Australia clearly the better team

[Ernest]

Good point here.
To be called World Champs, has not a team to have won the Cricket World Cup?.

And when a Test Side is good enough, helped by the ranking, then a side could be called the best side in the world.

[Clive Dunn]

Originally Posted by Seamer

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.

Perhaps I was watching a different test match, it appeared to me that England putting on 477 in the first innings and then having the ability to swing the ball ( something the Aussies failed to do despite having better conditions to do so ) enough to bowl out a team for c.220 on a good batting pitch was the crucial element. It would be utterly wrong to get into the "if we had 50 more runs we'd have won the game" mindset - in reality Australia had lost the game by the end of day 2 - they bowled badly and batted badly in both first innings and the match was decided there.

I'm not sure that any sane England fan will claim an Ashes win will make us world champions, that is something that requires time and dominance. All I really care about is that 1987 seems an awful long time ago.

[English_Al]

Yes Clive, well put. We are outplaying the world champs in this series but we cant claim to be in this Australian teams league overall, we haven't proved ourselves the best against all opposition/conditions like them. But that's hardly surprising, we've only just got going in the last two years, and this Australian team has been one of the best ever.

After hearing more from the Aussies in the last day, I've got to say that all this whinging and excuses is getting a bit boring. And less about Aus - "we are only playing at 50%" or whatever it is, it's good play by England, why cant they accept that?

The other thing they like to point out is how we keep almost losing from an un-loseable position. It's a question of confidence. England have gained confidence over the last year but the psycological leap to beat Aus is immense, they have had the 'wood over us' mentally for so long. Aus on the other hand have beaten everyone even in impossible situations for so long that they have the belief and confidence to drag themselves out of tricky situations - not forgetting great ability. Thats why the last test will probably be the most difficult for England, Aus will be in a corner and will come out fighting from the start.

Aussies also say that whenever someone says the team is past it, they come back to prove them wrong like 4(?) years ago. Thats true, but then the great players were still in the team. When Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist, etc go, their younger guys aren't as special, and the team wont be what it was.

[Beny]

1st test- England got humiliated by a superiour bowling line up (which was really only 3 bowlers strong when you consider that Gillespie was woefull)

2nd test- England win... By 3 runs!

3rd Test- England again give up an unlooseable game and there is a draw.

4th Test- England scrape to the finish line with 3 wickets remianing...
So this is the New World champions?

People seem to be misunderstanding here...

We're not making excuses. We're pointing out facts. England cannot claim to have beaten the Aussies at full strength. Let's take out Flintoff and Harmison from the English team and then see how they go. Stuff all this talk of a "two pronged" attack, any team would suffer if they lost their two best bowlers. Yet even then England are struggling.

[Kirsty Harris]

Beny, what you have highlighted rather well is a weakness in the England team at the moment - the ability to kill off a game stone dead once they have control of it. This is something that with experience and confidence England will improve on. What is impressive is that when it came to the crunch, England held their nerves in the two test matches that they won.

At the moment, we have two sides in reversing fortunes - England are on the way up, Australia are on the way down (slightly, not in WI style!!). At this moment they are closely matched; but while England are maturing and developing with every match, for Austrailia certian players are coming to the natural end of their career.

England have had to play excellent cricket to be on top in this series; but they are not the finished article yet, and that is the most exciting thing of all for me.

[acker]

Australia is showing like England did last Ashes series in England, what happens when you retain players beyond their use-by date's.

Who's calling for the re-call of Stewart, Thorpe, Butcher, Caddick, and White now.
Australia have to learn the same lesson, congratulations Michael Vaughan for renewing your squad andd reaping the rewards.
Commiserations Ricky Ponting, you will never nor deserve to captain Australia again. Brett Lee she's all yours.

[Leafy Seadragon]

Originally Posted by Clive Dunn

in reality Australia had lost the game by the end of day 2 - they bowled badly and batted badly in both first innings and the match was decided there

I agree that the Aussies lost the match in the first innings, but disagree strongly that they had lost the match by that point. A match is won over two innings and the performance in the first three tests, and even at the end of this test indicates that Australian had not lost the test until England scored the runs required in the fourth innings.

I agree that England have been the better team throughout this summer, but not by much. I would think its fair to say that the English have played up to their ability far more than the Aussies. The fact that it is a team game has been emphasised by the fight in the Aussie tail. England is currently winning this, but struggle to actually finish off the Aussies, realistically falling over the line twice (Vaughan admitted as much in the second test) thanks to a combination of better play early in the match and a bit of luck. Chuck's comment that you make your own luck is true to a degree. The Aussies didn't take the game out of reach of a few umpiring decisions (which can always be a factor) like they generally have done in the past decade. I think that the reason that the luck is getting mentioned is that three of the four matches have been so close that small thinks change outcomes. Again, this isn't usually the case with Australia (or their opponents) and generally the basis for the statement that you make your own luck.

When people are making the statement that England are playing betterthis series, I think that this refers to the fact that they are making the running early and therefore on top for much of the match and that the Oz team have shown they are capable of reaching such heights, that they are not achieving here. Additionally, the English team is performing far better than it has done previously.

Not being in England, it is hard for me to debate the conditions, other than the information conveyed by the commentators. The lack of swing is very condition specific and its rarely that the commentators have suggested that the Aussies have actually bowled in the right conditions. On day two of the 4th test the conditions became better and lo and behold, the Aussies started swinging the ball. The horror that could be felt throughout Australia (the country as well as the team) was palpable, because it was obvious what the implications were when Oz came to bat. Swing (conventional and reverse) is the one area where the English outbowl the Aussies all ends up, so expectations were bleak. If you saw a match where the Aussies bowled with the best conditions for swing, then your comment is correct, we obviously saw a different match. I watched the 4th test at Trent Bridge. Dunno about you.

All up, despite several rebuttals above, I wouldn't debate that England deserve their lead - either team leading this series deserves it, given the effort and commitment shown. I hope that the Aussies play well enough at the Oval to retain the Ashes, because if they do, they will deserve to do so, so close have the teams been

[Leafy Seadragon]

Originally Posted by Beny

England cannot claim to have beaten the Aussies at full strength.

Who else are you suggesting that the Aussies could or should have played? The team that we fielded was the best available. England beat the best Australian team. Full stop. Anything else is, in my opinion, excuses. Similarly, if Jones is unavailable in the fifth test, I won't be making caveated statements if the Aussies win. If McGrath was fit, I suspect that the Aussies would now be at 3-0. Then again, if Bradman and Miller were playing, it would probably be 4-0. Unless of course England wheeled out Hobbs et al.

It doesn't make England a better team tomorrow, but it also doesn't change the fact that we fielded our best team and England beat them.

[Irish Left Armer]

That's spot on Leafy. Well put.

[Beny]

I'm sorry but I'm just trying to think right now, what England fans would be saying if they we're missing Harmison and Flintoff and we had McGrath and Gillespie back to full boil.... 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?