Top 5 reasons why England lost the Ashes
5. Selections - A big deal was made of Monty Panesar's omission in the first couple of Tests and it was a grave mistake. When they'd just lost a key bowler in Simon Jones, why would you choose a defensive bowler over a more talented wicket taker? It was also an error to choose Geraint Jones over Chris Read for the same reason - Jones cost them Australian wickets. I don't think it would've made much difference to the final result but choosing the wrong team was a poor way to start the tour.
4. Reversal of bowling fortune - They say "bowlers win matches, batsmen save matches". In 2005, England's bowling attack had it all over us while our bowlers were a pale imitation of the past. The situation was reversed this summer. Our bowlers hunted in a pack the way England did last year. One word says it all: shoddyline. I don't know how much of their fall and our improvement was due to Troy Cooley changing camps but he is a very welcome addition to our team with the retirement of arguably Australia's two greatest ever bowlers.
3. Injuries - England sorely missed Michael Vaughan, Simon Jones and Marcos Trescothick. They missed the tactical astuteness of Vaughan, probably most evident in Flintoff's defensive fields to Panesar. Cook and Strauss were unsettled as an opening pair although I think with experience, the two will become a strong opening partnership. Mostly they missed Simon Jones. Even in 2005, you could see the difference in the bowling attack when Jones was out injured at the Oval. Their 4 fast bowlers in Flintoff, Harmison, Hoggard and Jones were relentless in hounding the batsmen, reminiscent of past West Indies bowling attacks. When that chain was broken and pressure couldn't be maintained at both ends, things went pear shaped very quickly. Also, the fact that Australia got through the series relatively unscathed didn't hurt either.
2. Big game chokers - England like to say Australia won the majority of the "key moments" but I'd put it more bluntly - England choked. They had us at Adelaide when Giles dropped Ponting. Geraint Jones squandered key chances in Perth to dismiss Clarke & Hussey - instead Australia built a huge first innings lead. In Melbourne, they had us at 5 for 80 then set defensive fields to let Andrew Symonds build an innings. The first couple of days in Brisbane were one long choke. And Adelaide Day 5 was one of the greatest chokes in Test history.
1. England won in 2005 - More than anything, England lost so badly because they won in 2005. Stung by an upset defeat, Australia prepared and played with an intensity I've never witnessed before. Even in Sydney, they were pressing for a whitewash (and sledging) as intently as if the Ashes were still up for grabs. I submit that even if England had selected the right team, bowled well, suffered no injuries and kept from choking, Australia would've still beaten them. They were hungrier, better prepared and just too good.
| Posted by JC on Fri 5 Jan |  22 comments |
In total agreement about the English bowling attack. When all four of the fast bowlers were together in 2005 they did look like the West Indies. No Jones, reverse swing, and minefield pitches made the Pommie attack look very ordinary.
Posted by TA on 2007-01-06 02:01:51
Posted by TA on 2007-01-06 02:01:51
Australia was just better
http://www.jamcl.com/cricket
Posted by Carlton on 2007-01-06 04:35:27
http://www.jamcl.com/cricket
Posted by Carlton on 2007-01-06 04:35:27
In addition after england lost the third test their spirit was totally broken.
http://www.jamcl.com/cricket
Posted by Carlton on 2007-01-06 04:38:14
http://www.jamcl.com/cricket
Posted by Carlton on 2007-01-06 04:38:14
Sorry the correct URL for addional cricket info re the ashes etc.. is
http://www.jamcl.com/sports/cricket/
Posted by Carlton on 2007-01-06 04:40:35
http://www.jamcl.com/sports/cricket/
Posted by Carlton on 2007-01-06 04:40:35
I've just been perusing the second eleven and third eleven for Australia. Looks like there are more spankings to come!...and not only for the Pommies (now relegated to mid-strength in the rankings?). BTW, can we sue the ECB for the lost days of cricket???
Posted by virtualgaz on 2007-01-06 08:45:11
Posted by virtualgaz on 2007-01-06 08:45:11
Could you imagine if the Poms had won 5-0 in anything! They'd declare a national holiday or upgrade their award-winning cricket team to OBE status. I mean, don't they still go on about winning the 1966 Soccer World Cup?
Posted by Bobby Dazzler on 2007-01-06 08:57:25
Posted by Bobby Dazzler on 2007-01-06 08:57:25
Mate, the Aussie Women's cricket team could knock over the Poms.
Posted by Bruce on 2007-01-06 16:26:15
Posted by Bruce on 2007-01-06 16:26:15
Yer got that right Brucey. Those jokers have gotta be the worst ever team sent over - why can't we get a refund on our gate admission? At least give the Barmy Army blokes a full refund for the embarrassment, eh?
Posted by virtualgaz on 2007-01-06 16:30:11
Posted by virtualgaz on 2007-01-06 16:30:11
Australian batting is superb and supported by a good tail end. When Australia was 5-84, Australia relied on Symonds 150+ (Hayden 100+)to steer them out of trouble.
Warne's last batting effort for a low order batsmen 70? was very helpful too. Gilchrist, who had a low batting average in the series, produced the second highest 100 in record time for a test, despite being unaware of any records (he may have broken it too, if he was a record chaser!!) However, Australia seems to have an uncanny knack of producing top individual efforts when needed. Simply it means: Australia has a champion team, not a team of champions!
Team work producing top fielding compared to England. Australia has three fast bowlers who are so consistent, that I cannot remember when I saw a wide by Clark, McGrath, and to a lesser extend Lee. LINE and LENGTH 99.9%.
England's first ball: A Harmison SUPERWIDE!!! This first ball, and first test overs explains a lot; as England set off on the wrong foot. (to use a pun). This seemed to rub off on Giles, next the wicketkeeper is dropped..mmmm.
Anyway,motivation to win back the Ashes, can be brought about by two factors.
1. Seeing the over the top celebrations by England just for one Ashes series win, OBE's and the whole key -to-city EGO trip, really would have been seen as the ulitimate insult after Australia's 18yr run was treat as a lesser viCtory?
2. McGrath's injury in 2005,and poor bowling by Gillespie. Left only one top spin bowler (Warne) and one good fast bowler (Lee) to produce wickets. Now:Clark,Symonds and mature Lee, with WARNE/MCGRATH
champions it was a hard task for England to really match these guys.
Posted by Bruce Parkes on 2007-01-06 22:00:12
Warne's last batting effort for a low order batsmen 70? was very helpful too. Gilchrist, who had a low batting average in the series, produced the second highest 100 in record time for a test, despite being unaware of any records (he may have broken it too, if he was a record chaser!!) However, Australia seems to have an uncanny knack of producing top individual efforts when needed. Simply it means: Australia has a champion team, not a team of champions!
Team work producing top fielding compared to England. Australia has three fast bowlers who are so consistent, that I cannot remember when I saw a wide by Clark, McGrath, and to a lesser extend Lee. LINE and LENGTH 99.9%.
England's first ball: A Harmison SUPERWIDE!!! This first ball, and first test overs explains a lot; as England set off on the wrong foot. (to use a pun). This seemed to rub off on Giles, next the wicketkeeper is dropped..mmmm.
Anyway,motivation to win back the Ashes, can be brought about by two factors.
1. Seeing the over the top celebrations by England just for one Ashes series win, OBE's and the whole key -to-city EGO trip, really would have been seen as the ulitimate insult after Australia's 18yr run was treat as a lesser viCtory?
2. McGrath's injury in 2005,and poor bowling by Gillespie. Left only one top spin bowler (Warne) and one good fast bowler (Lee) to produce wickets. Now:Clark,Symonds and mature Lee, with WARNE/MCGRATH
champions it was a hard task for England to really match these guys.
Posted by Bruce Parkes on 2007-01-06 22:00:12
To me England lost it in every facet of the game - particularly batting. Their batsmen were either underdone (Cook - who actually looks like a decent batsman) or overcautious (Straus looked like a man struggling against a tide of no-form-ness). Collingwood played stoutly but struggled against Warne's torrent of verbal intimidation (no matter how much he says he enjoyed it), Bell looks decent but realistically doesn't compare to Austalia's number 3, 4, 5 or 6) and Jones had a mediocre tour in general. But it is their 5 and 6 that are a worry.
Flintoff is an inspirer, a team motivator and workhorse - NOT a team leader! Vaughn's absence in this series was even more critical than McGrath's last series - and seemed to mean that Flintoff was dragged into a role he didn't necesarily envision playing. To me if there was ever a man who just wanted to play cricket - not worry about field placings, team dinners, press conferences and other captaincy issues, he's it. Batting wise Flintoff hadn't been in form coming up to the 06-07 Ashes series and with only a limited time to adapt to Australian pitches it's no wonder he struggled. In trying to do everything for the team - Flintoff's mediocrity was deafening.
Kevin Pieterson is another story. In a team whose resistance and 'ballsiness' seamed non-existant, his refusal to be dominated and love of taking the game up to Australia was infectious. One can only recall the successful semi-partnerships he was involved in where it was either Collingwood or Flintoff at the other end feeding off KP's love to fight and playing better. And in full flight even Warne struggled to combat KP's unique 'all-hands' approach to spin. However for all the praise, the man doesn't seem happy. He fields out on the boundary, doesn't gee up players like others do, never seems to smile and just seems bored in general. I can understand this - with failure all around him it's difficult to see any silver lining at all. To me Pieterson seems to be a bloke that needs a success around him to enjoy his cricket, and England in this series was just poor.
Whether it was the stellar line-up of their competition, or the fact that Clark, McGrath, Lee and Warne bowled well, the result was a spineless England top order.
Posted by Jeffo on 2007-01-07 00:25:18
Flintoff is an inspirer, a team motivator and workhorse - NOT a team leader! Vaughn's absence in this series was even more critical than McGrath's last series - and seemed to mean that Flintoff was dragged into a role he didn't necesarily envision playing. To me if there was ever a man who just wanted to play cricket - not worry about field placings, team dinners, press conferences and other captaincy issues, he's it. Batting wise Flintoff hadn't been in form coming up to the 06-07 Ashes series and with only a limited time to adapt to Australian pitches it's no wonder he struggled. In trying to do everything for the team - Flintoff's mediocrity was deafening.
Kevin Pieterson is another story. In a team whose resistance and 'ballsiness' seamed non-existant, his refusal to be dominated and love of taking the game up to Australia was infectious. One can only recall the successful semi-partnerships he was involved in where it was either Collingwood or Flintoff at the other end feeding off KP's love to fight and playing better. And in full flight even Warne struggled to combat KP's unique 'all-hands' approach to spin. However for all the praise, the man doesn't seem happy. He fields out on the boundary, doesn't gee up players like others do, never seems to smile and just seems bored in general. I can understand this - with failure all around him it's difficult to see any silver lining at all. To me Pieterson seems to be a bloke that needs a success around him to enjoy his cricket, and England in this series was just poor.
Whether it was the stellar line-up of their competition, or the fact that Clark, McGrath, Lee and Warne bowled well, the result was a spineless England top order.
Posted by Jeffo on 2007-01-07 00:25:18
I dont know about all these Poms going on about their victory in 2005 but one of those victories came by 2 runs, when they should have won by 100 atleast. And the other one came by 3 wickets when they were chasing 127 if I remember right.
England simply had everything going their way in 2005. And I dont think beating those absolutely woeful Windies 7-0 amounts to anything. Just sad for Brian Lara, thats all.
The Poms are just not good enough. Period.
Anyway JC, it has been a terrific year and a half, waiting to capture the Ashes back. I am still sobering up.
And it was a pleasure to read your blog all these days. As Dan said in another post, I am not a big fan of ODI's. I may not follow this wonderful blog anymore. Or maybe I just will, if this happens to be Gilly's last season.
Thanks a ton for the wonderful writing.
Posted by jethro on 2007-01-08 02:08:01
England simply had everything going their way in 2005. And I dont think beating those absolutely woeful Windies 7-0 amounts to anything. Just sad for Brian Lara, thats all.
The Poms are just not good enough. Period.
Anyway JC, it has been a terrific year and a half, waiting to capture the Ashes back. I am still sobering up.
And it was a pleasure to read your blog all these days. As Dan said in another post, I am not a big fan of ODI's. I may not follow this wonderful blog anymore. Or maybe I just will, if this happens to be Gilly's last season.
Thanks a ton for the wonderful writing.
Posted by jethro on 2007-01-08 02:08:01
well...losing isn't so bad....and the fact england lost ashes once again isn't that what hurts..but its the fact that they got whitewashed is sad.....
england is not a team like aussies...i think Ashes should be closed for a while till england rebuilds itself....that is becuz english are messing up their own record...and there is no competition in this...
just like how zimbabweans lost their test cap temporarily, same should happen to englishs - lose the right to play Ashes for a while!
Posted by DesiMD (MastySpot) on 2007-01-08 04:40:27
england is not a team like aussies...i think Ashes should be closed for a while till england rebuilds itself....that is becuz english are messing up their own record...and there is no competition in this...
just like how zimbabweans lost their test cap temporarily, same should happen to englishs - lose the right to play Ashes for a while!
Posted by DesiMD (MastySpot) on 2007-01-08 04:40:27
Pietersen should open, then he can bat to please himself and not have to look like a sook when the tail comes in (unless they are playing Aus and suffer a quick collapse)
Posted by Ian on 2007-01-08 09:28:42
Posted by Ian on 2007-01-08 09:28:42
Thing is Pietersen didn't want to bat #4 cause he doesn't like the new ball. As evidenced when he was bowled by Stuart Clark by a newish ball nipping in off the seam. So it's a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Posted by JC on 2007-01-08 10:15:06
Posted by JC on 2007-01-08 10:15:06
Most agree that Flintoff should relinquish the captaincy and concentrate on his own game.
I read on another blog someone suggesting that, given the doubt surrounding the future of Michael Vaughan (and his gammy knee), Kevin Pietersen should be offered the captaincy.
I immediately scoffed at the idea, recalling his selfishness and recklessness.
But now I reckon it's the way for England to go. He has that mean streak, is arguably their best bat, and through leadership would learn that he had to play for the team and set the right example. They could do a hell of a lot worse. Another South African in charge of the Poms!! Tony Greig would be rapt!
Posted by Dan Tas on 2007-01-08 15:57:36
I read on another blog someone suggesting that, given the doubt surrounding the future of Michael Vaughan (and his gammy knee), Kevin Pietersen should be offered the captaincy.
I immediately scoffed at the idea, recalling his selfishness and recklessness.
But now I reckon it's the way for England to go. He has that mean streak, is arguably their best bat, and through leadership would learn that he had to play for the team and set the right example. They could do a hell of a lot worse. Another South African in charge of the Poms!! Tony Greig would be rapt!
Posted by Dan Tas on 2007-01-08 15:57:36
I agree that England choked on day 5 Adelaide. However I'm surprised that commentators have allowed England to continuously get away with saying that they lost the Adelaide test in one made hour. Total nonsense. As is the case with many losses in a variety of sports this loss was not down to one made brief period but the accumulation of a bunch of other factors that related mainly to their mental attitude and game tactics:
1. After winning the toss they started and persisted with painstakingly slow batting - as if they were playing for survival and aiming for a draw from the opening over (although they did improve the run rate later in the innings after they had amassed a pile of runs).
2. Mental attitude and tactics on that infamous Day 5. They came out playing for a draw with a body language that suggested the only other result in their mind was an Australian win. Can you imagine Australia starting day 5 at 1 for a bit less than one hundred playing for a draw? Their attitude would have been positive, thinking right we're up by a hundred let's play a session with attacking cricket, see if we can score around another 200 hundred then put them into bat for two sessions with a three hundred lead and do everything to bowl them out. Only if Australia lost a bunch of wickets while batting in the second innings or England blasted a pile of runs in the run chase would they have reverted to plan B of saving the match.
3. Negative captaincy. Again the approach in both Australia's innings was negative defensive game saving rather than attacking with a positive mindset of winning the match.
Come on all commentators stop allowing England to blame Adelaide and the series on one made hour. This is the sort of fantasy stuff that will stop England looking at themselves honestly and growing into better players and a team from the experience.
Posted by Neil on 2007-01-09 11:02:11
1. After winning the toss they started and persisted with painstakingly slow batting - as if they were playing for survival and aiming for a draw from the opening over (although they did improve the run rate later in the innings after they had amassed a pile of runs).
2. Mental attitude and tactics on that infamous Day 5. They came out playing for a draw with a body language that suggested the only other result in their mind was an Australian win. Can you imagine Australia starting day 5 at 1 for a bit less than one hundred playing for a draw? Their attitude would have been positive, thinking right we're up by a hundred let's play a session with attacking cricket, see if we can score around another 200 hundred then put them into bat for two sessions with a three hundred lead and do everything to bowl them out. Only if Australia lost a bunch of wickets while batting in the second innings or England blasted a pile of runs in the run chase would they have reverted to plan B of saving the match.
3. Negative captaincy. Again the approach in both Australia's innings was negative defensive game saving rather than attacking with a positive mindset of winning the match.
Come on all commentators stop allowing England to blame Adelaide and the series on one made hour. This is the sort of fantasy stuff that will stop England looking at themselves honestly and growing into better players and a team from the experience.
Posted by Neil on 2007-01-09 11:02:11
You summed up Adelaide perfectly, Neil. In that Test, and probably the series, the Poms were always some 60-90 minutes behind the play. Declaring at the time they did in Adelaide, they should have been 50-75 runs to the good, or have batted for a further 60 minutes or so. Either way it would have saved them the game and the most serious choke since my cat tried to swallow a chicken bone. Their inability to get 20 wickets in a Test through bowling inadequacy meant they were never going to win a match, but being up with the play might well have prevented a 5 zip scoreline.
Posted by Dan Tas on 2007-01-10 21:57:57
Posted by Dan Tas on 2007-01-10 21:57:57
I thought England did okay in the first two days. The first session was slow but Australia were bowling really tight, they did well just to keep wickets intact. Then they counterattacked late in the day with Pietersen and Collingwood and on into the 2nd day. Then Flintoff came out and hit a quick 50. I was hoping they wouldn't declare exactly when they did so it seemed a good decision - then we came out and lost wickets before stumps. So days 1 and 2 were to plan.
Things only started to go pear shaped when Giles dropped Ponting. If he'd taken the catch, they'd be deep into our middle order with extreme pressure on our batsmen and still a lot of runs to chase down. The game could've gone a completely different way at that point.
Posted by JC on 2007-01-10 22:48:34
Things only started to go pear shaped when Giles dropped Ponting. If he'd taken the catch, they'd be deep into our middle order with extreme pressure on our batsmen and still a lot of runs to chase down. The game could've gone a completely different way at that point.
Posted by JC on 2007-01-10 22:48:34
england is no match to australia as they lose the series 5-0. A poor show by england cause them to lose the series.
Cricket Blog
Posted by MK on 2007-01-10 23:02:22
Cricket Blog
Posted by MK on 2007-01-10 23:02:22
thanks Dan from Tas - agreed.
whoops, where I put "made" in my post of 2007-01-09 three times I meant "mad"!! I must be going made I mean mad. I was at Adelaide for Day 5 and maybe caught something from some English cricketers that makes us error prone. Sorry - cheap shot!
Posted by Neil on 2007-01-11 13:05:26
whoops, where I put "made" in my post of 2007-01-09 three times I meant "mad"!! I must be going made I mean mad. I was at Adelaide for Day 5 and maybe caught something from some English cricketers that makes us error prone. Sorry - cheap shot!
Posted by Neil on 2007-01-11 13:05:26
Post New Comment
You need to be logged in to post a comment. If you're new, register here. Existing users, login via the right margin.
