Were England lucky to win the Ashes in 2005 ? ?

[Richard]

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.

There's absolutely no question it was a terrible decision. All the radio commentators said "not out" the minute the appeal went-up.
Fact is, though, England were still well on top at the time, and to suggest that England would have been likely to have trouble in the run-chase if they were chasing 30-40 more is IMO stupid, because they were NEVER behind the 8-ball. I was never at any point worried. People have simply hammed-up the tension to make it fit-in with the rest of the series. It was closer than it should've been, sure, but it would probably have been easier chasing a slightly larger total.

 

[parttimer]

There's absolutely no question it was a terrible decision. All the radio commentators said "not out" the minute the appeal went-up.
Fact is, though, England were still well on top at the time, and to suggest that England would have been likely to have trouble in the run-chase if they were chasing 30-40 more is IMO stupid, because they were NEVER behind the 8-ball. I was never at any point worried. People have simply hammed-up the tension to make it fit-in with the rest of the series. It was closer than it should've been, sure, but it would probably have been easier chasing a slightly larger total.

The theory that small targets are more likely to give you the yips? Sure its happened to all sides esp Australia but i wouldn't hang my hat on it, not in this case anyway. A rampant Shane Warne had to be seen off, on a turning pitch too. The way he bowled you just can't leave him out of the equation, and IMO he could just as likely got us home

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

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.

 

[Top_Cat]

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.

Your cricketing knowledge is at an all-time low if you honestly believe it was nothing but complacency which got to England. I mean, seriously, unless you've been in a low-target situation, you just can't understand. I always found it easier in some ways bowling in situations like that because you knew you could just throw absolutely everything you had at the opposition knowing it was THEY who were chasing the small target who were under pressure. Sounds stupid but, again, unless you've ever been in it........

Perfect example of a match where the pressure applied by excellent bowling put pressure on the chasing side who lost;

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1970S/1976-77/AUS_LOCAL/AUS-GC/WA_QLD_AUS-GC_12DEC1976.html

In that was Dennis Lillee's famous first over to Viv Richards which set the tone. How can one explain why a side containing Viv Richards and Greg Chappell lost by 15 runs chasing only 78 to win on a flat WACA wicket? One word; pressure. Apply it and anything can happen. Couple more just off the top of my head;

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1993-94/RSA_IN_AUS/RSA_AUS_T2_02-06JAN1994.html

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1980S/1981/AUS_IN_ENG/AUS_ENG_T3_16-21JUL1981.html

http://aus.cricinfo.com/link_to_dat...WC92/LEAGUE/ZIM_ENG_WC92_ODI35_18MAR1992.html

 

[SJS]

In every series there are dropped catches. In very many series important players misss out from one or both sides for different reasons. That wouldnt have been talked off if Australia had won. Inspite of all that is being offered as evidence of England's "luck" this discussion wouldnt be taking place if they had lost.

Why we are talking and proffering these reasons is that a team that was NOT supposeds to win, DID> Not just that, they went ahead and lost to another team not supposed to be that good.

So what is being said here is rthat in sport, upsets have no place and if they do take place they have to be explained away as good or bad luck.

Why cant we accept that upsets are part and parcel of competitive sport, in fact, one of the most precious parts.

Anyone remember a football team from a country called Cameroon ?

 

[parttimer]

In every series there are dropped catches. In very many series important players misss out from one or both sides for different reasons. That wouldnt have been talked off if Australia had won. Inspite of all that is being offered as evidence of England's "luck" this discussion wouldnt be taking place if they had lost.

Why we are talking and proffering these reasons is that a team that was NOT supposeds to win, DID> Not just that, they went ahead and lost to another team not supposed to be that good.

So what is being said here is rthat in sport, upsets have no place and if they do take place they have to be explained away as good or bad luck.

Why cant we accept that upsets are part and parcel of competitive sport, in fact, one of the most precious parts.

Anyone remember a football team from a country called Cameroon ?

If Cameroon won the world cup but the other team had a player wrongly sent off and a goal incorrectly disallowed do they still deserve all the plaudits? No. No matter how big a fairytale victory it might be, the underdog must still win fair and square and off their own bat.

 

[Tomm NCCC]

We were a little forunate but doesnt change the fact we beat you get over it!

 

[Richard]

The theory that small targets are more likely to give you the yips? Sure its happened to all sides esp Australia but i wouldn't hang my hat on it, not in this case anyway. A rampant Shane Warne had to be seen off, on a turning pitch too. The way he bowled you just can't leave him out of the equation, and IMO he could just as likely got us home

With Warne having taken 3 wickets we were still walking it.
Things only started to remotely resemble a problem (even then it was no more than a slight anxiety) when Lee got gifted a couple.
If we were chasing 160-180 I'd back us to have got home by 5-6 wickets.

 

[Richard]

Your cricketing knowledge is at an all-time low if you honestly believe it was nothing but complacency which got to England. I mean, seriously, unless you've been in a low-target situation, you just can't understand. I always found it easier in some ways bowling in situations like that because you knew you could just throw absolutely everything you had at the opposition knowing it was THEY who were chasing the small target who were under pressure. Sounds stupid but, again, unless you've ever been in it........

Perfect example of a match where the pressure applied by excellent bowling put pressure on the chasing side who lost;

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1970S/1976-77/AUS_LOCAL/AUS-GC/WA_QLD_AUS-GC_12DEC1976.html

In that was Dennis Lillee's famous first over to Viv Richards which set the tone. How can one explain why a side containing Viv Richards and Greg Chappell lost by 15 runs chasing only 78 to win on a flat WACA wicket? One word; pressure. Apply it and anything can happen. Couple more just off the top of my head;

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1993-94/RSA_IN_AUS/RSA_AUS_T2_02-06JAN1994.html

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1980S/1981/AUS_IN_ENG/AUS_ENG_T3_16-21JUL1981.html

http://aus.cricinfo.com/link_to_dat...WC92/LEAGUE/ZIM_ENG_WC92_ODI35_18MAR1992.html

So England were under such pressure when rollicking along at the pace they were against all bowlers bar Warne?
Quite what you meant in your top paragraph I don't know... Australia had all the advantages of defending a small target... had they been defending a more expectedly-defensible one such as 160-180 the pressure would have been on them and, by-and-large, off England. The game would've been in the balance.
And I say it again - I'd have backed us to get home easier than we ended-up doing (which, I'll say it again, was still pretty comfortable) had we been chasing a slightly larger target.
I don't need to have played in a game of said description to know about it. You can learn as much by watching as by playing.

 

[Richard]

In every series there are dropped catches. In very many series important players misss out from one or both sides for different reasons. That wouldnt have been talked off if Australia had won. Inspite of all that is being offered as evidence of England's "luck" this discussion wouldnt be taking place if they had lost.

Why we are talking and proffering these reasons is that a team that was NOT supposeds to win, DID> Not just that, they went ahead and lost to another team not supposed to be that good.

So what is being said here is rthat in sport, upsets have no place and if they do take place they have to be explained away as good or bad luck.

Well - by-and-large upsets of near-upsets can be explained as flukes and freaks.
Dropped catches, though, are not "luck" as far as teams are concerned - the team who pays for dropping catches has played less well than the one who gets away with dropping them.
Fact is, with McGrath injured twice, Gillespie being swapped for an imposter, Martyn and Gilchrist due some failures and Tait in the squad, Australia weren't in reality the more talented side, especially in the conditions that prevailed.
England were the better side - overwhelmingly - from Edgbaston onwards and that was borne-out in the cricket that was played-out.

 

[SJS]

Fact is, with McGrath injured twice, Gillespie being swapped for an imposter, Martyn and Gilchrist due some failures and Tait in the squad, Australia weren't in reality the more talented side, especially in the conditions that prevailed.

England were the better side - overwhelmingly - from Edgbaston onwards and that was borne-out in the cricket that was played-out.

AMEN

 

[parttimer]

It helps when the umps are snuffing out your opponents counterattacks for you..

 

[Top_Cat]

So England were under such pressure when rollicking along at the pace they were against all bowlers bar Warne?

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.

Quite what you meant in your top paragraph I don't know...

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

I don't need to have played in a game of said description to know about it. You can learn as much by watching as by playing.

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.

 

[GotSpin]

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

Pakistan played bloody well

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

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

 

[luckyeddie]

It helps when the umps are snuffing out your opponents counterattacks for you..

It gives you another excuse to cling on to. Building up quite a catalogue now.

 

[iamdavid]

Well - by-and-large upsets of near-upsets can be explained as flukes and freaks.
Dropped catches, though, are not "luck" as far as teams are concerned - the team who pays for dropping catches has played less well than the one who gets away with dropping them.
Fact is, with McGrath injured twice, Gillespie being swapped for an imposter, Martyn and Gilchrist due some failures and Tait in the squad, Australia weren't in reality the more talented side, especially in the conditions that prevailed.
England were the better side - overwhelmingly - from Edgbaston onwards and that was borne-out in the cricket that was played-out.

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.

As for the luck bit...the only thing i think we can really whinge about is McGrath suffering two injuries within a very short space of time when he'd suffered only a couple in the 10 years before.
But then again how many times in recent years have touring teams come to Australia and suffered a terrible run of injuries only to watch the home side go through almost unscathed...its part of the game.
As you say the side England put on the park played better cricket than the side Australia put on the park for the final four tests.

 

[Jono]

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.

That's true. Even at club levels, this season we almost defended all out for 77 in a 35 a side game. Its amazing what pressure can do to the opposition when they need such a small total. The bowlers were given free reign to give it their all, and it sort of gives you a boost because you've got absolutely nothing to lose (since no one expects you to be able to defend it) and everything to win.

 

[cricket_fan23]

As mentioned before, some of those factors aren't strictly speaking luck.

It would be more accurate to describe to describe it as acombination of bad luck, bad umpiring and bad management in terms of team selection

The latter of course being cricket Australia's own fault. those selction decisions look worse and worse as time goes on

 

[Salamuddin]

Right..ok..bear in mind I am Australian and i support Australia....


England beat West Indies 7-0 18 months ago over two series...and beat SA 2-1 in SA in series that England were quite clearly the better team..then beat Australia in a series where is was obvious who played the better cricket.

Even if India actually beat England 3-0, I would still consider England at full whack to be nigh on as good as Australia is, given that England bowling line up is far deeper than ours, and really if it comes down to it, Australias batting is probaly only slighly better tha England when in form

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.....