Why Australia have lost the Ashes

[Swervy]

Can you stop spreading falsehoods ?
Highlight packages ?
Listen chaps - there are torrents for the entire friggin matches and i am right now 25% done downloading ENG vs AUS 3rd test.

so i take it you will be watching the entire series then!!!!!

 

[wpdavid]

And the 'very weak Aussie' team wasnt 'extremely weak'. It would give anybody barring OZ a run for their money today.

Aus in 1985? Now I know you're kidding me. Don't forget that Kim Hughes & Terry Alderman were banned by then. Border was excellent, of course, Boon & McDermott were talented but very inexperienced. Thomson was well past it by then, and Lawson was OK but hardly special. There is a reason why the Aus selectors had ditched the rest of them by the time we toured there in 1986/7. I know of no Aus fan who thinks that their 1985 side was anything other than mediocre in the extreme.

 

[C_C]

you are just setting goal posts to suit your arguement here..I cant be bothered. I have watched the game as a fan of the sport for 25 years..I know what a good team is, and I know what an average team is, and I know what a bad team is. I know this England team is extremely good. Start watching the game CC, you will develop an uncanny instinct for who is a good team and who isnt.

England are clearly a better team than India, and by quite a distance better than Sri lanka.

This 6-7 period thing is a joke...you will rarely get many more than 4 or 5 players in a squad let alone a team that were in the team 6-7 years ago..and players develop with time etc,as players also decline..what this Australian team did in England in 1997 has no bearing (sp?) on this current Australian team...what India did in 2000 or whenever it was has no say in how this team for India plays.

Get a grip

I am setting no goalposts to suit my argument- my argument is constructed around the base facts, not the other way round as you are demonstrating by your non-neutral perspective.

It is obvious that stalwarts last 15 years or so and most good/decent players last around 10 years or so. If you dont have that largely in a team, the team is newbie and cannot be evaluated. If you do have that in the team, 5-7 years make perfect sense in establishing a track record as usually you can find congruency between atleast half the team from a 5 year period.
Take Australia, India, Sri Lanka, South Africa etc. for example.... they all have 5-6 players that are carried over from 5-7 years ago.

It is rather simple - if you have a team that has around 5-6 that have played together for a long while, 5-7 years is a logical benchmark.
If you dont have a team that has played for very long, it is irrelevant to begin with- they havnt established themselves and they thus have very little relevance.

And please dont patronise me- my viewrship of cricket is about 2 weeks or so behind schedule due to financial reasons. I do watch cricket and lots of it. However, the point i am making has everything to do with logical reasoning that you need inorder to evaluate something.

England, India Sri Lanka and South Africa are definately bunched in close and its a matter of two or three series that would deciede who edges ahead and who doesnt- facts support this assertion unlike euphoric english fans who insist that england is clear #2.

 

[C_C]

Aus in 1985? Now I know you're kidding me. Don't forget that Kim Hughes & Terry Alderman were banned by then. Border was excellent, of course, Boon & McDermott were talented but very inexperienced. Thomson was well past it by then, and Lawson was OK but hardly special. There is a reason why the Aus selectors had ditched the rest of them by the time we toured there in 1986/7. I know of no Aus fan who thinks that their 1985 side was anything other than mediocre in the extreme.

Yes i am sure if you pick A particular series or one particular year, you will find that they wernt so good..but OZ over the mid/late 80s were quiete a decent outfit - they didnt roll over and die like West Indies, Bangladesh,Zimbabwe and Paksitan( alarmingly frequently though significantly less often as the other three) do.
They were definately were a team which i think would've competed well with any team barring OZ of today on a consistent basis.

 

[greg]

Blinders and dropped catches along with umpiring descisions level out over the time if we two are teammates. Obviously there is some discrepancy over these things between different teams but there is no quantifiable way of guaging it. And i am not talking one specific spell or innings but rather, overall. Everyone has good days and bad days and therefore, they both must be weighed against each other to establish the true value of a player.

This is not always true. It took a bit of time for Flintoff's vastly improved bowling to begin to impact on his statistics for the simple reason that he could not field at second slip to himself. The number of chances that Mark Butcher put down of him over the period of a year (until he got injured and the far more reliable Strauss came in) was not funny.

Anyway, your opinion of Brian Lara vs England in recent years?

 

[C_C]

yeah dont worry I understand how to use statistics ,and I understand how the game is played as well...I just dont place that much weight on the use of stats as you do..there are other important, unmeasurable things that take place, its the understanding of those that are important..but you have to watch the game to understand that

There is very little that isnt negated by sheer probabilistic modelling ( good pitch-bad pitch, good decision-bad decision etc) or that cannot be extrapolated by a detailed analysis of statistics.

 

[wpdavid]

Compare OZ - a team composing of Marsh-Boone-Border-Jones-McDermott-Hughes-Alderman-etc. would've given almost any team today healthy competition.

But you're talking about 1989 onwards when those guys all played (assuming you're talking about Merv, not Kim) and had matured as test cricketers.
In the mid80's, Alderman was unavailable due to his SA jaunt, and most of the guys you list were still trying to establish themselves.

 

[C_C]

This is not always true. It took a bit of time for Flintoff's vastly improved bowling to begin to impact on his statistics for the simple reason that he could not field at second slip to himself. The number of chances that Mark Butcher put down of him over the period of a year (until he got injured and the far more reliable Strauss came in) was not funny.

Anyway, your opinion of Brian Lara vs England in recent years?

My opinion is that BCL has done poorly vs England recently.
And again, # of chances put down by Mark Butcher ? do you ever apply your thinking consistently ? For i've never seen you bandy that around when it comes to Warney vs Murali or Warney vs Kumble discussions.....but then again, neutrality is something that is extremely rare.
Besides, exchange butcher for K_P. Both are below average catchers.
And if Flintoff keeps bowling like this for another 4-5 years, he will get his due recognition. As it stands now, 40% excellence and 60% abyssimal performances still puts you in the red overall.
Anyways, its 2 hrs past my bedtime- gnite.

 

[C_C]

so i take it you will be watching the entire series then!!!!!

Eventually.

 

[Swervy]

Yes i am sure if you pick A particular series or one particular year, you will find that they wernt so good..but OZ over the mid/late 80s were quiete a decent outfit - they didnt roll over and die like West Indies, Bangladesh,Zimbabwe and Paksitan( alarmingly frequently though significantly less often as the other three) do.
They were definately were a team which i think would've competed well with any team barring OZ of today on a consistent basis.

Rubbish

 

[C_C]

Rubbish

A wonderfully justified viewpoint.

 

[wpdavid]

Yes i am sure if you pick A particular series or one particular year, you will find that they wernt so good..but OZ over the mid/late 80s were quiete a decent outfit - they didnt roll over and die like West Indies, Bangladesh,Zimbabwe and Paksitan( alarmingly frequently though significantly less often as the other three) do.
They were definately were a team which i think would've competed well with any team barring OZ of today on a consistent basis.

You're not entirely wrong. Given the paucity of most test attacks at present, even the Aus side in the mid80's would compete. But, it still wasn't until the late 80's that they became a good side - when a number of the youngsters had matured. Forgive me digging my heals over this one, but I spent far too much of the 80's cursing the England side, which was a woeful combination of talented underachievers and journeymen who weren't even that talented anyway. That side would never have won in SA, even allowing for the fact that SA aren't as god as they were. Nor would they have seen off this Aus side, or, probably, won in WI last spring. And they wouldn't have whitewashed the home tests last summer, although they would probably have won the series overall.

 

[Swervy]

A wonderfully justified viewpoint.

no need to justify it.. its common knowledge, especially with those who saw the Australians play in the mid 80's that they were diabolical. There are 5 teams currently playing that would consistantly destroy that mid 80's Aussie team (ok a slight exaggeration...Australia and England would destroy them, India, SA and possibly Sri Lanka would tend to beat them convincingly more often than not)

the thing is..England werent that much better back then

 

[Zinzan]

As for NZ, NZ has been consistently mediocre except when Bond plays so i dont see how that changes anything.

The above comment kind of contradicts your whole argument though. You give little credit for Englands 3-0 result over NZ (2004).Yet lets take New Zealand's recent home and away test results against contenders - India and Sri lanka.

Firstly NZ home tests....

Earlier this year New Zealand thrashed Sri lanka by an innings and 38 runs in the 2nd test to win that series 1-0 - (without bond).

In 2003 when India were last in NZ, It was a 2-0 series win to New Zealand

Away tests...

New Zealand were last in India late 2003 and drew the 2 test series 0-0 with most even most Indians conceding NZ had the better of the drawn series (without Bond)

Again in 2003 New Zealand last toured Sri lanka for a test series with a 0-0 draw from two tests.

So what does dis-crediting Englands 3-0 win against NZ say about Sri Lanka and India??

 

[greg]

My opinion is that BCL has done poorly vs England recently.
And again, # of chances put down by Mark Butcher ? do you ever apply your thinking consistently ? For i've never seen you bandy that around when it comes to Warney vs Murali or Warney vs Kumble discussions.....but then again, neutrality is something that is extremely rare.
Besides, exchange butcher for K_P. Both are below average catchers.
And if Flintoff keeps bowling like this for another 4-5 years, he will get his due recognition. As it stands now, 40% excellence and 60% abyssimal performances still puts you in the red overall.
Anyways, its 2 hrs past my bedtime- gnite.

I've never got involved in Warne vs murali etc arguments, and frankly it's irrelevant. All I was doing was pointing out a very clear example of where a particular bowler suffered consistently because of dropped catches over a long period, where for example other bowlers in the England team did not and so comparisons between Flintoff and other bowlers in the England team over that period cannot easily be made on a purely statistical basis.

 

[greg]

FWIW my own opinion is that statistics should be used to justify opinions but never to form them. They can also play a valuable role is causing you to question whether certain opinions should be altered. The most obvious example of this in cricket today is Brett Lee. It really is very difficult to know what to make of him. He emerged with a lot of credit from this series, although clearly his statistics MUST cause one to question his true value to the Australian team (beyond that he was better than anyone else on offer!). I think it is likely that to some extent people have confused the credit he gained from the wholehearted effort he put into all aspects of his play (including in a big part, his batting) with what he actually produced with the ball. It may be that the problem is that Lee is being asked to do things that he shouldn't (playing the role of stock bowler, obviously covering for Gillespie and Kaspa in this series) and, for example, would fit far better into a five man attack a la England, but this is a big problem for Australia - especially as the early signs from Shaun Tait are that he will offer something similar. I don't know if this journalist is respected or not in Australia, but it seems to me he makes some extremely valid points, with a caveat to be imposed if he is being directed to bowl as he is by Ponting.

 

[Jono]

Swervy man where do you get the energy?

 

[Monty]

look ther is one one to describe why we lost

OVERCONFIDENCE
i know that is in bold
australia rocked up assuiming they would win cause they are australia

 

[marc71178]

Err there has been more than one side that has done well for 10 years or thereabouts

In present Cricket, which is what we are talking about?

If you are gonna use overseas barometer for India, please use subcontinental barometer for England.

Last 5 series - 5 wins and 3 defeats in the last 14 Tests over there.

Admittedly 2 of those were Bangladesh, but it's still far from the worst record.

Err what is Sri Lanka's record over the last 4-5 years again ? ( against quality opposition that is)...muchos gracias.

12 wins and 16 losses in 38 games.

There isnt much difference between England, India and Sri Lanka over the last 4-5 years,
once you take out the minnows.

Complete twaddle:

India - 52 games, 21 wins and 15 losses.

Included in this is 7 wins and a loss from 9 Zimbabwe and Bangladesh games.

Which makes it 14 wins and 14 losses in 43.



Sri Lanka - 46 games, 20 wins and 16 losses.

Included in this is 8 wins from 8 Zimbabwe and Bangladesh games.

Which makes it 12 wins and 16 losses in 38.


For the same period, England:

66 games, 32 wins and 18 losses.

Included in this is 6 wins from 6 Zimbabwe and Bangladesh games.

Which makes it 26 wins and 18 losses in 60.

 

[marc71178]

Yup.
The same India team that holds a 7-8 record against the greatest team of the last 10-15 years and the same Sri Lanka that has had much more competitive series with Australia over the last 5-10 years than England.

Yes, losing 3-0 at home is much more competitive than winning 2-1 isn't it