Is the 2005 Ashes series so revered because we lost?

[Ohitsthatguy]

If McGrath doesn't tread on a ball we win the series and no one cares, it's just another Ashes series

But he did and England get a win and everyone loves Australia losing

What a beat up this series is

If we win this series no one would care

 

[Westend]

If McGrath doesn't tread on a ball we win the series and no one cares, it's just another Ashes series

But he did and England get a win and everyone loves Australia losing

What a beat up this series is

If we win this series no one would care

it was a great series....but the poms just over hyped it because they had not won for ages

remember when the poms win ...its the best win for cricket...they all get knighted etc

and as you said if Mcgrath hadn't stepped on the bloody ball...and Ricky decides to bowl first...we would've won again

 

[DaRick]

Yes.

 

[sabso]

It was the penultimate time I could really lol @ the Aussie cricket team, 2010-11 ashes was the last

 

[Gough]

Alongside 1981 and 2023 as the series of my lifetime. Mid 40s Ashes are due a ripper.

 

[Cmarsh]

Absolutely.

The narrative that it is so revered is all driven by the Poms due to their win.

Notice how the next series, 2007, is never mentioned.

 

[Cmarsh]

The thing the Poms don't like to mention about 2005 though is the rub of the green they got with the umps.

 

[sherb]

The 72 Ashes series is every bit as good, if not better, for mine.

 

[Gough]

Absolutely.

The narrative that it is so revered is all driven by the Poms due to their win.

Notice how the next series, 2007, is never mentioned.

Apart from half a day in Adelaide it was a one sided and boring series.

 

[Cmarsh]

Apart from half a day in Adelaide it was a one sided and boring series.

I didn't mention 2007 because it was a great series, which it wasn't, I mentioned it to highlight how the Poms only want to talk about Ashes series that go their way.

 

[Gough]

If you take our period of unquestioned dominance of world cricket to be 95 to 05 I'd argue the best series were in India in 01 and 04, West Indies in 99 and the 05 Ashes, only one of which we won, two of which we lost and one we drew. It was an awesome team that we had and we saw a lot of sparkling individual performances but also a fair bit of boring cricket because there we times when we were that much better than our opponents. The best cricket always came when guys like Ponting and Waugh and Warne were really pushed.

 

[Cleavy]

The thing the Poms don't like to mention about 2005 though is the rub of the green they got with the umps.

THE MINTS!

 

[PhatBoy]

It was the penultimate time I could really lol @ the Aussie cricket team, 2010-11 ashes was the last

As a supporter of the team that beat them maybe it was but the Sri Lanka series they lost 3-0 was probably the zenith of it.

 

[jb04]

Apart from half a day in Adelaide it was a one sided and boring series.

Ahh man that was the only day of that test match I wasn't able to go to.

RE: 2005, I also agree with the sentiment in this thread. McGrath's injury, Warnie's wicket tally, Pietersens one of many 158's, using mints to shine the ball, the carryon afterwards with MBE's and OBE's, and not least that iconic image of Flintoff and Lee at Edgbaston. All great.

 

[Cleavy]

Ponting still cursing Gary Pratt to this day

 

[010203]

It was an amazing series, containing 3 Tests that went down to the wire and Ashes supremacy changed hands for the first time in an eternity so it's easy to understand why it's revered.

 

[to1994]

It's revered because it was one of the few genuinely competitive Ashes series in the last 30+ years.

Recent away Ashes series have all been good but before that and here in Australia, while the thrill off winning 4 or 5 nil is a good laugh for a time, they've mostly been duds.

If we'd had a good bowling attack in 10/11 I think it would've been a very good series but both sides were at opposite ends of their development at that stage (they were peaking, we had too many old batsmen, not many developed bowlers).

2013 in England was closer then the scoreline suggested, some good games in there, '15 was close on paper but it was a dud overall as we raised the white flag in Tests 3 & 4.

2023 was very good, but us securing the Ashes in Test 4 in a game we should've lost if not for rain spoiled it a little so it sits a rung below 2005 for me.

All that said, Stokes innings in 2019 is still the best nights viewing of Cricket in general I've ever watched, even being on the losing side.

 

[PhatBoy]

Ahh man that was the only day of that test match I wasn't able to go to.

RE: 2005, I also agree with the sentiment in this thread. McGrath's injury, Warnie's wicket tally, Pietersens one of many 158's, using mints to shine the ball, the carryon afterwards with MBE's and OBE's, and not least that iconic image of Flintoff and Lee at Edgbaston. All great.

Another subplot that has kind of been forgotten until now because of more recent sad events is the shelving of Graham Thorpe in favour of Pietersen and Bell. Pietersen had landed with a huge amount of hype because of his runs in one day cricket against SA so was probably always going to justify his spot but Bell had done it on the back of a big series against Bangladesh who were still test cricket fodder at that stage and aside from two half centuries he had a really bad series. He turned into a gun player and later won them an Ashes but if they lost I wonder how much they would have regretted not picking Thorpe for one more go

 

[beatnik]

Another subplot that has kind of been forgotten until now because of more recent sad events is the shelving of Graham Thorpe in favour of Pietersen and Bell. Pietersen had landed with a huge amount of hype because of his runs in one day cricket against SA so was probably always going to justify his spot but Bell had done it on the back of a big series against Bangladesh who were still test cricket fodder at that stage and aside from two half centuries he had a really bad series. He turned into a gun player and later won them an Ashes but if they lost I wonder how much they would have regretted not picking Thorpe for one more go

I’d call that a subsubsubplot

 

[PhatBoy]

I’d call that a subsubsubplot

Not really. Duncan Fletcher the England coach even called Thorpe and told him to go and make some hundreds and he could find himself in the team mid-series. Even now the fact that of the 3, Bell was the one who was locked in first would have been catastrophic retrospectively had they lost.

 

[010203]

Ponting still cursing Gary Pratt to this day

Pratt now runs a cricket shop up in Durham. Simon Jones' injury that led to Pratt making that now infamous run out was genuine and Jones never played another Test. The other appearances by sub fielders was taking the piss.

 

[beatnik]

Not really. Duncan Fletcher the England coach even called Thorpe and told him to go and make some hundreds and he could find himself in the team mid-series. Even now the fact that of the 3, Bell was the one who was locked in first would have been catastrophic retrospectively had they lost.

No, really

 

[PhatBoy]

No, really

You don’t find it an interesting narrative that in a three-way selection fight, England chose to leave out the only Englishman to average over 50 (aside from Strauss who’d played a dozen tests) between 2000-2005 for a guy with 0 tests, and another who’d played 4 matches? There were only 12 players on the planet that had played more than 40 test matches and averaged more than Thorpe in that period and 4 of them were in the other team. It was a huge call in hindsight.

 

[Freezin]

Ponting still cursing Gary Pratt to this day

and Fatty Fletcher as well....Punter gave Fletcher a mouthful as well from memory

 

[beatnik]

You don’t find it an interesting narrative that in a three-way selection fight, England chose to leave out the only Englishman to average over 50 (aside from Strauss who’d played a dozen tests) between 2000-2005 for a guy with 0 tests, and another who’d played 4 matches? There were only 12 players on the planet that had played more than 40 test matches and averaged more than Thorpe in that period and 4 of them were in the other team. It was a huge call in hindsight.

Perhaps a mildly interesting footnote for the fans of one of the sides playing? On a par with the Aussies choosing Tate over Stu Clarke or Clarke over Hussey