Were the results a true reflection of the distance between the two sides?
Australia Flattered By 0-3 Loss
Australia Flattered By 0-3 Loss
Were Ashes results were flattering to Australia?
- Thread starter hawkeye
- Start date
used2bcool
Club Captain
I'm not sure if Australia were flattered by it. I'd say it was a pretty fair result considering the quality gap between the two teams. Maybe 3-1 is the result that would've done both teams justice, with Australia winning at Old Trafford and the test at the Oval being drawn.
I don't buy the 2-2 theory because the fact that Australia came so close to winning the first Test was a total fluke. With 228 runs put on for the tenth wicket across the two innings, Australia did something that hasn't happened very often (if at all) in Test history. If you look at it objectively, Australia were quite lucky not to lose that Test by 150.
I don't buy the 2-2 theory because the fact that Australia came so close to winning the first Test was a total fluke. With 228 runs put on for the tenth wicket across the two innings, Australia did something that hasn't happened very often (if at all) in Test history. If you look at it objectively, Australia were quite lucky not to lose that Test by 150.
ste_mc_efc
Chairman of Selectors
Of course they weren't.
The scoreline flatters england relative to how close the games and series were at certain times. Because australia played close to their max capacity, and england were way below theirs.
the 3-0 scoreline may not be an accurate reflection on the gulf of ability of between the sides, but you can't say a side is flattered by performing better than they normally do. that's not how it works.
The scoreline flatters england relative to how close the games and series were at certain times. Because australia played close to their max capacity, and england were way below theirs.
the 3-0 scoreline may not be an accurate reflection on the gulf of ability of between the sides, but you can't say a side is flattered by performing better than they normally do. that's not how it works.
shravi
National Board President
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2005
- Profile Flag
- India
Scoreline doesn't flatter anyone. However, it is not an entirely true reflection of how close the series was. First test could have gone either way, Australia would most probably have won the third if not for rain, England required and Australian capitulation and a Broad masterclass to win the fourth, by the fifth nobody cared. England totally dominated the second and you can't say Australia totally dominated England in any game (even the third).
England won the most important sessions and that is what test series are won on, and that is the mark of who the better team is. Ultimately, Australia's A game was only as good as England's A game.
England won the most important sessions and that is what test series are won on, and that is the mark of who the better team is. Ultimately, Australia's A game was only as good as England's A game.
Definitely flatters England. Australia were leading on the first innings in 4 of the 5 Tests!
I'm happy to admit Australia aren't as good a side as England, but I think that's mostly about consistency of performance. Australia just can't get it together for 5 days straight very often. Look at the 4th Test as a perfect example, Australia were on top of that for 3.75 days, and then crumbled in a heap with about 150 to get and 9 wickets in hand.
I'm happy to admit Australia aren't as good a side as England, but I think that's mostly about consistency of performance. Australia just can't get it together for 5 days straight very often. Look at the 4th Test as a perfect example, Australia were on top of that for 3.75 days, and then crumbled in a heap with about 150 to get and 9 wickets in hand.
Samuels
Rally Round The West Indies
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2013
- Location
- Kingston, Jamaica
- Profile Flag
- West Indies
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
Of course not. Australia are no more invincible, remember? It was England that started favorites before the series. Yes, Australia would be disappointed not to win a single match but from the position they were in the first two tests, and the 3 day match against Sussex, I think they did a very good job in the last 3 test matches to finish with the scoreline of just 0-3. Things looks way more blurry for Australia at the end of the 2nd test test at Lord's.
Scoreline definitely flatters England, and whether they were below par and the aussies playing way above par is a matter of conjecture and really rather irrelevant.
If Accrington Stanley beat Man Utd 1-0 people would say "Man Utd were well below their best", doesn't really matter, they lost. None of this "the best side lost" that the special needs one comes out with.
1st Test could have gone either way, regardless whether X should have been out or not, Y should have walked or Z was looking for his twin and a Top to form a group.
2nd Test England won convincingly because the aussies collapsed, it happens. 3rd Test was spoiled by rain, you could say in terms of dominance and the scoreline, had the Tests been won only by the dominant side, 1-1
4th Test England again rose above the aussies thanks to Broad taking wickets, and the 5th Test the aussies were in charge of even if light prevented England winning a Test due to a very generous declaration target because rain had already ruined it = 2-2
I have said a couple of times 2-2 would have better reflected the series, that or maybe 2-1 to England.
In terms of performances, were the aussies so far behind the English?
WKTS
26 Swann (ENG) @ 29.04 (5 Tests)
24 Harris (AUS) @ 19.58 (4 Tests)
22 Broad (ENG) @ 27.45 (5 Tests)
22 Anderson (ENG) @ 29.59 (5 Tests)
17 Siddle (AUS) @ 31.59 (5 Tests)
Half of Broad's wickets came in the one Test. England have the better spinner by a long way, that was about the difference in the bowling
RUNS
562 Bell (ENG) @ 62.44
418 Watson (AUS) @ 41.80
388 Pietersen (ENG) @ 38.80
381 Clarke (AUS) @ 47.63
367 Rogers (AUS) @ 40.78
345 Smith (AUS) @ 38.33
339 Root (ENG) @ 37.67
Bell had a blinding series, for all the suggestion England were "below par", he made up quite a bit of that. If we were relying on Cook, Trott and Prior we'd have been neck deep in proverbial.
If the aussies had a decent spinner, and a few less batting order problems this series could well have been their's. England used 14 players, two changes of bowler and Woakes for Bairstow when the series was already decided.
Australia used 17 players, not too bad under the circumstances, using eight batsmen and eight bowlers. I remember when England won the Ashes for the first time in 18 years that they used on 12 players and one was a forced change through injury to Jones.
Stability can be the key, getting the selection right from the off and having the luxury of enough players performing that you can give the 1st Test XI a second go for those who didn't perform. Warner came in eventually, much was expected and a modest 138 runs in three Tests @ a very very modest 23.00 was the outcome - Hughes scored over half that in his 81no......................
So no the results weren't flattering to Australia, to suggest so is stupid and sounds like it came from one of the people who were touting 10-0 or at least 5-0 this series...................
If Accrington Stanley beat Man Utd 1-0 people would say "Man Utd were well below their best", doesn't really matter, they lost. None of this "the best side lost" that the special needs one comes out with.
1st Test could have gone either way, regardless whether X should have been out or not, Y should have walked or Z was looking for his twin and a Top to form a group.
2nd Test England won convincingly because the aussies collapsed, it happens. 3rd Test was spoiled by rain, you could say in terms of dominance and the scoreline, had the Tests been won only by the dominant side, 1-1
4th Test England again rose above the aussies thanks to Broad taking wickets, and the 5th Test the aussies were in charge of even if light prevented England winning a Test due to a very generous declaration target because rain had already ruined it = 2-2
I have said a couple of times 2-2 would have better reflected the series, that or maybe 2-1 to England.
In terms of performances, were the aussies so far behind the English?
WKTS
26 Swann (ENG) @ 29.04 (5 Tests)
24 Harris (AUS) @ 19.58 (4 Tests)
22 Broad (ENG) @ 27.45 (5 Tests)
22 Anderson (ENG) @ 29.59 (5 Tests)
17 Siddle (AUS) @ 31.59 (5 Tests)
Half of Broad's wickets came in the one Test. England have the better spinner by a long way, that was about the difference in the bowling
RUNS
562 Bell (ENG) @ 62.44
418 Watson (AUS) @ 41.80
388 Pietersen (ENG) @ 38.80
381 Clarke (AUS) @ 47.63
367 Rogers (AUS) @ 40.78
345 Smith (AUS) @ 38.33
339 Root (ENG) @ 37.67
Bell had a blinding series, for all the suggestion England were "below par", he made up quite a bit of that. If we were relying on Cook, Trott and Prior we'd have been neck deep in proverbial.
If the aussies had a decent spinner, and a few less batting order problems this series could well have been their's. England used 14 players, two changes of bowler and Woakes for Bairstow when the series was already decided.
Australia used 17 players, not too bad under the circumstances, using eight batsmen and eight bowlers. I remember when England won the Ashes for the first time in 18 years that they used on 12 players and one was a forced change through injury to Jones.
Stability can be the key, getting the selection right from the off and having the luxury of enough players performing that you can give the 1st Test XI a second go for those who didn't perform. Warner came in eventually, much was expected and a modest 138 runs in three Tests @ a very very modest 23.00 was the outcome - Hughes scored over half that in his 81no......................
So no the results weren't flattering to Australia, to suggest so is stupid and sounds like it came from one of the people who were touting 10-0 or at least 5-0 this series...................
Bluey Zarsoff
School Cricketer
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2013
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Can't possibly see how anyone could think the 3-0 scoreline flattered Australia.
Rain halted a game only Australia could have won in the 3rd test, and Australia dominated the 5th test, with only Clarke's attacking captaincy and bold declaration giving England any chance of winning.
Rain halted a game only Australia could have won in the 3rd test, and Australia dominated the 5th test, with only Clarke's attacking captaincy and bold declaration giving England any chance of winning.
And maybe even the beliefs of some, including the daft muppets that insist on predicting 5-0 whitewashes like Botham, have made England a little complacent.
If you sum up the balance of the Tests in terms of shall we say Chess point scoring on merits :
1st Test (0.5-0.5) : England won narrowly, aussies could so easily have sneaked home in a fairly even contest.
2nd Test (1.0-0.0) : England bowled the aussies out for 128 and 235, only a few more runs combined than either of England's innings. England were 127/4 but the aussie batting never made enough runs to suggest they were really in it
3rd Test (0.0-1.0) : aussies made over 500, England were very much on the back foot and at 37/3 chasing 332 to win were always 2nd best and saved by rain.
4th Test (0.5-0.5) : England won by 74 runs, but the aussies were ahead by 32 on 1st innings and from 147/1 chasing just under 300 fell away. Even contest for all but the latter stages
5th Test (0.0-1.0) : England had a shot at winning in the end due to a generous declaration. At 206/5 they were favourites to knock off the rest of the runs when the game ended, but how often in unaffected matches would a side declare at 111/6 having thrown the bat for 23 overs? Close in terms of the outcome, aussies were trying to force a result having already lost the series
Final score : ENG 2.0-3.0 AUS
And this series, home side first:
1st Test (1.0-0.0) : England barely in it despite media headlines that Broad's bowling had put England in charge after a mere day's play when the aussies had already scored more runs than England did in either innings.
If you sum up the balance of the Tests in terms of shall we say Chess point scoring on merits :
1st Test (0.5-0.5) : England won narrowly, aussies could so easily have sneaked home in a fairly even contest.
2nd Test (1.0-0.0) : England bowled the aussies out for 128 and 235, only a few more runs combined than either of England's innings. England were 127/4 but the aussie batting never made enough runs to suggest they were really in it
3rd Test (0.0-1.0) : aussies made over 500, England were very much on the back foot and at 37/3 chasing 332 to win were always 2nd best and saved by rain.
4th Test (0.5-0.5) : England won by 74 runs, but the aussies were ahead by 32 on 1st innings and from 147/1 chasing just under 300 fell away. Even contest for all but the latter stages
5th Test (0.0-1.0) : England had a shot at winning in the end due to a generous declaration. At 206/5 they were favourites to knock off the rest of the runs when the game ended, but how often in unaffected matches would a side declare at 111/6 having thrown the bat for 23 overs? Close in terms of the outcome, aussies were trying to force a result having already lost the series
Final score : ENG 2.0-3.0 AUS
And this series, home side first:
1st Test (1.0-0.0) : England barely in it despite media headlines that Broad's bowling had put England in charge after a mere day's play when the aussies had already scored more runs than England did in either innings.
