Why Australia have lost the Ashes

[C_C]

Mark Waugh : debuted Jan 1991, retired october 2002 - 12 years.
Shane Warne: debuted Jan 1992, playing still today :14 years.
Glenn McGrath: debuted Nov 93, still playing : 12 years.
Ponting : debuted Dec 95, still playing : 10 years ( expected to last another 4-5 years)

How exactly isnt it close ?

 

[C_C]

So the current Indian and Sri Lankan sides are 'good' but the current English team isn''t?

I give up.

I will ammend that.
They are a decent side. So is England. None of them are really good sides.

 

[greg]

Mark Waugh : debuted Jan 1991, retired october 2002 - 12 years.
Shane Warne: debuted Jan 1992, playing still today :14 years.
Glenn McGrath: debuted Nov 93, still playing : 12 years.
Ponting : debuted Dec 95, still playing : 10 years ( expected to last another 4-5 years)

How exactly isnt it close ?

12 years isn't close to 15 years.

 

[PY]

Hmm maybe you did look at Tests, apologies.

 

[C_C]

But I would humbly suggest that anyone who has watched England over the past few years would suggest that they are far more likely to improve. We will see.

Anyone who's seen England over the past couple of years knows that England have a LOT to prove. And i wouldnt expect England to do well for another 4-5 years unless they can come up with excellent players in the future. Bowlers normally are at their peak before 31-32. Hoggard is almost 29. Harmison is almost 27, Flintoff is almost 28 and Jones is almost 27...I would expect them to have 2-3 years of collective performance at this level( in the subcontinent/overseas it is still very much open for judgement) before a few members start going downhill.

 

[PY]

Hoggard is almost 29. Harmison is almost 27, Flintoff is almost 28 and Jones is almost 27.

So Hoggard is 28, Harmison is 26, Flintoff is 27 and Jones is 26 then.

 

[C_C]

12 years isn't close to 15 years.

I said 15, give or take a couple of years...... I am sure you would find that there are atleast 40-50 players in history of cricket and 20-30 in modern era who are in the 13-17 bracket in terms of years.

 

[greg]

I said 15, give or take a couple of years...... I am sure you would find that there are atleast 40-50 players in history of cricket and 20-30 in modern era who are in the 13-17 bracket in terms of years.

No you added that after you had attempted to ridicule my post.

 

[C_C]

No you added that after you had attempted to ridicule my post.

Err look up at my post at 10:19 am.

 

[greg]

Err look up at my post at 10:19 am.

Quite. Which came AFTER my post saying that you could count "on the fingers of one hand" (obviously a slight, but very slight underestimation i admit) the number of players who had played 15 years. Which you attempted to ridicule by firing out a list of names at me.

And unless my maths (which is not advanced calculus I admit) is dodgy, 12 years is STILL not within "a couple of years" of 15 years.

 

[C_C]

Quite. Which came AFTER my post saying that you could count "on the fingers of one hand" (obviously a slight, but very slight underestimation i admit) the number of players who had played 15 years. Which you attempted to ridicule by firing out a list of names at me.

And unless my maths (which is not advanced calculus I admit) is dodgy, 12 years is STILL not within "a couple of years" of 15 years.

I clarified in that post that i am talking 15 years give or take a couple..... unless you missed the ENTIRE point of my posts, it is that 'immediate' is inderterminate and you will not find any player who has played exactly 15 years and not a day more or a day less....this is turning quiete into an exercise of pedanticity.
But i am sure you would agree with my first point that two years is a piffle when it comes to guaging how good a team is, especially when those two years are dominated by performances against the minnows.

 

[greg]

I clarified in that post that i am talking 15 years give or take a couple..... unless you missed the ENTIRE point of my posts, it is that 'immediate' is inderterminate and you will not find any player who has played exactly 15 years and not a day more or a day less....this is turning quiete into an exercise of pedanticity.
But i am sure you would agree with my first point that two years is a piffle when it comes to guaging how good a team is, especially when those two years are dominated by performances against the minnows.

Yes it is, but as I reasonably took fifteen years to mean at least fifteen years (not "not a day more, not a day less") perhaps you should have considered that before telling me to "go and look up my facts before posting" (or whatever you did write). Few players make it past 35 years (except alltime greats or those in poor teams) and few are established players before their mid 20s, so I would say 15 years (and hence your criteria to give performances over a 6-7 year period, rather than 4-5) is too large.

I personally (based on the evidence of the eyes) think that England have done more than enough to demonstrate that they are a "good" team. And defeats of South Africa away and Australia show that that opinion is based on results as well. And whatever the weaknesses of Windian and NZ bowling, their batting is still strong enough to have contributed to proving the strength of England's fast bowling attack as one of the best in many years. Of course England will want to go on from here, and whatever you believe there are many impartial judges who see no reason why they shouldn't go far. And even isolated defeats in places like India, if they happen, won't detract from that.

 

[Swervy]

I cant see how this Enmgland team can be described as merely 'decent'. they have outplayed Australia probably 80% of the time in this series, beat SA, beat WI, beat NZ etc etc.

My feeling on this is that England and Australia are pretty evenly matched. England have the best fast bowling attack in the world, the best allrounder, and a very healthy looking batting lineup bar Bell (who I am sure will improve). Australia have the best spinner in the world, still the best pace bowler in the world, and still a pretty fearsome batting lineup who werent allowed to reach full performance due to some brilliant bowling.

Both teams are excellent, and I dare say both would succeed in any given era.

I think maybe some people are judging people STILL on preconceived ideas of what a player is like. Some people may mock me by saying this, as they did when I said Flintofff was best allrounder in the world and that he would succeed vs Australia , which he did...but I consider Flintoff to be now the second best fast bowler in the world...people ont like me for saying that, because it doesnt fit in cozy with what the averages say, but there you go.

People probably wont like me saying that England are deserving of a number one ranking (joint witith Australia), because they find it hard to accept how fast this team has improved...but there you go

 

[luckyeddie]

Do it for more than just two years and in more than 3-4 series of top level competition.

As per India getting smashed- i doubt it but we will find out in 2007. If both teams play to their full potential, India should either win the series or draw it.
Atleast have the a better or even parity with AUS, RSA, IND and SL cumulatively after a few cycles of home and away tests ( ie, 5-6 years) and then we shall talk. Okay ?

You mean like India have NEVER done, ever, in their entire existence as a test-playing nation? In other words, there has never, ever, ever been a good Indian side, by your reckoning.

Perhaps it lost something in translation from Canadian.

 

[Anil]

England have a LOT to prove before they can be considered a 'good' team from historicity and are merely a team on the rise- they may become another australia, they may become pakistan of the 90s or they may crashland back to abyssimal depths.
Two years and bulk of success against 3 of the worst teams to play test cricket is hardly a barometer to go by.

they also beat the best team...an all-time great team....i think they have shown themselves to be a very good team, now as for calling them a great team....that will need to come over a period of time but they have it in them to do it...

 

[PY]

It's difficult enough getting a 'good' team out of this chap, I've not the willpower to go for great.

Not that I would though because we aren't a great team.....yet.

 

[wpdavid]

They (England) played better cricket till 85/86 or so. Ofcourse,this english team maybe better than the english teams of the 90s and late 80s but its too early to tell. 2 years is nothing of a time and one needs to evaluate it over atleast 6-7 year period inorder to determine how good a given team is.

I'm not sure when you think they played better cricket than the current side. At home, 1981 was a glorious fluke, subsequent home wins against India, Pakistan & NZ were OK but hardly convincing, lost 5-0 to WI and beat a terribly weak Aus side in 1985. Away, they were the 1st English sides to lose in Pakistan & NZ and were terrible in Aus. Their one genuinely impressive win was in India, albeit against a pretty moderate Indian attack.

You're right that they were even worse after 1985/6, but my impression at the time was we were a bunch of talented individuals (especially the batsmen) massively underachieving, and I wouldn't differ from that view now. That's the big difference. Today's side contains less supposedly world class players, but the perform much better as a unit.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Seriously mate, you have a ridiculously rigourous definition of "good". England are, by a fair margin, the second best team in the world. They've just beaten Australia outright in a fiercly contested series... the first time anyone has beaten Australia outside of the subcontinent in a dozen years. Before that, they beat South Africa in South Africa... another feat very few teams have managed in recent years. You can dismiss the wins against the West Indies and New Zealand, and fair enough, but it's worth remembering that they whitewashed most of those series... won 10 tests out of 11. Now, the opposition wasn't the strongest, but the wins were extremely convincing. If you look at the way England have played since that tour of the West Indies, they've lost 2 tests out of 22 and have won every series. Find me the last time a team only lost 2 tests out of 22 playing five of those tests against the best team in the world, and you'll have yourself another "good" side, because this England side is "good".

 

[Swervy]

They played better cricket till 85/86 or so. Ofcourse,this english team maybe better than the english teams of the 90s and late 80s but its too early to tell. 2 years is nothing of a time and one needs to evaluate it over atleast 6-7 year period inorder to determine how good a given team is.

this , of course is utther tosh....not one England team in the 80's was a good TEAM (great individuals, but a poor team). 1981 was all about Botham, 1982 was pretty low standard of play by all three teams (India, pakistan and England), 82/83, Australia, who were nowhere near top strength completely outplayed a severely poor England team, 1983 saw NZ beat England in England for the first time in a test, and although England won the series, they were in general average, 83/84 was a joke for England, 1984 saw a great team(WI) completely dismantle a poor team(England) and a **** poor Sri lankan team embaress England, fair enough England won in India, but India were no great shakes as a team, and that was a rare high point for England, 1985 saw the weakest ever Australian team actually push England hard for most of the series..85/86 in WI England completely out of its depth.

At no point during the early eighties could England be regarded as good.

This England team would completely destroy any England team in the 80's

The point is England right at this moment and for the last couple of years have been playing the best cricket in the world. Of course greatness comes with time, no-one disputes this, but right at the moment, there is not one single team in the world who is playing better or tougher cricket. England out-Australiaed Australia, something which people continually try to do, and fail

 

[marc71178]

The reason i've picked IND and SL as worthy oppositions is because they have been consistently good for atleast 4-5 years and during that period, both have performed consistently.

Righto then:

Going from 1st September till now (5 years)

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 a mighty 14 wins and 14 losses in 43 - consistency, but not consistently good.



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

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

Which makes it a mighty 12 wins and 16 losses in 38 - yet that is better than England as well?


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 a 26 wins and 18 losses in 60.


Since it's clearly not results that give you this assertion, I wonder what it might be