Why Australia have lost the Ashes

[marc71178]

Try telling the best team in the world that Flintoff is one of the weakest number 6's in the world, or that the opening pairing of Tresco and strauss isnt much to write home about, or that KP hasnt proven his worth.

You've got to be fair here Swervy - I mean, although Pietersen, Trescothick and Flintoff all scored more runs than any Aussie in the Ashes, Strauss was a whole run behind Langer.

 

[marc71178]

Yes.
But please post the win-loss % for all three teams ( ENG, IND and SL) over the last 3-4 series vs OZ.

What relevance are games from 7 or 8 years ago to current rankings?

 

[marc71178]

Based on current performance, ENG = Nepal = Mongolia = Russia = Australia = West Indies,since all of them are inactive at this moment

The worst possible argument ever?

 

[marc71178]

And i dare you to pit your understanding of the game against mine if you wish.

I know who I think understands the game more, and surprisingly it's the one who's almost played FC Cricket.

 

[SpeedKing]

Sorry about the lateness of my contribution but i feel that what lost them the series is one thong - COMPLACENCY. Only justin Langer, Brett Lee, Shane Warne and Glenn Mcgrath were atuned to the task and the rest thought that they would come here and win a couple of games of cricket and go home. From an Aussie point of view, Damien Martyn was quite dissappointing. You only have to look at the Hayden and Ponting centuries to see what abit of old fashioned knuckling down can do.

Also maybe they might have been shocked by Simon Jones' control, he was the weak link at the start of the series [ Martyn tried flaying him for 4 off his first ball of the series and ended up getting caught at the wicket] and i feel that he has fought his way into that startng line up as long as he is fit. {even in ODIs i feel].

That is why i felt the Aussies lost the Ashes.

cheeers Speedking

 

[C_C]

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

That England deals with a below average team far more ruthlessly ? There is a term 'minnow-basher'

 

[greg]

That England deals with a below average team far more ruthlessly ? There is a term 'minnow-basher'

There is now.

 

[C_C]

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.

So its 3-3 ? wow! how brilliant!
FYI, India away from the subcontinent over the same period is : 2-5. worse than 3-3 no doubt but superior performance against the best team in the world makes up a lot for that disparity.

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.

Complete bullshyte.

West Indies over the past 3-4 years is most definately a minnow- its Brian Lara plus a bunch of nobodies in test cricket, similar to Andy Flower plus nobody for Zimbabwe.
They have been hammered by almost everyone and fought tooth and nail with bangladesh and zimbabwe the last time they played them.
Take them out of the reckoning.

Then it leads to :

India : 35-11-12-12
Eng : 52-19-18-15
SL : 34-10-15-9

Okay, so SL is a bit behind England and India- but still, its a small difference. But between ENG and IND, there is almost very little to pick and choose from apart from form.

 

[C_C]

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

Learn to read properly.
Either that or stop twisting my words. I said over the span of a few cycles. That is, 3-4 series.
Please re-compute.

 

[C_C]

You've got to be fair here Swervy - I mean, although Pietersen, Trescothick and Flintoff all scored more runs than any Aussie in the Ashes, Strauss was a whole run behind Langer.

Yeah. One is a total newbie, another is a sophomore and the other has been performing well with the bat for just 2 years. How very established.

 

[C_C]

The worst possible argument ever?

The worst possible response ever ?
You are yet to answer my question. What defines current and why.
Take your time.

 

[C_C]

I know who I think understands the game more, and surprisingly it's the one who's almost played FC Cricket.

You can back-slap each other for all eternity. But simply speaking, neither one of you two have demonstrated an iota of understanding of logic and have run wild with your notions and prejudices which cannot be backed up.
And another thing- knowing what to do doesnt necessarily mean knowing why you are doing it in its entirity or how exactly you are doing it.

 

[greg]

Yeah. One is a total newbie, another is a sophomore and the other has been performing well with the bat for just 2 years. How very established.

What is a sophomore? Sounds American.

 

[greg]

The worst possible response ever ?
You are yet to answer my question. What defines current and why.
Take your time.

Current: The current first choice team.

 

[C_C]

Current: The current first choice team.

You cannot define a word by itself. Therefore, you cannot use the word 'current' or its synonyms to define current.
Its like someone asking 'what is a chinaman in cricket terms ?' and you responding by ' a chinaman is the stock delivery of a chinaman bowler'.

 

[C_C]

What is a sophomore? Sounds American.

it is north american. Sophomore = 2nd year guy ( be it highschool/professional career/college etc.)

 

[Pothas]

I would just say it is because Austraila were relying on 3 and at times 2 bowlers while england untill the last test had 4 plus giles who did a solid job and the Australian batsmen couldnt handle swing bowling.

 

[sledger]

not to mention that katich and gilchrist seemed to be totally inept at playing flintoffs bowling, and damien martyns lack of conviction saw him dissmissed in very lazy fashion in almost all of his innings, the aussie cause wasnt helped by a few suicide run outs either.

 

[Pothas]

You cannot define a word by itself. Therefore, you cannot use the word 'current' or its synonyms to define current.
Its like someone asking 'what is a chinaman in cricket terms ?' and you responding by ' a chinaman is the stock delivery of a chinaman bowler'.

How pathetic you are

 

[greg]

You cannot define a word by itself. Therefore, you cannot use the word 'current' or its synonyms to define current.
Its like someone asking 'what is a chinaman in cricket terms ?' and you responding by ' a chinaman is the stock delivery of a chinaman bowler'.

Are you really dense? You came up with some bizarre argument about every cricket team, if looked at "currently" being equivalent at this moment in time because none of them are playing "at this moment in time". So I clarified for your benefit so that you could appreciate what is pretty obvious to everyone else that when we talk about one team "currently" being better than another, we mean that if their first choice teams, as they would be chosen at this moment in time, were to meet in a match at this moment in time, then our choice for the better team would probably win (maybe over a five match series, or whatever).

So, for example, trying to include Steve Waugh or Graham Thorpe in an assessment of the current strength of eg. Australia vs England (as you are effectively doing with all your use of historical statistics) is invalid because neither are in the "current first choice team". Of those who are in the current first choice team, using their statistics will help to decide which are the better team, because clearly short term form (as eg. demonstrated in the Ashes series) can not be the only indicator. Equally current form and the evidence of your own eyes must form part of this assessment to balance the defects in using statistics alone. Statistics can't tell you, for example, whether Damien Martyn or Adam Gilchrist are currently just in poor form, or whether they have been seriously exposed by an attack the like of which they haven't faced before or in recent years anyway. A judgement must be made, and this subjective judgement will then form the basis of any arguments which might arise on here.