how does this ashes series rank?

possibly right there trev

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

Horrie, you missed my point about grass but I'll let that go.

No question that the depth of talent on show in South Africa is superior to that in this Ashes series.

faiynuff Mick

I agree. The Saffie-Bannie series has been brilliant with 3 of the best 4 players in the game (as well as the game's best closer in VVS) on display and in form and a host of outstanding other players as well.

Only thing missing (other than 2 more tests) is a good wrist spinner but even Harby has bowled OK.

Hopefully there will be a great finish over the next couple of days. All set up for another VVS special.

BTW - this Aust Ashes team is still better than what we had in 1985.

really?...haddit>Phillips???...think not

Can't believe the 2003 vintage of a raw Harmison, Dawson, an impotent Hoggard, White and Caddick hasn't been mentioned, supplemented by Silverwood and Tudor getting crocked mid-match. That wasn't fair.

Then there was the 2001 middle order of Ward and Afzaal.

A book could be written about the 89 series selections.

Smith and Beer's selections are mystifying but the rest of the Aussie line-up are decent players at their best.

JGK wrote:BTW - this Aust Ashes team is still better than what we had in 1985.

................. and anything else for a few years either side of that. I've spent a bit of time in the fat cat's company; they were a disgrace. Phil Hughes missed his era.

This series has been right up there with 85-6.

agreed...england has done well...but the extent of the victory is more a reflection on how poor we are...remember the poms were rocked by the windies and I do not think they would trouble either the saffies or the banindians

"rank" seems to be the key word in your thread title then Horace?

How does this ashes series rank?

Legendary. Being born in 1985 I've lived most of my life never thinking such a series was possible, particularly in Australia.

I will still be recalling this series with fondness in 50 years time.

good for you vilks...and yes Petey, the series has a stench from an Oz perspective that has not been whiffed since the mid 80s

At least you finally got to see some good batting by a Victorian with Prior's classy ton yesterday, horrie.

indeed gazza...at least the Vic selectors are on the ball

horace wrote:agreed...england has done well...but the extent of the victory is more a reflection on how poor we are...remember the poms were rocked by the windies and I do not think they would trouble either the saffies or the banindians

Sorry horace, having revisited the scores in the SA / India series, I don't agree we wouldn't trouble either side. Had we played either of them, either in SA, or where we were (Aus), in the form we've played this series, the least we'd have is a drawn series, and could have beaten either.

Whilst I accept that both India and SA have some more outstanding individual players (Steyn / Kallis / SRT / Dravid) than we do, as a team we can now hold our own with anyone. It's only 12 months ago that we held SA to a series draw over there. If they've improved in that time, so have we. As for India, we play them in summer so we'll see where we stand there.

should be good series...our next 3 series are against SL, the bannies and the saffies...I expect we will be slaughtered unless there is a rethink by CA (unlikely)...agree the Poms play as a team and your series v the bannies will be interesting

Aye, no point speculating how England would do against SA - we played them less than 12 months ago and got a respectable draw,

Kallis made 2 tons, but we got him out in single figures 3 times too, so he averaged 52 for the series, not 166 like he did against the Bannies.