigger... and as such it'd probably have been achieved more easily because the shabby complacancy that allowed Brett Lee to get 3 wickets wouldn't have happened.

IMO any extra runs that Eng had to chase were worth double, so to speak. It was a horrenous decision, pitching a foot outside legstump and after a brilliant and chanceless? (close to) innings and well set. It was MASSIVE.

 

[Richard]

Katich LB??...I don't even remember that.

The shocking lbw in the second-innings of the Fourth Test at Trent Bridge that gifted Harmison his wicket.