Were England lucky to win the Ashes in 2005 ? ?

[Swervy]

England's bowling is better than Australia's yes. But to claim that that the Aussie batting is only slightly better than England when in form borders on the laughable - unless you mean when the Aussie batting is in dreadful form and the English batting is in top form.

England's batting isn't all that strong when you consider that Flintoff is pretty poor away from home, Geraint Jones isn't a patch on keeper-batsmen like Gilchrist, Sangakkaara or Akmal and Vaughan hasn't really done a huge deal since the Ashes of 2002-2003.
Add to that Trescothick is clearly a better player in England than he is away and there are still pretty big question marks over Bell and Strauss.....

as I saud..when the England batting is playing as well as it can..I even backed that up with some stats if you care to have a look back

 

[Matteh]

Cricketfan23 - you've spelt Leamington Spa wrong as your home town (i'd have IMed but this is the only way i can say it)

As for the topic....

England's bowling basically managed to bowl perfectly to the Australian batsmen's weaknesses which added to a blip in form with some batsmen led to the lack of domination over the bowling that many expected from them...

The England Batting is pretty shaky...sometimes looks amazing...other times you just wonder how it does so poorly

 

[steds]

Cricketfan23 - you've spelt Leamington Spa wrong as your home town

 

[Richard]

As anyone who has actually been in a low-target situation would know, England were only going at a decent rate because they knew that to take one's time is to get bogged-down and to hand the opposition momentum. Plus, the Aussies were going as hard as they could for wickets so obviously, a greater number of loose deliveries are going to result.

I've seen teams stroll to small targets and I've seen them belt to them.
Fact is, if you play well the momentum is always in your favour.
I personally found that England were rollicking along because the bowling was poor. Warne could go for wickets without gifting runs. Lee could not, and indeed when he got 2 wickets both were from very poor strokes.

And unless you've been in the situation, of course you wouldn't. This is my point.

I don't understand what you are saying. To me, you appeared to be saying one thing was an advantage then saying it was a disadvantage.

Simply untrue. Say it all you want, you'll still be wrong and until you HAVE been in the situation (at almost any standard, mind), you can't comment with credibility either way.

Well - I have played a part in defending a small total, on several occasions, though I hardly see how it's comparable at English Sunday XI Limited-overs standard to Test-match cricket.
I find I could learn far more from watching Tests than playing Sunday League matches.

 

[Richard]

Pakistan played bloody well

And yet... England played better for most of the series.
We dominated most of the Multan Test, then collapsed on the final day. We certainly had the better of the Faisalabad one, and even with 70-odd overs lost due to bad light we still had a chance of victory going into the last day.
Only at Lahore were Pakistan really on top, and even then we were cruising to saving the game, and my bet is that had we been 1-0 up rather than 0-1 down we'd have saved it rather than thrown it away with barely 2 hours' play remaining.

 

[Richard]

If I remember correctly [I might not] Lee was not only gifted with wickets, but didn't he bowl Flintoff with a ripper?

Indeed, the Flintoff ball was a good one, but the previous 2 were gifts, there's no denying that.

 

[Richard]

Hmm very well said....I'm not sure about the imposter bit though thats a bit harsh lol....I liken him to MacGill...he'll bowl plenty of rubbish (in some cases more than alot of 15yr old grade cricketers would) and he wont look pretty....but he has the ability to bowl the unplayable delivery and that means he's always capable of taking wickets regardless of condtions or quality of opposition...no matter how many he goes for and how bad it looks.

Like I say - I've seen Gillespie bowl poorly before now, but I've never seen anything like that.
Of course it's tongue-in-cheek to suggest someone stole his body-shape, but as I say - we're talking about a bowler in the top echleon who's suddenly become quite the most useless bowler I've ever seen play Test-cricket... totally up there with K Eric A Upashantha... and it was a trifle on the bizarre side, especially now he seems to be bowling exactly like he was before (you won't get a 21-22 average in the Pura Cup bowling like he bowled last summer).

 

[Richard]

those selction decisions look worse and worse as time goes on

Which ones?
Tait was a poor selection but I don't remember anyone making massive fuss about him before the series - and any fool can talk with hindsight.

 

[Richard]

The England Batting is pretty shaky...sometimes looks amazing...other times you just wonder how it does so poorly

Indeed.
Most of the runs England have scored recently, be it against India, Pakistan or Australia, has owed one hell of a lot to dropped catches.
Personally I've never been convinced of Trescothick and Flintoff's batting prowess, nor have I made any secret of that, Strauss has been pathetic in his 2nd year compared to his 1st, Bell tends to get too many good deliveries for my liking, Pietersen however much potential he has has flattered to deceive aplenty and is fast becoming even luckier than Trescothick was early in his Test career, Geraint Jones has exasperated me on so many occasions I've lost count, and Collingwood has still to overcome the flat-track-bully tag.
Alistair Cook's performance, even on a very flat deck and with one of the most simple caught-and-bowled drops EVER, was quite the best I've seen since Strauss scored 147 at The Wanderers over a year ago now.
I dread to think what might happen were England to come-up against a side who know how to catch.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Indeed, the Flintoff ball was a good one, but the previous 2 were gifts, there's no denying that.

Oh yes, there's no doubt about that. But credit where credit's due.

 

[Richard]

Would he have bowled the Flintoff ball if Bell had not Hooked him straight to the fielder? I think he'd probably have been withdrawn from the attack by then.