Why Australia have lost the Ashes

[marc71178]

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

Decent sides don't rely on 2 bowlers (SL) or no bowlers (India)

 

[marc71178]

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.

It's as predicted.

Before WI away - "it'll be close"
After WI away - "Windies were awful, which is the only reason England won"

Before NZ home - "it'll be close"
After NZ home - "NZ were awful, which is the only reason England won"

Before SA away - "it'll be close"
After SA away - "SA were awful, which is the only reason England won" and also "SA just underperformed, whereas England overperformed"

 

[C_C]

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

Kindly take out West Indies from the equation (for the last 2-3 series) and then re-compute.
West Indies recently havnt been much better than Zimbabwe or Bangladesh.

Decent sides don't rely on 2 bowlers (SL) or no bowlers (India)

I would take Kumble ( including his overseas performances) over any single English bowler.
Having said that, going by your argument, decent sides dont rely on zero batsmen.

 

[C_C]

It's as predicted.

Before WI away - "it'll be close"
After WI away - "Windies were awful, which is the only reason England won"

Before NZ home - "it'll be close"
After NZ home - "NZ were awful, which is the only reason England won"

Before SA away - "it'll be close"
After SA away - "SA were awful, which is the only reason England won" and also "SA just underperformed, whereas England overperformed"

You need glasses and stop misquoting me ( if that is directed at me)- i never said that it will be close between WI and England. WI have been a pathetic team for a good 3-4 years now.
As for NZ, NZ has been consistently mediocre except when Bond plays so i dont see how that changes anything.
As per the victory against RSA, it was a good accomplishment- something that i havn't demeaned in this post.
You might be eager to crown a team on the rise for the last two years to be 'oh so greeeeet and wee bit behind OZ' but i would like to wait until they have atleast completed one or two cycle of home and away matches vs OZ, IND, RSA, SL before i elavate it. Not just horsing around playing the minnows and boosting its results.

 

[C_C]

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.
.

Completely agreed.
To put it simply, i consider great sides as Aussie invincibles, West Indies of the 75-90 period, Aussies for the last 10 years, etc.
A 'good' side IMO is RSA of the 90s, Pakistan of the 80s, etc.

England is nowhere near that standard and as such, i clump em with India and Sri Lanka as 'decent' sides.

 

[marc71178]

Kindly take out West Indies from the equation (for the last 2-3 series) and then re-compute.
West Indies recently havnt been much better than Zimbabwe or Bangladesh.

You just can't accept it can you?

The 2 sides you've mentioned are nowhere near as good as England, no matter what criteria you try to apply.

I would take Kumble ( including his overseas performances) over any single English bowler.

Of course yes - and with what reasoning?

 

[C_C]

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.

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

 

[marc71178]

England is nowhere near that standard and as such, i clump em with India and Sri Lanka as 'decent' sides.

What utter tripe.

 

[C_C]

Of course yes - and with what reasoning?

Having performed at an extremely high level for well over 10 years as opposed to cashing in against really weak batting lineups ( like WI, BD, ZIM) and having performed well for just a year or two.

The 2 sides you've mentioned are nowhere near as good as England, no matter what criteria you try to apply.

Those two sides are certainly as good as England - India has a 2-1-4 record against England after the most recent rotation and have done quiete credibly against decent opposition - they havnt bashed the minnows as handsomely as England has done but they have done it against the best of the best ( australia) for almost 10 years now, unlike once-in-a-lifetime like England.
As per SL, they have done quiete consistently well over the period of 3-4 years as well.

 

[C_C]

What utter tripe.

What i find tripe is you saying that England is 'a lot' better than India or Sri Lanka.
Remind me mate, what is India's record against OZ recently ? And what is England's ? What is Sri Lanka's ? and what is the head-2-head record of England, India and Sri Lanka recently ( after one or two rotations) ??

 

[C_C]

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

Absolute baloney.

You forget one lil detail - back in the 80s, there were no minnows apart from Sri Lanka and even they played a helluva lot better than Bangladesh/Zimbabwe and West Indies do today.
NZ were a considerably better team, India was slightly worse ( in the early half of 80s), Pakistan were an excellent team that would've given anyone a run for their money and West Indies back then would probably have taught this OZ team a thing or three about cricket.

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

 

[social]

Get over it, people.

England are definitely a very strong no. 2 in my mind with a case for being no. 1 if you discount the impact a fit McGrath would have had on the series.

At the moment, they are short of being a great side because they lack 3 very important players - quality spinner, batsman and keeper.

However, with time and the development programme they have in place, this might very well be rectified.

 

[honestbharani]

I don't know why so many guys are trying to argue with CC about what 'he' thinks of this English side. He thinks they are not a "good" side as yet, and if England play the way they are right now, they will prove that he is wrong in course of time. He simply has a different way of measuring teams, greatness, etc. But the fact remains that according to most people and the rankings, England are no.2 in the world and closing the gap on the no.1 side.

 

[SJS]

This discussion can lead to...

or maybe ...

or even.....

but by and large it is about...

and will go as far as this ....

 

[marc71178]

Having performed at an extremely high level for well over 10 years as opposed to cashing in against really weak batting lineups ( like WI, BD, ZIM) and having performed well for just a year or two.

"Extremely high level for 10 years"

There's only been one side that's done that.

India haven't even done the second part of your comment.

Those two sides are certainly as good as England - India has a 2-1-4 record against England after the most recent rotation and have done quiete credibly against decent opposition

Except when it comes to leaving their own country, but why should that matter, I mean they only play half of their cricket outside of their country!

As per SL, they have done quiete consistently well over the period of 3-4 years as well.

Except I've provided proof that they haven't.

 

[C_C]

"Extremely high level for 10 years"

There's only been one side that's done that.

India haven't even done the second part of your comment.

Err there has been more than one side that has done well for 10 years or thereabouts - WI of the 70s/80s is one. WI of the 60s is another. Braddle's invincibles is yet another.

I said to you that i consider a 'good' team to be South Africa through the 90s or Pakistan through the 80s.
Have England achieved that ? No.
Hence they are not a 'good' team in my view.
And stop being stupidly ultra-partisan. I have NOT said that India is a good team- i said that they are an average team, just like the English team is.

Except when it comes to leaving their own country, but why should that matter, I mean they only play half of their cricket outside of their country

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

Except I've provided proof that they haven't.

Err what is Sri Lanka's record over the last 4-5 years again ? ( against quality opposition that is)...muchos gracias.
There isnt much difference between England, India and Sri Lanka over the last 4-5 years, once you take out the minnows. England definately isnt 'just a wee bit off' Australia but rather its 'just a wee bit off' between England, India, Sri Lanka and South africa.

 

[greg]

Are these the two mighty SLankan teams and Indian teams who both lost to the Windian team (who have to be ranked with Zimbabwe and Bangladesh) on their most recent tours to the Caribbean?

 

[greg]

BTW C_C you seem to rely to an enormous degree on results (which are probably the crudest form of statistics for judging the relative strength of several cricket sides) to determine your opinion of the England (and other) cricket teams. How many of the England series over the last two years have you actually watched? Maybe I'm wrong but your claim earlier in this thread that they had "no batsmen" would suggest not much.

 

[C_C]

Are these the two mighty SLankan teams and Indian teams who both lost to the Windian team (who have to be ranked with Zimbabwe and Bangladesh) on their most recent tours to the Caribbean?

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.

 

[C_C]

BTW C_C you seem to rely to an enormous degree on results (which are probably the crudest form of statistics for judging the relative strength of several cricket sides) to determine your opinion of the England (and other) cricket teams. How many of the England series over the last two years have you actually watched? Maybe I'm wrong but your claim earlier in this thread that they had "no batsmen" would suggest not much.

I watch some cricket- mostly a week or two after the match has happened. But yes, i do go mostly by statistics and results because THAT is the bottomline. And England have no great batsmen and even 'excellent' batsmen- Tresco is good but some ways off the best openers of this era ( Langer,Hayden,Sehwag, Gibbs,Smith,etc) and Vaughan is dropping fast like a sinking stone....KP is unproven ( and i dont care if he had scored 1000 runs in the series, ONE series still counts as unproven to me) and Strauss is as well.....Thorpe, the only bona fide english batsman has retired...Flintoff is one of the weakest #6s in cricket today with the bat and Bell is...well...nevermind.
So remind me again, who does England have as quality and established batsmen ?