Who's going to win?

[Langeveldt]

Aus 2-1.. There is no way Australia are that strong to whitewash England, even though they are diabolical.. I still can't believe they beat SA, we were absolutely hideously bad for the first 2 tests.. Basically, everyone is bad

 

[Inferiority]

Yeah, you're right. No-one would've seriously betted on them being that bad and everything is much clearer with hindsight. I myself didn't see the signs of their receeding form (pre-Ashes, that is) until after the Ashes was won by England.

Aus 2-1.. There is no way Australia are that strong to whitewash England, even though they are diabolical.. I still can't believe they beat SA, we were absolutely hideously bad for the first 2 tests.. Basically, everyone is bad

Had they played Prince instead of McKenzie, they probably would have won the first test without a doubt but probably not the second test. SA lost the series rather than Australia winning it.

 

[Ausage]

Australia 3-0 imo. Reckon Johnson will have a field day over there

 

[vic_orthdox]

Had they played Prince instead of McKenzie, they probably would have won the first test without a doubt but probably not the second test. SA lost the series rather than Australia winning it.

Can only beat the team put on the park.

Would have been Prince's first hit in a long time, without a chance to establish any semblance of form. You can't quantify how much the big score he made for his province before the third Test contributed towards his effort in that game.

 

[TT Boy]

Can only beat the team put on the park.

Would have been Prince's first hit in a long time, without a chance to establish any semblance of form. You can't quantify how much the big score he made for his province before the third Test contributed towards his effort in that game.

He did play some domestic cricket before the first test, albeit 20/20.

 

[Richard]

Can only beat the team put on the park.

Would have been Prince's first hit in a long time, without a chance to establish any semblance of form. You can't quantify how much the big score he made for his province before the third Test contributed towards his effort in that game.

Not to mention that, rather like Michael Hussey playing instead of Katich or Clarke in England in 2005, it would only ever remotely be suggested in a wise-after-the-event category. The idea of Prince opening instead of McKenzie at the start of the series was, rightly, absurd.

 

[DaRick]

Had they played Prince instead of McKenzie, they probably would have won the first test without a doubt but probably not the second test. SA lost the series rather than Australia winning it.

That's a bold statement to make - like others have said, the double-century prior to the third test (plus Bryce McGain's fecklessness) helped Prince immeasurably.

In the end, we could do the same 'what-if' situations to the series in AUS. What if Lee had not played, for instance?

However, ultimately, there's no point - we'll never know the proper answers to these hypothetical questions.

 

[Richard]

Well, some what-ifs are interesting - if they're what-if-something-plausible-happened ones. The example you give is a perfect example of a pointless one, as pointless as the what-if-Prince-had-opened-all-series. There was no possibility, under any circumstance, that either player was going to play \ not play given the availability at the times in question.

And while "what if so-and-so wasn't injured" is reasonable, "what if so-and-so was injured" emphatically isn't. Because you can say that about every single player ever to take the field in every game of cricket ever.

 

[Uppercut]

Well, some what-ifs are interesting - if they're what-if-something-plausible-happened ones. The example you give is a perfect example of a pointless one, as pointless as the what-if-Prince-had-opened-all-series. There was no possibility, under any circumstance, that either player was going to play \ not play given the availability at the times in question.

And while "what if so-and-so wasn't injured" is reasonable, "what if so-and-so was injured" emphatically isn't. Because you can say that about every single player ever to take the field in every game of cricket ever.

I don't agree that Prince opening instead of McKenzie was as implausible as you seem to believe.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I don't agree that Prince opening instead of McKenzie was as implausible as you seem to believe.

It was mooted, but it would've been a hugely controversial decision. It'd be like dropping Mike Hussey right now from the Test side.

 

[Furball]

3-1 Australia.

There was a lot of optimistic nonsense floating around the English press when the Aussies were struggling in India. What pretty much every person who gloated in the Aussie's suffering didn't seem to pick up on was that the Australian batting hadn't been the problem.

I reckon James Anderson might have a great series for England, I'd expect Flintoff to be good if fit and I reckon Pietersen will have another 50+ series, but I've no confidence in the England attack in general to be able to limit Australia to sub 350 scores.

 

[Uppercut]

3-1 Australia.

There was a lot of optimistic nonsense floating around the English press when the Aussies were struggling in India. What pretty much every person who gloated in the Aussie's suffering didn't seem to pick up on was that the Australian batting hadn't been the problem.

I reckon James Anderson might have a great series for England, I'd expect Flintoff to be good if fit and I reckon Pietersen will have another 50+ series, but I've no confidence in the England attack in general to be able to limit Australia to sub 350 scores.

Depends on the pitches. England's bowling is still their stronger suit for my money, especially when they play Flintoff at 6. In English conditions you'd be a fool to underestimate an Anderson-Broad-Flintoff-Swann attack.

 

[Redbacks]

Had they played Prince instead of McKenzie, they probably would have won the first test without a doubt but probably not the second test. SA lost the series rather than Australia winning it.

In no way have you taken consideration of the flow of the first test. Dropped catches cost SA a chance in the match, nobody was going to make alot of runs on that wicket. Given a life, Ponting went on a dominated the attack and a lack of information on North was also a big advantage. Regardless of who opened: SA would have been bowled out for under 250 in their first innings and would have been outrageous odds to win the match from their position, given we made 466 in the first innings.

Drunk on dead rubber fumes it would seem?

 

[andruid]

4-1 to Australia, like in the good old days.

 

[andyc]

Had they played Prince instead of McKenzie, they probably would have won the first test without a doubt but probably not the second test.

 

[stumpski]

Went for the tie - England to level the series at the Oval when it doesn't matter.

There hasn't been a tied series since 1972, must be about due.

 

[Shri]

Looking forward to the contest between MJ and KP. My money is on Australia and I have a feeling Hughes might play a big role in the inevitable Oz win.

 

[Richard]

Went for the tie - England to level the series at the Oval when it doesn't matter.

There hasn't been a tied series since 1972, must be about due.

Or, alternatively, they might be a thing of the past.

Remember, there were 4 in a decade finishing with said '72 series.

 

[GIMH]

A drawn series would be so bittersweet - at the end of the day it would actually be a good result, but dammit I want those Ashes

 

[Richard]

When there's a trophy at stake in a Test series, a draw is almost - almost - as bad as a loss for the non-holding team.