Ashes 2005 or Ashes 2009

[Hooper]

2005 was better, much more thrilling, had Warne vs England basically due to McGrath being out and Lee/Gillespie/Tait all bowling pies. Warne in '05 was the greatest ever bowling in a situation were your team needed you.

'09 has been pretty lame actually, apart from Cardiff I wasn't really too into it...

 

[smssia0112]

Couldn't of said it any better. Every match was one sided

Cardiff - Aus
Lords - Eng
Edgebaston - Eng
Headingly- Aus
Oval - Eng

So when you look at it like that, England actually did deserve the Ashes even though all the stats point to Australia. There bowling attack simply performed better than ours. Bowlers win matches, batters set them up.

Edgbaston was only really one sided because of the rain. We knew a result was unlikely so we went all out and failed. If we'd had time to play our natural game things may have been different.

 

[nikhil_99]

2005 was better, much more thrilling, had Warne vs England basically due to McGrath being out and Lee/Gillespie/Tait all bowling pies. Warne in '05 was the greatest ever bowling in a situation were your team needed you.

Not to forget Flintoff,KP, S Jones who troubled Aus with his reverse and late swing from England side.

 

[evertonfan]

There was an Ashes series in 2005? Sky never seem to mention it.

 

[Will_NA]

Does that mean 2009 is the new 2005 or will they go on and on about both of them?

 

[aussie1st]

Ashes 2005 easy, much more tension and better batting and bowling spells.

 

[shravi]

2005, easily. No explanation needed. Was just more orgasmic.

 

[evertonfan]

I dunno, 2005 didn't have Ponting getting mullered in the face by a ball. 2005 didn't have a 20 year old opener who everyone said would tear us apart but failed on an ubelievably epic scale. 2005 also didn't have Mitchfail's wides. Nor did 2005 have an Australian attack decimated by a woman.

But then again, 2005 did have Simon Jones being alive.

 

[shravi]

I dunno, 2005 didn't have Ponting getting mullered in the face by a ball. 2005 didn't have a 20 year old opener who everyone said would tear us apart but failed on an ubelievably epic scale. 2005 also didn't have Mitchfail's wides. Nor did 2005 have an Australian attack decimated by a woman.

But then again, 2005 did have Simon Jones being alive.

Didn't it? Steve Harmison to Ponting?

 

[.::Stevo::.]

I dunno, 2005 didn't have Ponting getting mullered in the face by a ball. 2005 didn't have a 20 year old opener who everyone said would tear us apart but failed on an ubelievably epic scale. 2005 also didn't have Mitchfail's wides. Nor did 2005 have an Australian attack decimated by a woman.

But then again, 2005 did have Simon Jones being alive.

I could of swore I saw Stuart Broad out there playing for Englands woman national team, or maybe that was the ashes?

 

[SaiSrini]

The last option is nice, but I wont be arrogant in voting for that. For me its 'None of them', because I didnt follow neither of them (I read the bulletin/articles for a maximum of 3 says for the recently concluded series, once during the Lord's test, once during the Headingley one and once after England won the Ashes).

 

[Owzat]

In 2005 England came back from a disappointing opening Test defeat and won with gripping, narrow wins. The fifth Test was gripping but in a different way.

In 2009 England so nearly went 1-0 down at Cardiff, hanging on with five wickets batting out over two sessions. Won comfortably at Lords and at the Oval while the promising situation at Edgbaston fizzled out into a draw. The aussies also won comfortably at Headingley so in terms of tight results it is 2-0 to 2005 with the last ditch batting of England to save the Test at Cardiff unrivalled in 2005.

I was wondering only yesterday if the fact that we went 1-0 down and won 2-1 makes 2005 'better' than being 1-0 up, getting hauled back to 1-1 and then win despite losing by an innings defeat in the previous Test. But 2009 we had to win to win back the Ashes, in 2005 we only had to draw and there were only three innings and a few balls at the Oval.

Of course there is the 'new feat' factor, that we'd won it in 2005 for the first time since 1987 and in 2009 it was the second home win in a row and second in three series overall.

Arguably 2009 was a bigger achievement as we didn't have Hoggard, Harmison, Jones and Flintoff firing on all cylinders, 24 wickets and 402 runs from Flintoff alone. And we had an in-form batting line-up, G.Jones, Pietersen, Trescothick, Strauss and Flintoff providing the main strength with other contributions. This series a lot of bowlers chipped in but were not so stand out in their performances, batsmen likewise with Cook, Bell, Collingwood and Bopara all having disappointing come poor series. Proof of the pudding is in we used like 12 players in 2005, it would have been 11 but for Jones' injury, but this series we used about 15 with Panesar, Onions, Bopara and Pietersen also used outside the winning XI at the Oval (if I haven't missed anyone)

Then again you could say 2005 was a much bigger achievement for the fact that the aussies had Langer, Warne, Gilchrist and McGrath back then - and Lee - and this series they had a relatively weakened batting line-up and much weaker bowling line-up.

 

[nightprowler10]

2005 for me as well. Its mostly because I watched a lot more of that series than I did this one but also because the results were a lot tighter and the cricket played seemed of much higher quality. That and Freddie was a lot more fun to watch back then, both with the ball and bat. Not to forget Warnie.

 

[Skater]

As a series the 2005 was much better, but the 2009 victory was a bigger achievement for England.

 

[nikhil_99]

Every bit and bit of Ashes 2005 was classy,while Aus dominated 07 totally and gave no scope for Eng,09 was quite good quite balanced and not totally one-sided...