Australia clearly the better team

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Beny

England can't even seem to win a game when they are in an un-loseable postion. All of the teams you mention above have been anhialted by the Aussies, far more than they were by the English. Against NZ and Bangladesh we could'nt even get a test to go to the 4th day. England beat NZ... Aus turned them into jelly.

LOL Beny, England have just beat Australia at Edgbaston and Trent Bridge, yes England won.

It was good play by the Aussie tail enders that made the game so close at Edgbaston, they played well, give them credit.
At old Trafford, England did well to get 9 wickets down, time lost to rain.

And chasing low totals, never easy, but England got there, they did not lose from an un-loseable position.

Australia know all about chasing low totals, Headingly 1981 needed 130, never got it.

What do you mean over New Zealand Beny, they came with hype, how good they were, and England beat them 3-0, not a lot of spirit left for Aussie to beat.
Bangladesh-I don't think England have been beaten with them in any format of cricket.

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

But every era coomes to an end. Now I am not saying this is the end. But I read a great article by Greg Chappel in the Telegraph yesterday where he talked of ponting recieving the poisoned chalice from Steve Waugh. In his he said that it was only a matter of time before certain players retired leaving Ricky with a team that would no longer win so easily. .

They sais the end was nigh when we lost 2-1 against India in 2001. Thay said it again when we drew at home 2-2 against India in 2003. We also drew 1-1 against NZ at home between those times. Australia was struggling at the end of the Waugh era and his retirement began a renewal process that if anything, made us a stronger team without him. Australia has suffered the odd reversal on occasion as we are in this tour but we always have re-established our dominance. If you look at Pontings captaincy record in tests and ODI's, they hardly indicate a man who has inherited a poisoned chalice.

Originally Posted by flanflinger

In tertms of luck - let's go through it - every team has luck, good and bad during a test. Generally it even's itself out. On this occasion it didn't, however, for me when the luck is going against you it is how you respond to it.
Let's be honest here you have won games in the past where you have had the rub of thee green. It happens it is all part of the game.

I cannot recall Australia getting that many decisions going their way and certainly not in a test that was so close. 5 or six Aussie top order batsmen being unfairly gunned was crucial. Flintoff surviving a plumb LBW when on 8 and going on to score a ton was crucial. The umpires decided the outcome of the match. That is what annoys me and is why i feel that test was a hollow win for England. If Australia won a test in the same manner, i would say the same.
At the end of the day, it goes down in the history books as an England victory, but i am yet to be convinced that England are the better team. If they can convincingly win a test,with or without support from the umpires, then that might go some distance to me changing my mind but they have not come close to this yet.
God how i hope that at the OVal (1) McGrath is cleared to play (2) Australia win the toss (3) The umpiring decisions even out (4) the Aussie bats lift to play at even 80% of there ability (5) It does'nt rain. The relative strengths and abilities will then be clear. I am the first to give credit, but only when due.

[gaurav3785]

England are not the best in the world yet.not even close.aussies have dominated the game for over a decade.and have changed the way test cricket is played.England have the potential to be a very good team but i think that england are still beatable.ther was a time when the aussies looked unbeatable.australia have had series losses against india(2wice),sri lanka(once),nzl held them for a 0-0 draw,west indies had a 2-2 draw.thats pretty good going.England are yet to prove that they are world beaters.but they have the potential.

[Ernest]

No one now just how good England are, the England bowling is clearly the best attack in the world.

Facts back that up, we were able to beat South africa with a depleted attack, with Harmison so homesick.

Also at Trent Bridge, we got the Aussies out before they could get to big of a lead, despite the fact that Simon Jones was not available injured..

No matter what happens now, England can't lose this series, Australia can't win it, but would keep the Ashes if they win @ the Oval, because they did not lose the series.

Englands batting is the worry, Bell-Vaughan and Strauss have yet to convince, in particular Bell.

And Jones will have to improve on his keeping, it's fine scoring 80, then missing chances that combined excede his score.
England are not far from being the best team in the world, a series win in Pakistan would cement England at the top-I think.

[djdannybrown]

Originally Posted by Seamer

God how i hope that at the OVal (1) McGrath is cleared to play (2) Australia win the toss (3) The umpiring decisions even out (4) the Aussie bats lift to play at even 80% of there ability (5) It does'nt rain. The relative strengths and abilities will then be clear. I am the first to give credit, but only when due.

Alot of hopes there.You Aussies always think you lose because youve underpeformed or unlucky.I hope England finish the game without giving the Aussies a little chance at the end

[wrong'un]

My word, if an English fan had come out with a list of excuses like that Whinging Poms would have been the cry!

Of the last Ashes Series no one would deny the Aussies were BY FAR the better side but I could just as easily go :-

1) Our best batsman didn't tour (Thorpe)

2) Our most experienced bowler, the spearhead of the attack, Gough's knee broke down. At the time we were told the Aussies would never pick an ageing bowler with injury problems and the situation was everything that was wrong with English cricket. (McGrath anyone!)

3) Flintoff was injured. Admittedly he was not exactly the player he is now, but was still the only all-rounder in the country and vital to the 5-man attack philosophy we were creating.

4) S Jones, "the Aussies reverse swing tormentor", after only 7 overs and a wicket in a fiery Ashes debut spell around 90mph + broke his leg, reducing Eng. to 10 men for the 1st Test thus losing all momentum for the match and series.

5) Harmison after a 12 maybe 13 ball over got the yips and "couldn't implement the Capt./coaches plans" for the rest of the tour. (See Gillespie at Leicester)

6) ‘Spin-King’ Ashley Giles missed the tour through injury.

7) Skipper N. Hussain wins a toss on a flat track and put the opposition in, who promptly finish on 364/2 (Unlike Birmingham this was put down to Aussie brilliance)

..

..

..

..

26) Gilly flashed too much outside his off-stump and did not play out of the MCC manual, my mate down the cricket club reckons he is lucky to average 55 and he would have been found out had it not been for reasons 1-25.

Now, one would have to be blind not to see that the Aussies were a better side they were exceptional and remain very good maybe the best. I'm just pointing out that Seamer’s observations come across as a little unfair anyone can make excuses; only the gifted can dominate 3 matches in a row against a very good Australia side.

I cannot recall Australia getting that many decisions going their way and certainly not in a test that was so close. 5 or six Aussie top order batsmen being unfairly gunned was crucial. Flintoff surviving a plumb LBW when on 8 and going on to score a ton was crucial

If you bowl full and straight at pace you are going to get more decisions even the dubious and plain wrong ones because you are asking the question more often. If you scatter-gun (Tait), bowl one good spell in 3 (Lee) or like Kasper just bowl plain badly you won't. I don’t think it’s unfair to attribute at least some of the discrepancy in the amount of lbws to this. Also if you’d ask Warne which umpire he’d like standing for him Aleem Dar would figure highly. He has been consistency praised for giving spinners decisions they deserve unlike most umpires for who to the batter merely has to thrust his foot down the track to avoid the dreaded finger. Flintoff may have been out but the decision only seemed so costly because he was allowed by shocking fields and bad bowling to score another 94. Hoggard had a plumb one turned down but removed the batsman an over or two later negated the decision’s effect.

(1) McGrath is cleared to play – Are we not to credit an Australian victory if S. Jones can’t play?

(2) Australia win the toss- Ponting has won 2 tosses to Vaughan 2 thus far, it is to the detriment of the Buchanan/Ponting brains trust if they make Hussainesque decisions.

(3) The umpiring decisions - even out See above

(4) The Aussie bats lift to play at even 80% of there ability – Clearly the ability of the bowlers effect the amount of runs batsmen will score, however if they score big runs at the Oval they should be credited

(5) It doesn’t rain – Rain thus far has only hampered England who would without it have won the Ashes already. For the good of the game and a good contest, I too hope it stays dry.

[Moss]

Well put wrong'un.

I am getting incresingly irritated by some people's attitude towards this series.

If we win the Ashes, we win the Ashes.

How dare these excuses for England's winning keep cropping up.

If England win, it is because we are the better team at the time.

No excuses.

[Chuck Palumbo]

Well said wrongun.

If these Aussies think the excuses they give are valid, then I suppose we can give twice as many excuses for why we have lost the last couple Ashes series i.e injuries, bad umpiring decisions, tosses.

What happened to old Australian "You make you own luck mate"?.....Oh sorry, that only counts when you're winning.

The attitude of some Australians makes our win yesterday even more sweeter in my view. I never want an Aussie to use the term whinging Pom again.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by wrong'un

Of the last Ashes Series no one would deny the Aussies were BY FAR the better side but I could just as easily go :-

Nice little list there... and I hope that having seen the effect of such setbacks on the all-conquering Aussies... some England followers will start accepting that it has been as much the misfortunes that have beset successive England sides as anything else that has seen the Aussie run last so long.

Successive England sides haven't been significantly different to this current side at full strength.. and could have pulled off the same sort of sensational results as we're seeing now with the same sort of breaks (e.g. McGrath out, Gillespie gone AWOL, Kasprowicz struggling, the no balling, the crucial umpiring decisions against Martyn and Katich.. the dropped catches off Tresco, Flintoff and co): it's time to starting giving them the credit they deserve and to recognise that the gap between being all-conquering and humiliated is not that large!

[gaurav3785]

england have been the superior side than australia.England wont be called world champs if they win this series.but they have the potential to be...end of story.