Australia in England

[brad352]

Staff member ey? go on kid you show your authority. do you wear a uniform when your on duty? it must be great to have authority. something to put on your CV and tell your mates about i bet. perhaps you could act like a jobsworth little hitler now and ban me because somebody dared to speak up to the big chief?
Im more than happy to call somebody an idiot who totally exaggerates my post and twists it because he does not agree. That's no problem at all.
As for ignoring what Annihilation said well that's not a problem too. its repetitive and of no interest to me.
To answer your question why aren't we putting results on the board well i think the fact we are leading the series 2-1 suggests we are.

I'm terribly sorry for a friendly reminder about not making it personal :

A direct quote of your post could've and would've had the same point made after it, the form is irrelevant and you seem to be using that to deflect the entire argument. To answer the only topical point in your post, I don't think that 3 wicket and 2 run wins, as well as a 239 run loss, are a reflection of the kind of dominance you seem to be thinking you're having, and probably says something about where the sides are in the bigger picture.

 

[Annihilation66]

Well if we are boring you so much and being so repetitive then dont bother posting in this thread again but if you do why dont you reply to my last post?

 

[jazz]

England always go for the easy tours, just look at Indias fixtures...... Sri Lanka Pakistan, England, West Indies, South Africa, New Zealand, England, Zimbabwe, Australia.......not the weakest sides in the world except 1 of Zimbabwe.

NOw the selectors are going for harder tours because England have confidence because they scraped wins against a poor aussie side

the icc decide which team tours which country

the england selectors have nothing to do with this

 

[Annihilation66]

I'm terribly sorry for a friendly reminder about not making it personal :

To answer the only topical point in your post, I don't think that 3 wickets and 2 runs, as well as a 239 run loss, are a reflection of the kind of dominance you seem to be thinking you're having.

See this is an example yes that point has been made before BUT people like you just dont seem to get it so we have to repeat it for you.

the icc decide which team tours which country

the england selectors have nothing to do with this

Soz if i was wrong with that then but still England think they are exceptional and consistent. My school team could be consistent when playing Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. All i can say is that England have a tough year coming up when they have to prove that they can beat the better teams in cricket. Away as well as at home.

 

[jazz]

Soz if i was wrong with that then but still England think they are exceptional and consistent. My school team could be consistent when playing Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. All i can say is that England have a tough year coming up when they have to prove that they can beat the better teams in cricket. Away as well as at home.

england still did play good teams west indies, new zealand and south africa they played last year and obviously that helped them to be dominat over australia in this series

 

[Eddie]

As a response to the people who think:

1. England are a one man team ( tries to stiffle laughter)
2. England have/n't been dominant.

Here are the series averages:

England Ashes batting averages

M Trescothick 355 runs @ 44.37
K Pietersen 301 runs @ 43.00
A Flintoff 322 runs @ 40.25
M Vaughan 270 runs @ 33.75
S Jones 66 runs @ 33.00
A Strauss 263 runs @ 32.87
G Jones 203 runs @ 29.00
I Bell 171 runs @ 21.37
A Giles 64 runs @ 10.66
S Harmison 40 runs @ 8.00
M Hoggard 39 runs @ 6.50

England Ashes bowling averages

S Jones 18 wkts @ 21.00
S Harmison 16 wkts @ 28.87
A Flintoff 19 wkts @ 30.36
M Hoggard 12 wkts @ 31.33
A Giles 10 wkts @ 50.20

==========================================
Australia Ashes batting averages

R Ponting 324 runs @ 40.50
M Clarke 310 runs @ 38.75
J Langer 289 runs @ 36.12
S Warne 249 runs @ 31.12
S Katich 247 runs @ 30.87
B Lee 152 runs @ 30.40
A Gilchrist 158 runs @ 22.57
M Hayden 180 runs @ 22.50
D Martyn 168 runs @ 21.00
M Kasprowicz 44 runs @ 11.00
J Gillespie 47 runs @ 7.83
S Tait 7 runs @ 7.00
G McGrath 36 runs @ -----

Australia Ashes bowling averages
R Ponting 1 wkts @ 9.00
S Warne 28 wkts @19.67
G McGrath 14 wkts @20.21
B Lee 19 wkts @33.68
S Katich 1 wkts @ 36 00
S Tait 3 wkts @40.33
M Kasp'wicz 4 wkts @62.50
J Gillespie 3 wkts @100.00

===================================
from these figures you can see who the "one man team is" and its not England.
Warne has ~45% of all Australia's wickets taken. Not to mention the 4th highest Aussie run aggregate.

 

[dazza76]

I'm terribly sorry for a friendly reminder about not making it personal :

To answer the only topical point in your post, I don't think that 3 wickets and 2 runs, as well as a 239 run loss, are a reflection of the kind of dominance you seem to be thinking you're having.

I was enjoying having a good debate and i thought your interpretation of my post was uncalled for. if you want to point out which points i made in that post you do not agree with i am more than happy to debate with you.
Brad take the series on a day by day or even a session by session basis and surely you can not deny England have largly been the dominant side in this series.
Yes we have come close to choking a couple of times and 2 runs and 3 wickets do not sound convincing wins but overall England have played the better cricket in this series by far.

 

[Annihilation66]

As a response to the people who think:

1. England are a one man team ( tries to stiffle laughter)
2. England have/n't been dominant.

Here are the series averages:

England Ashes batting averages

M Trescothick 355 runs @ 44.37
K Pietersen 301 runs @ 43.00
A Flintoff 322 runs @ 40.25
M Vaughan 270 runs @ 33.75
S Jones 66 runs @ 33.00
A Strauss 263 runs @ 32.87
G Jones 203 runs @ 29.00
I Bell 171 runs @ 21.37
A Giles 64 runs @ 10.66
S Harmison 40 runs @ 8.00
M Hoggard 39 runs @ 6.50

England Ashes bowling averages

S Jones 18 wkts @ 21.00
S Harmison 16 wkts @ 28.87
A Flintoff 19 wkts @ 30.36
M Hoggard 12 wkts @ 31.33
A Giles 10 wkts @ 50.20

==========================================
Australia Ashes batting averages

R Ponting 324 runs @ 40.50
M Clarke 310 runs @ 38.75
J Langer 289 runs @ 36.12
S Warne 249 runs @ 31.12
S Katich 247 runs @ 30.87
B Lee 152 runs @ 30.40
A Gilchrist 158 runs @ 22.57
M Hayden 180 runs @ 22.50
D Martyn 168 runs @ 21.00
M Kasprowicz 44 runs @ 11.00
J Gillespie 47 runs @ 7.83
S Tait 7 runs @ 7.00
G McGrath 36 runs @ -----

Australia Ashes bowling averages
R Ponting 1 wkts @ 9.00
S Warne 28 wkts @19.67
G McGrath 14 wkts @20.21
B Lee 19 wkts @33.68
S Katich 1 wkts @ 36 00
S Tait 3 wkts @40.33
M Kasp'wicz 4 wkts @62.50
J Gillespie 3 wkts @100.00

===================================
from these figures you can see who the "one man team is" and its not England.
Warne has ~45% of all Australia's wickets taken. Not to mention the 4th highest Aussie run aggregate.

What you should be looking at is the results as said by brad earlier, England have 3 wicket and 2 run wins, as well as a 239 run loss. Yep theres world domination for you ;-)

Well i apologise for the remark your a good debater and obviously very passionate about your cricket and your team but i was enjoying having a good debate and i thought your interpretation of my post was uncalled for. if you want to point out which points i made in that post you do not agree with i am more than happy to debate with you.
Brad take the series on a day by day or even a session by session basis and surely you can not deny England have largly been the dominant side in this series.
Yes we have come close to choking a couple of times and 2 runs and 3 wickets do not sound convincing wins but overall England have played the better cricket in this series by far.

Unfortunalely you dont dominate world cricket by winning sessions you have to win matches and series convincingly which England wont do even if they win the ashes. The matches were great because they were close.

 

[Eddie]

Unfortunalely you dont dominate world cricket by winning sessions you have to win matches and series convincingly which England wont do even if they win the ashes. The matches were great because they were close

if they win the ashes 3-1 i'd say thats pretty convincing , (if it wasn't for rain it would already be 3-1).

I'd say Australia have a couple of talented individuals, who they rely upon VERY heavily, but England are a better TEAM, as they all contribute equally.

 

[dazza76]

Unfortunalely you dont dominate world cricket by winning sessions you have to win matches and series convincingly which England wont do even if they win the ashes. The matches were great because they were close.

England have been the dominant team in this series. im amazed anybody can doubt that.
I don't think anybody has mentioned or claimed we dominate world cricket.

 

[Annihilation66]

England have been the dominant team in this series. im amazed anybody can doubt that.
I don't think anybody has mentioned or claimed we dominate world cricket.

you claim to be the best in the world if you win the ashes. I think the meaning of the word Doninating is getting confused. Basically england dominated sessions but not the result(Which truely great teams can do)

 

[dazza76]

you claim to be the best in the world if you win the ashes)

Please quote where i said this

 

[Annihilation66]

NOt you just Engand fans in general. BUt this is going in circles. I guess it will be easier to argue this after the Oval test.

So change of topic. Jones is unlikely to be fit. Do England do what Australia have and bring in a uncapped tremlett or do they bring in colingwood?

 

[dazza76]

Collingwood. Tremlett would be a gamble with what's at stake. Collingwood will give the batting some depth and is a decent bowler too.

 

[themuel1]

you claim to be the best in the world if you win the ashes. I think the meaning of the word Doninating is getting confused. Basically england dominated sessions but not the result(Which truely great teams can do)

England dominated against Banglesdesh throughout, does that mean thier great? : Australia were meant to be a truely dominating team before they came into these Ashes, they may still be against lower opposition but not against England. A dominating team wins most matches, It does not matter how though!!! England were never going to thrash Australia, they are a great team, playing against England a great team. You can't expect one side to win every session!