Originally posted by InlandRevenueUK
Only 1 statistic matters my friend, namely:

Matches won by England: 2
Matches won by Australia: 1

Which means: Australia loose!

bah and humbug, here it comes, the media frenzy of sensationalistic journalism, this is the worst aspect, I wouldn't mind but the deluded fools actually think that they won it by virtue of their ability, make no mistakes , this was not won by England, but lost by Australia! i even had one of my best friends asking me if that now made England the number one team in the world, now that they had beaten the Aussies, dude from Manchester, bah and humbug i say to the lot of yah! already Ponting shall plan our revenge for this insult! but saying that that i do not begrudge the celebrations, 🙂

Originally posted by Zort Boy
Any predictions?

Australia 4 - 1

😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
bah and humbug, here it comes, the media frenzy of sensationalistic journalism, this is the worst aspect, I wouldn't mind but the deluded fools actually think that they won it by virtue of their ability, make no mistakes , this was not won by England, but lost by Australia! i even had one of my best friends asking me if that now made England the numb ...[text shortened]... plan our revenge for this insult! but saying that that i do not begrudge the celebrations, 🙂

Fair play to you mate!

I will point out that I am a member at Warwickshire and have been watching cricket for over 15 years. I agree that Australia should have won.

However, like I have said, only one statistic matters tonight!

Originally posted by InlandRevenueUK
Fair play to you mate!

I will point out that I am a member at Warwickshire and have been watching cricket for over 15 years. I agree that Australia should have won.

However, like I have said, only one statistic matters tonight!

it is this sense of fairplay as reflected in your comment which makes England great! all the best, regards Robbie!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i don't care if they have retained the ashes, they don't deserve it, I defy anyone to state differently!

I'll have a go.

The reason the stats look in favour of Australia is that they completely dominated two of the matches. But England were in top in three. More importantly (and as Ricky Ponting admitted) England came out on top at the critical moments of the series.

England held on for a draw at Cardiff (which, despite what Crowley keeps saying, was less to do with a bad decision by Ponting and more to do with the inability to get one of Anderson and Panesar out given twelve overs to do it in). And three times their bowling gave them the advantage in a match (Anderson at Lords, Anderson and Onions at Edgebaston, Broad and Swann at the Oval). Australia's only comparable bowling performance was at Headingley.

England were pretty average overall. But it was the Ashes, not a world championship. They didn't have to be great to win, they just had to beat Australia. And Australia were pretty average overall as well.

Originally posted by mtthw
I'll have a go.

The reason the stats look in favour of Australia is that they completely dominated two of the matches. But England were in top in three. More importantly (and as Ricky Ponting admitted) England came out on top at the critical moments of the series.

England held on for a draw at Cardiff (which, despite what Crowley keeps saying, was le ...[text shortened]... to win, they just had to beat Australia. And Australia were pretty average overall as well.

LOL, had Ponting declared at the right time, then he would have had ample time to take 10 English wickets.

Anyway, congrats England. You don't need to be the best team to win a series - just look at earlier this year Aus vs. SA here...

Originally posted by Crowley
LOL, had Ponting declared at the right time, then he would have had ample time to take 10 English wickets...

But since England scored enough to make Australia bat again anyway, there's no guarantee that they'd have had time to get the runs. They were scoring quickly at the end of their innings (e.g. 30 runs off the last 3 overs) so you can't say they'd have scored faster at the end of the match (against what would have been defensive fields, defensive bowling, and the new ball).

Originally posted by mtthw
But since England scored enough to make Australia bat again anyway, there's no guarantee that they'd have had time to get the runs. They were scoring quickly at the end of their innings (e.g. 30 runs off the last 3 overs) so you can't say they'd have scored faster at the end of the match (against what would have been defensive fields, defensive bowling, and the new ball).

Sure, but I still feel Ponting made a mistake.

There are too many variables to be sure, unlike a scenario where Herchelle Gibbs 'dropped' an easy catch off Steve Waugh or Lance Klusener set off for a panicky run, but if he had gone for the kill instead of letting his batsmen secure a large lead and giving Haddin a chance to go at the bowling - I still believe Australia would have taken the test.

Speculation is fun!

Originally posted by Crowley
Sure, but I still feel Ponting made a mistake.

...but if he had gone for the kill instead of letting his batsmen secure a large lead and giving Haddin a chance to go at the bowling - I still believe Australia would have taken the test.

You may be right, but I don't think it was a clear mistake without hindsight. Unlike not playing a spinner at the Oval, which definitely was (and was called as such by most commentators at the time).

Originally posted by mtthw
You may be right, but I don't think it was a clear mistake without hindsight. Unlike not playing a spinner at the Oval, which definitely was (and was called as such by most commentators at the time).

No no, it wasn't a mistake at all. Australia did have enough time to get the wickets but just couldn't get that last wicket - and they did have enough time (12 overs) to claim the last wicket. Credit to England there. Crowley is wrong here.. but we've discussed that earlier in this thread.

Originally posted by AussieG
No no, it wasn't a mistake at all. Australia did have enough time to get the wickets but just couldn't get that last wicket - and they did have enough time (12 overs) to claim the last wicket. Credit to England there. Crowley is wrong here.. but we've discussed that earlier in this thread.

I said that could possibly give the English the belief and momentum to win the ashes, where Aus should never have lost against them on paper.

How am/was I wrong?

I called it.

Originally posted by Crowley
I said that could possibly give the English the belief and momentum to win the ashes, where Aus should never have lost against them on paper.

How am/was I wrong?

I called it.

Yes, you did say that that result might have given England belief.. but your main pont was whether Ponting declared too late and cost Australia the match as a result. That was the point of discussion earlier rather than Englands belief - that is where you are wrong now. Right now, you are discussing a different point.