how does this ashes series rank?

Personally I have found the Bannies v Saffie series far more engrossing ...the srt ton in this match against superb spells from some of the saffies typify the glories of this series is but one example

the ashes by contrast has not had much good cricket to write home about...some good knocks by cook, kp, strauss and pigs foot have been diminished by the nature of the attack they were facing...plus some of the knocks were pretty ordinairy

Snicket has made two tons and a few other good scores - and he is no longer at the height of his powers...even a walkng thrasher wicket - Haddit - has made a ton v the poms...dopes with bats like siddle and hilf have made their top scores...the pomgolian attack has been average - jandy aside...chinhead (swann) has performed only spasmodically...lady di got two wickets and Trembles and Bres got test wickets but failed against Victoria...a pretty ordinairy attack.

even when Oz or the Poms were on successive rolls in the past, I cannot recall a series so devoid of highlights (beyond the obvious joy/despair for the poms at perth and melboune)...The oz team today - despite the undoubted wonders of its spiv bats - would struggle against a mid 80s oz team...the present pom team is the worst I have seen for some time

what do others think?

btw...I am not in anyway seeking to diminish the achievement of the poms in retainiing the Ashes and prolly winning the series over here..

It has just been the pooorest quality series I can remember

This Australia team is better than a lot of the England teams in the 90s.

Gazza - I do not believe that to be the case...I cannot recall an attack poorer than ours nor the might of the spivs, an english batting lineup as incompetent as ours.

admit tho the english fielding of the 90s was prolly more comical than ours...tho we do have haddit behind the stumps

horace wrote:Gazza - I do not believe that to be the case...I cannot recall an attack poorer than ours nor the might of the spivs, an english batting lineup as incompetent as ours.

I raise you

Perth '91 - DeFreitas, Newport, Small, Tufnell, Malcolm
The Gabba '94 - DeFreitas, Gough, McCague & Tufnell

for starters....

This one actually won!

The Oval '97 - Caddick, Martin, Malcolm, Tufnell, Hollioake

This one didn't

Edgbaston '93 = Bicknell, Ilott, Such, Emburey

Ilott, Such and a virtually retired Embers - if you were baking a filth cake, that'd be the recipe.

Bicknell was a bit unlucky - reckon he could've been a decent Test cricketer if England had stuck by him.

Gary 111 wrote:

horace wrote:Gazza - I do not believe that to be the case...I cannot recall an attack poorer than ours nor the might of the spivs, an english batting lineup as incompetent as ours.

I raise you

Perth '91 - DeFreitas, Newport, Small, Tufnell, Malcolm
The Gabba '94 - DeFreitas, Gough, McCague & Tufnell

for starters....

tuffers.> beer/doherty
malcolm > midge
defreitas > hilf
Gladdy > harris

Gough was close to being a champ...McCague and the bollybogan are on similar terms

Embers was far better than any of our spinners and prolly a more reliable bat than our star no 6 FISB (Future of Innternational Spin bowling)

horace wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:

horace wrote:Gazza - I do not believe that to be the case...I cannot recall an attack poorer than ours nor the might of the spivs, an english batting lineup as incompetent as ours.

I raise you

Perth '91 - DeFreitas, Newport, Small, Tufnell, Malcolm
The Gabba '94 - DeFreitas, Gough, McCague & Tufnell

for starters....

tuffers.> beer/doherty
malcolm > midge
defreitas > hilf
Gladdy > harris

Gough was close to being a champ...McCague and the bollybogan are on similar terms

You jest, sir.

Devon Malcolm made Midge look accurate, DeFreitas makes Hilf seems pacy and Gladdy made Harris seem like he has a long neck.

hardly...they bowled against better bats and their records stand up over time

horace wrote:Embers was far better than any of our spinners and prolly a more reliable bat than our star no 6 FISB (Future of Innternational Spin bowling)

Not when he was 41 he wasn't.

Gary 111 wrote:

horace wrote:Embers was far better than any of our spinners and prolly a more reliable bat than our star no 6 FISB (Future of Innternational Spin bowling)

Not when he was 41 he wasn't.

I expect katich and haddit will still be playing at that age...the FISB is there as a fixture for the next 20 years...already has long term advertising deals with mobile carriers, fast fat food purveyors (fried chook as it turns out - cruel and uncaring fans have suggested that he should get a long term ad contract from a pie company)

So it's come to this. Arguing about the crappiest attacks in Ashes history to score a little bit of reverse bragging rights.

horace wrote:btw...I am not in anyway seeking to diminish the achievement of the poms in retainiing the Ashes and prolly winning the series over here..

It has just been the pooorest quality series I can remember

phurt horrie! The difference between this series & most others in the last 15 years is grass. I love it.

sorry qmy and mick...it has been the poorest quality series I have witnessed..only cook, jandy, bell and cameos from a few poms and hussey have kept the flickering flame of ashes cricket alive...the contrast with the sffies - banindian series is stark

horrie with respect I think you do our side an injustice, and I'll tell you why.

In the 80's, the great WI teams under Clive Lloyd & successors were almost unbeatable. Australia overtook them almost by stealth, as their best players retired in ones & twos. As Aus put daylight between themselves and the rest, WI hung about a few years in second spot before subsiding badly. In short, they faded away.

Australia on the other hand burned out in comparison. You lost six of the best players of their generation in a two year spell, and the plunge down the rankings was dramatic.

Compare a few players from both eras ... 90's first

1. Openers - Athers & Stewart/Butcher v Strauss & Cook ...... the latter will have better records - but have also faced more piemen that Athers' teams

2. Mid-order - R Smith Nasser & Thorpe v Trott & KP ....... as above

3. Wk/bat - Stewie V Prior ... even in my book

5. Quicks - Gough/Caddick/Fraser v Jimmy, Broad & likely Finn long term ...... plenty of roads & good higher batting averages now - Jimmy A will take more wickets than all three. Broad will be close if not better, and Finn has every chance too.

5. Spinners - Tuffers & about 6 others v Swann .... need I say anything ?

Bear in mind also the management structures and personnel running the show when Athers was in charge - I'm thinking of the Illingworth years in particular. Do you honestly think the current side under Andy Flower would have taken some of the whippings we took in the 90's ?

No, with the exception of Perth where we folded like wet paper, we've held our own at the Gabba, and handed Aus their arses on a plate twice. Most of your batting has been less than stellar, and your attack has looked toothless, but Australia really aren't a bad side. The truth is that we. as a team, have kept you under the pump from day one, and have made an honest team look poor ... certainly a lot worse than they really are.

I'll stick my neck out here and say I believe that, three years from now, when India have lost a few of their top bats, we will be vying with South Africa for top spot.

no growler - I mean no disrespect..your side's bowling is a bit better than that of the 90s mob (swann has had an average series against a very weak team - tuffers had to bowl against very strong Oz teams)...tho the batting is pretty even...

Overall I think England has an average team...there is daylight between the poms and the saffies/banindians...there is obviously daylight between the poims and the Australian team in every respect

my point is really about the quality of the play in this series...it pales against the the saffie-bannie series

England sides of the 90s were just as talented as the side now. The difference was confidence levels, management, and attitude.

And talent.

Hick, Ramps, Stewie, Thorpe, Smith, Gough, Caddick, Fraser, Headley........I don't think they're any less talented than the guys we have now role for role. They just weren't all able to come to the party together often enough to win cricket matches.

they also played (in Oz at least) better opposition than our current mob (spiv champs excluded)...has England ever been higher in the test rankings than at present

Agree Trev - and as I said, I don't think the likes of Raymond as manager helped their cause.

Let's not forget the small matter of central contracts too .....

I think we were ranked number 2 in the world after the 2005 Ashes.

As far as being the best team in the world, then i'd say we were for most of the 1950s.