Ok for cricket supporters that have been living in a cave for the last month Australia are 2-0 in the Ashes and I personally think that it is over already. This is a thread to look at Ashes excuses, reasons why England loss, for example Trescothick not playing, or Giles is playing ahead of Monty. Well I think it is a little too early for people to be making excuses but it has already begun.

If you find members of this thread who have already made excuses please add quote them hear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ****** Very limited indeed. I think everyone is shocked at the scale of Englands woes on this tour of Australia, even those who expected Australia to win, but at least expected a contest. Fletcher has been blamed, Flintoff has been blamed - I suppose the scale of the England losses was shocking. But if we thing about the situation with a cool head, we should not be surpised at all, Fletcher and Flintoff have had to work with the biggest odds and sods squad ever, Trescothick - there was always some doubt Giles - had not bowled for a year, Flintoff - came back after a serious knee operation. Harmison - really after South Africa - always doubts. Panesar - Cook - Joyce - Mahmood - Lewis all need experienced back up, they can't be expected to carry the England side. Graveney and Miller must shoulder their share of what has hapened, how this squad was ever selected is beyond comprehension. The England side can be tinkered with - but that's all. Sussex and Lancashre topped the County Chamionship. Players like Kirtley - Chapple - key - Ramp's - Crawley - were all available, but to name a few - some are passed their best - but better than what England have on show in Australia.

This one is not a excuse why they lost it is why they lost badly

__________________
Bill Ponsford - The only one who could play in Bradman’s company and make it a duet.

Australian excuses can also be put into this thread from the 2005 series for example McGrath's injury.

__________________
Bill Ponsford - The only one who could play in Bradman’s company and make it a duet.

I think we can all read newspapers - watch TV, and listen to the radio, that's what we have been doing Quagmire.

I don't think it's an excuse to say Australia planned their Ashes campaign better than England, because that's what most people are saying.

To say England are no prepared is a reason - not an excuse.

To say Tresco and Harmison with there mental states should not have come, is a fact and not an excuse.

To say Graveney Miller and Fletcher selected a side of crocks and rookies, is a fact - not an excuse.

In fact even with the very limited players England have, select the right ones, and the time for excuses has not yet come - until after Perth.

__________________
Ern

Ern, last year a lot of Australian's made a lot of excuses why they lost the Ashes and it was very very similiar to the same things that are happening in Australia at the moment. Harmison is seeming to pan out as the next Gillespie, so people are on his back, Simon Jones getting injured is the McGrath. Bad selection choices. Im hearing the same things from the English as what was said by us Aussies after 2005. I for one heard alot of English supporters say that McGrath getting injured an excuse, was it an excuse of fact?

__________________
Bill Ponsford - The only one who could play in Bradman’s company and make it a duet.

To my mind it was always going to be tough for England to come to Australia and win or at least retain because I just think Australia have slightly better players overall than England and are absolutely brilliant at home. Even if England had everyone fit and ready I'd still have backed the Aussies.

I'm certain if England had Si Jones, Tresco, Vaughan etc all fit, physically and mentally that they'd be doing better but at the same time you can only put out the side of players available and these guys aren't available, just like McGrath in 2005.

People can argue about players in the team and not in the team but would Read and Panesar really have made the difference so far? I doubt it. England were stuffed in the 1st Test and it was the batsmen that cost them the 2nd Test. Personally I think Read and Panesar have to come in now since England are chasing the series and they need 20 wickets. Jones has had enough chances.

And who else should have gone with the squad instead? Of the list of players Ern mentioned I can't see any of them as serious alternatives. England will never pick Kirtley again in case he gets called for throwing and he's not particularly great anyway. Chapple is old and has never played a Test, probably should have got a chance years back but it would be stupid to bring him now. Key is a proven failure at Test level and his average against the Aussies is dire. And calling up Ramps or Crawley would just be silly, better to give Joyce or Shah a go if you have to bring in new batsmen.

No Quag - it's far different, Australia went down with a fight in their defeats, remeber Warne getting 90, Lee batting his heart out.
England had a better bowling attack that could reverse swing the old ball - it's as simple as that.
Even in 2005 - Australia had a better batting line up than England - I posted that as back as 2004, England winning the Ashes back was IMO inevitable in 2005.
Well Lillee seems to back up everything I have said about England not being prepared Here , he makes a point I have made about England going home after the ICC Trophy, instead of warming up in Australia, Australia had a couple of warm up matches in 2005, plus 9 ODI's before the Test series began.

Lets look at the facts - not excuses, England can ot be compared with Australia 2005, Mcgrath was injured in afreak accident - Giles - Flintoff out with injuries, Giles for a year.Flintoff a knee operation.
Harmison and Trescothick could not get their heads together.
These are not excuses - they are facts, my point has been that this was known long before the England selectors announced the England squad.

Harmison and Trescothick should not have left these shores, I think Harmison would have been relieved.
Cook and Joyce should not have been picked together knowing these problems.
Everyone in clammering for Panesar, he may take some wickets, but how can he be ready for playing Australia in their own backyard.
This sums Adelaide up here - also Why did England bat so negative, the Australia bowling attack is not good enough to show that much respect, Australia bowled well, but nothing the England side should have been skittled out for on day 5.
The other difference between England 2006, and Australia 2007, IMO McGrath was injured after he came, the Australia selectors did not send crocks.

Myself - I can't speak for anyone else am not making excuses - I believe what I say as fact - just look at the England squad Quaggy - and say I am wrong.
To answer your question I don't think Mcgrath getting injured was a valid excuse, a reason MAYBE, also I don't believe Panesar would have nade a scrap of difference had he played.

In Adelaide - both sides needed batsman - not bowlers, the idea IMO was not to lose.

I wonder how much notice Flintoff and Fletcher are taking of the Aussie England selectors - a sample here .

__________________
Ern

I suppose it's all down to injuries. Not just now but in the past 12 months the team has been badly upset and we've had 2 captains. This has made some greivences in terms of positions, not least Gile/Monty.

Three captains if you count Vaughan.

Injuries have not helped - but the selectors did not take this into account when selecting the England squad to tor Australia.

Miller and Graveney and Fletcher knew Harmison is a bag of nerves on tour, Trescothick had no his his problems, so England have brought trouble on themselves.

I would have played Mahmood and Plunkett - instead of Harmison/Anderson Giles.

Others would have gone Mahmood/Panesar it still can be done, make changes and players will play to keep their places

__________________
Ern

I dont think vaughan lurking around has helped matters at all. As others have pointed outgiles/monty and jones/read wouldnt have made any difference, the players picked have to step up, and they havent batting wise and bowling wise, notably harmison.

__________________
Nothing says "Obey Me" like a bloody head on a fence post!

Tresco assured everyone he would be fine. Risky, yes, but you have to give some people a certain amount of credit. I believe Tresco was worth the risk.

I don't think you can compare the two sides this year compared with last year. Australia are moreorless unchanged. England have gone through a lot of changes. That's not an excuse, in so much as an admission that the current England side simply isn't good enough to beat Australia in Australia. I really want them to win, but being realistic, it's just not (and was never) going to happen.

__________________
Six and Out: Fine cricket journalism: http://www.sixandout.net/