The Ashes series was overrated

[blackcat]

My contention is the Ashes series was far overrated and I am sick of Langer's et al platitudes of how great and competitive it was.

Ok, the contest was decent but the actual level and standard of play was mediocre.

My major points were, the batting was average at best, and not because the bowling was dominant.

The standard of fielding set new lows. I cannot remember a series where the number of field catches (that is opportunites) were put down, and the keeping, well Berry must be mortified (IS). I think it might be a record that Pieterson owns in terms of catches dropped, and also Geraint Jones performance would have been shameful if it was a schoolboy first XI keeper.

Wingnut Gilchrist looked like he was keeping with those ears of his as gloves, because he made so many mistakes that he mitigated Jones performance, so Jones actually looked merely bad, instead of his record level of atrociousness. I think Gilly must have felt sorry for Jones, that is my only justification. I know when he won the AB medal he had a poor year wioth the gloves which was not reflected in the voting, and his subcontinent keeping was mediocre at best, but the Ashes series would be his worst performance ever with both bat and gloves.

I think the only players who put in stellar performances were Jones, Flintoff and Warne. Mcgrath's injury conspired against him.

The umpiring was disastrous also, but this is no fault of the players but it did skew individual results.

Pieterson was dropped twice during his ton, Flintoff was given not out to an lbw that looked gone for all money to Warne, and I think Ponting's ton had a life from Pieterson or Jones.

Is this the things great series are made of? Is this a great series by default, because it teased us and the competions have been woefull in the past?

[eddiesmith]

Well it is better than most of Australias past series

Test matches won by 10 wickets or 300 runs and over by Tea on day 3, would you have preferred that?

Cricket has lacked a contest for a long time, thats why it was a good series

9/10 times the best games are the ones with the most errors as the pressure is stacked on and the errors even out to make it a close game

Same thing with footy, its very rare the good, tight games are the highly skilled ones

[Rob B]

What the hell are you on about man? The Ashes was an awesome series, the drama of dropped catches etc. just made it better. The cricket may not of been perfect on a technical level, but it was god dam enteraining. How many times were peoples hearts racing in that series? Mine was doing it all the time (except on Days 2,3 & 4 at Lords which was just one great big load of depression).

You moan about Australia winning games easily and that you crave a contest, and then when you get it you nitpick it a moan!

THE ASHES WERE AWESOME Made better by the fact England won.

[jozeph]

Same thing with footy, its very rare the good, tight games are the highly skilled ones
Totally disagree with this statement.

[eddiesmith]

Totally disagree with this statement.
Really?

Then why did so many people love the 2002 and 2005 Grand Finals?

[bombersno1]

Taking a neutral point of view (Aussie bias asside), the series was EXTREMELY beneficial to cricket. If you think for one second that the cricket would be front page of papers in england when the soccer is on, usually you would be mad. This series created a interest for cricket that most of us have not seen in decades. Every day of every test was SOLD OUT! That is good for cricket.

[ManWithNoName]

Maybe one day people will accept the Ashes are in Englands hands so we can stop clutching at straws. We'll get them back soon enough.

[gerta]

9/10 times the best games are the ones with the most errors as the pressure is stacked on and the errors even out to make it a close game


Excellent Eddie and totally true... Pressure... Australia is very good at smashing side, but when things get tight...

[GoSydneySwans]

Low quality series I'll admit, but it entertained me enough, compulsive viewing.

[~GURU~]

Low quality series I'll admit, but it entertained me enough, compulsive viewing.

Why was it Low in Quality?

[jozeph]

Really?

Then why did so many people love the 2002 and 2005 Grand Finals?
I disagreed with your statement that there are rare games which are close and high standard, I'm not too old and I have seen heaps of these types of games, I didn't disagree with anything else you said.

[Punt_Road_Roar]

I think the tour loss to India of 2001 was alot better than the 2005 Ashes tour.

[Cooldude]

The dropped catches added to the drama

[crownie]

take away Leo barrys mark and it makes a big difference.

the standard of the ashes overall was probaly between average and good.

[johnnyhoward]

It was great watching it as you go to sleep and then finding out what you missed out on in the morning. In terms of that, it was a very interesting series, but as for the best ever, well it was probably overrated due to the fact that it was seen as "good for cricket" that England won and the unbeatable were beaten.

But one thing's for sure, after the summer of 04/05 where the international cricket was ********-poor, I'll take the Ashes of '05 thanks.

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

The series was of the highest quality, Richie Benaud often says that the period from May 2003 up to the 2005 ashes was the best quality cricket he has EVER seen.

Australial V India In Australia
Sri Lanka V Australia In Sri Lanka
India V Australia In India
England V South Africa at home and away

Those series i mentioned above were all compulsive viewing. If one looks back in the history books at Sri Lanka and Australia they will see australia winning the series 3-0. they'd probably think that is was a boring one sided series.

That series was sensational with fightbacks and great performances galore.

Those who say the ashes in 2005 were of a poor quality are very hard to please.

I'll remember this ashes series forever and it is a measure of how good it was that people are already building up the return bout this time next year.

The quality of the cricket was supberb, england getting reverse swing, australia hanging on for days on end being on the brink of defeat before somehow mustering a final salvo to nearly steal victory on numerous occasions.

Im the first to admit England deserved to win the ashes, but they had the luck on their side and the crowd, i've never seen a crowd give such an adrenaline boost as it would have for the england cricket team.

It was a sensational series, all that witness it aggree, those who saw it live will say it was the greatest ever. The only thing about the tour was that i think it went way to long. 10 one dayers should have been stripped to 4 or 5.

England will be out here next year, and we'll have home conditions and the crowd, those who discount these factors lack knowledge of professional sport. They are worth their weight in GOLD.

[Rob B]

Agree about what you say about the one dayers. There probably was too many of them and at the end they were getting a bit tedious.

Whether England win or not, I do not find one dayers that entertaining. Unless, someone like Ponting, Flintoff, Gilchrist, Pietersen plays a breathtaking big hitting innings, or it is a close finish. The problem is that there are a lot of games that just peter out. I don't mind them in moderation but they are certainly over done on the cricket calendar imo.

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Yeah, i agree with you Legendary RB, when i saw the schedule for the ashes tour i was surprised at the amount of one dayers, and how late in the english summer the test matches were.

One thing i find that in Australia, when we have the tri series after the tests most of the games are day/nighters, i find this can help the fact that i always find it better watching a day/night cricket one day match than one that is only played during the daylight hours.

Im not sure why this is, but i've always thought that one/dayers should be played in the afternoon and at night.

However, the one dayers in England still had some great games but they became tedious i think, as you mentioned, and maybe it was just because everyone wanted to get into the ashes and the test matches.

Oh well, its all in the past now, at least it was a tour to remember for the ages.

[eddiesmith]

Yeah, i agree with you Legendary RB, when i saw the schedule for the ashes tour i was surprised at the amount of one dayers, and how late in the english summer the test matches were.

One thing i find that in Australia, when we have the tri series after the tests most of the games are day/nighters, i find this can help the fact that i always find it better watching a day/night cricket one day match than one that is only played during the daylight hours.

Im not sure why this is, but i've always thought that one/dayers should be played in the afternoon and at night.

However, the one dayers in England still had some great games but they became tedious i think, as you mentioned, and maybe it was just because everyone wanted to get into the ashes and the test matches.

Oh well, its all in the past now, at least it was a tour to remember for the ages.
Well considering the time difference, the one dayers are better off being Day games when Aus are in England, but thats not an issue as hardly any grounds have lights

I also much prefer D/N games in Australia, I wish they scheduled more domestic D/N games in Melbourne at the MCG when its available, it definately increases the crowd

As for to many one dayers, I dont know, they were great fun, they had to have a tri series with Bangladesh, then decided to do a 3 match Aussie v England series, probably should have just made it Best of 3 finals series for the tri series

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Hello Edward, late night mate. :D :D

[eddiesmith]

Hello Edward, late night mate. :D
Huh? :confused: Its still early ;)

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Still on UK time mate, :D :D

[eddiesmith]

Still on UK time mate, :D :D
No, not at all, I have always operated on my own time zone :p

[sting]

It probably wasn't the highest standard of cricket you will ever see but i think it added to the drama of it.
Would have to be one of the best series I have seen.

[johnnyhoward]

I agree with the guy who said there are too many one dayers. Nothing beats the atmosphere of a day/night game at the MCG during the VB series though. Remember that game in 04/05 where Australia were 5/43 and the game got washed out? And the Chappell-Hadlee series was brilliant, the decider of that was also washed out. We should just have those games and cut down on the rest.

[Tazza_20]

The ashes was the best series that I have ever watched, hands down end of story.

It was NOT over rated

[Browney]

The ashes was the best series that I have ever watched, hands down end of story.

It was NOT over rated
Yeh but your like 12 and retarted.

[Tazza_20]

wtf is your problem browney, im 15 btw and it was the best series that i have ever seen. unless you can think of a better one from the past 7 years (the time ive been watching cricket properly) you can get ********ed and leave these forums

[Browney]

wtf is your problem browney, im 15 btw and it was the best series that i have ever seen. unless you can think of a better one from the past 7 years (the time ive been watching cricket properly) you can get ********ed and leave these forums
Australia Vs India 2001? Comes pretty close I'd say, I never said the 2005 Ashes wasnt the best either.

[Tazza_20]

not really, a 2 run win and a 3 wicket win cant be beaten, its the only series ive sat on the edge of my seat the whole time. and who the ******** do you think you are calling me a 12 yo retard?

[Browney]

not really, a 2 run win and a 3 wicket win cant be beaten, its the only series ive sat on the edge of my seat the whole time
So a two wicket win and a team wins from following on? Sorry that beats your 2 run win and 3 wicket win.