Australia clearly the better team

[Harmy's Army]

I'm not going to get involved in a ****ing contest about which team is superior. In reality, England can not be adjudged the best team in the world until they have done the business south of the equator. By that I infer on Australian turf as well as the sub-continent - home support is like having an extra player on the field so lets see how we get on in baggy green country with the roles reversed and a hostile crowd. I would, however, be seriously concerned about what will transpire 15 months from now were I an Aussie - especially on a bowling front where the cupboard is looking decidely bare if McGrath hangs up his spikes.

An interesting, and I believe quite accurate article on the current situation from an Aussie perspective - although the last few lines (quoted below) are painful reading for those not in the rose-tinted spectacle brigade on these forums:

There's another thing: this Australian team has been way oversold. Ian Chappell got it right in my opinion — it's not the best Australian team ever, not when most of the opposition in recent years has rarely extended them. Their dominance was more a reflection of the standard of world cricket.

I just hope the current players didn't believe the hype, because right now in England they would be wondering, we were a super team months ago, what in hell happened? Either way, the winds of change are blowing, but let's not be too harsh on those we elevated to lofty heights way beyond their true ability.

PS: As an aside, I do wish Ponting would stop whining and get his own house in order before trying to appear so bloody pious. That refined Australian art of sledging is not against the rules, but is against the "spirit of the game" he keeps bleating on about. Maybe if he called for that to be outlawed to improve this "spirit" the word hypocracy wouldn't spring to mind as readily as it does. Oh - sorry... I just remembered it's a facet of the game the Aussies are quite happy with.

[Leafy Seadragon]

Originally Posted by Beny

Might they be saying that this has not been no1 v no2 because England were missing the two players who make them a class outfit?

Yes, probably, and these statements would again be reasons contributing to the loss, but Aussie supporters would simply be saying "same old England", rolling out the excuses.

There are numerous reasons for the Aussies struggling at the moment, but they are irrelevant when looking at the results. You could analyse them down to the most minute detail, and realistically achieve naff all. The English are winning back the Ashes. Importantly, they have not won them back yet. Surely this is the focus.

Once the dust has settled, we've scrambled to retain the Ashes, or lost them in glorious defeat or otherwise, the post-mortem can review how and why things went wrong (note: not to diminish the England victory or effort, but to move forward). But I'm disappointed at the few Oz supporters that are suggesting that an English win would be hollow, that this was not a true test, blah, blah. Its not surprising that the English press is full of comments on whingeing Aussies. Again, if anyone can tell me how the Aussies were restricted from putting their best available side out, I'll happily accept that this series has not been a test. Personally, I think that injury and aging constraints reflect the depth of a squad, which is encompassed in the word team, rather than the abilities of a couple of players.

[Leafy Seadragon]

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

Unfortunately, FF, they appear to be using some sort of convaluted logic that we don't understand. Either that or they are just bad at losing

Please don't generalise on this - one (or several) bad apple, etc

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Leafy Seadragon

Please don't generalise on this -

Leafy,

It's good to hear some sense for once. The fact is that if England win the Ashes they were the better team in this series. However, I do agree with Beny, before they can claim to be World No 1, they too need to beat India and Sri Lanka at home. Something they have not done recently.

It is frustrating though when you watch your team play at their very best, win an excellent game of Cricket and then find opposition fans say the win is "hollow" and all down to luck, and despite being 2-1 we are told we are not able to finish games.

[Leafy Seadragon]

FF, I do think that England does struggle to finish matches. Vaughan admitted that the English had given up on the Edgbaston test and fell over the line. A final bit of luck to the Aussies and Edgbaston would have effectively ended the Ashes. They couldn't finish off the Old Trafford match and again fell over the line at Trent Bridge.
No doubt its something that they can and will work on, but for now, its one area of the game that they need to tighten significantly.

And no, the comment on luck is not an excuse for the Aussie loss, but an indication of how close the English really did come to losing a match that, if they were good finishers, they would have won at a canter.

ps. "some sense for once" - are you suggesting that my posts don't normally contain some sense?

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Leafy Seadragon

And no, the comment on luck is not an excuse for the Aussie loss, but an indication of how close the English really did come to losing a match that, if they were good finishers, they would have won at a canter.

Playing Australia is a step up. About two years ago all our Test wins were nail-biters. But then last year things clicked into gear, we won games at a canter.

SA away from home was hard (as everyone but Australia have found) and we just scraped home. But Australia are the next level, it would be difficult to imagine there is an easy win when you play them. I am not suprised that Australia have made us fight to the very end.

The fact is that the "England are poor finishers" argument denegrates how well Austalia have played to make them so close. If I was Australian I would not be using such negative comments but seeing how my side has not lied down even when the odds are firmly stacke against them.

[Ernest]

Be honest, after Lords, England have dominated this series, every single game.

So England lost 7 wickets, look at G O Jones shot, almost as poor as his keeping.

I really don't think anyone should say to England "You can't finish Matches", Aussie could not even get the 3 runs they needed at Edgbaston.

And this Trent Bridge match, we winkled the Aussie out with one of our best bowlers missing, on that flat pitch.

Lee and Warne bowled well, in fact very well, but the fact is, England got the runs, Aussie did not at Edgbaston, theses are facts.

[Leafy Seadragon]

Fair points. I guess the reference was specifically the Edgbaston test, where Vaughan floored me by stating that they had given up - might not have been the exact words, but he clearly didn't suggest that they thought that they might lose, or that it was tight, but that they would lose. Only needing one wicket and thinking that you're going to lose. This is probably the one area that Oz is miles ahead of the English, suggesting that much of the English confidence is still pretty thin. The Oz players, as you rightly point out refuse to believe that they can't win, or that they will lose. Unfortunately a couple of our batsmen have obviously taken this to the extreme in believing that they can't get out.

I have heaped praise on the Oz tail for their efforts and have generally not been negative in discussing the English efforts. However, I was responding to your complaint that people were citing that England could not finish games and thought that a valid criticism. I just stated it. To me, it is one of the obvious conclusions to date in this series. That together with the English bowlers mastering swing, the Oz tail fight, the Oz bats inability to focus on playing the ball on its merits and working through sound English plans, Warne's ongoing mastery of spin, Flintoff and Jones's batting, Ponting's poor decision making and the poor Oz catching. There's undoubtedly much more to this series (McGrath's influence etc), but these are some of the standouts. Raising a few criticisms are in no way inteded to detract from any of the positives; in fact they actually highlight some of them

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Leafy Seadragon

Only needing one wicket and thinking that you're going to lose. This is probably the one area that Oz is miles ahead of the English, suggesting that much of the English confidence is still pretty thin.

Pschology in sport is huge. The best players are not always the most talented but often those who mentally are stronger (Waugh and Boycott two players with limited talent but two of the best players ever) before Edgbaston England had not won a Test in a live Ashes game since 1997 the pressure o win that game was huge. Some of ths guys are in their first Ashes series, when it comes to the crunch, of course there was going to be pressure taht may have lead to them losing.

The Aussies are used to winning, they have done it all round the world, so they naturally have self-belief. The fact is the more you win games like these last three the better you get at them.

Winning the two games as England have will only hold them in good sted for the future...

[Leafy Seadragon]

Ern, I have to respond because I think you're off the mark on most points

Originally Posted by Ernest

Be honest, after Lords, England have dominated this series, every single game.

Pity we can't just forget the Lords match hey? And teams that dominate don't win by 2 runs, draw and 3 wickets. I think that you are confusing being in front for most of the match as dominating. Its only dominating if you maintain or extend your advantage. In all three matches England lost most or all of their advantage by the end of the match. They won two of them, but to suggest that these were dominant victories belies the fact that Vaughan thought that you were going to lose at Edgbaston and was obviously rather nervous at the end at Trent Bridge.

Originally Posted by Ernest

So England lost 7 wickets, look at G O Jones shot, almost as poor as his keeping.

Sorry, didn't appreciate how crucial one wicket was to a match. Listening to other threads (and agreeing with them) I thought that a single wicket was just a small part of a match. If I and others are wrong and one wicket is so crucial, let's talk about some LBW decisions...

Originally Posted by Ernest

I really don't think anyone should say to England "You can't finish Matches", Aussie could not even get the 3 runs they needed at Edgbaston.

Sorry, but I think this is the most spurious of your arguments. Vaughan admits he had basically given up. Kaspa was unlucky (I have been careful not to overemphasise luck, but hey...). Australia fought throughout that session from a virtually impossible position to almost grab the test. A number 11 batsmen scoring 20 and the last three scoring over a hudred in a backs-to-the-wall defence says far more about finishing matches than Vaughan's "Oh we've lost it". England fell over the line. This is not intended in any way to diminish England's victory, it was deserved, but certainly due to their efforts earlier in the match rather than on their ability to finish on day four

Originally Posted by Ernest

And this Trent Bridge match, we winkled the Aussie out with one of our best bowlers missing, on that flat pitch.

Please don't start complaining about bowlers missing. This point has been (rightly) thrown back at us Aussies elsewhere. Vaughan chose to enforce the follow-on, despite everyone being completely aware of the potential risks to bowlers and despite Jones struggling in earlier test(s?) with cramp. I'm not suggesting that this led to Jones injury, but it may have contributed and was a risk England took. Even if it didn't contribute, as has rightly been pointed out, that's the way the cookie crumbles. England still had four fit bowlers.

Originally Posted by Ernest

Lee and Warne bowled well, in fact very well, but the fact is, England got the runs, Aussie did not at Edgbaston, theses are facts.

I agree - something positive as a response at least