2007-01-09 14:19:31 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Cricket
G'Day mate its not either of them it jst coz us aussies brilliant n we r hammered u in th twenty20 as well lol catch ya
2007-01-09 19:00:18 · answer #1 · answered by stuartroy007 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
To put into perspective - England "won" the last ashes series by a matter of runs as opposed to Australia winning by a 5-nil series.
The English as they do, and rightly so after having nothing to celebrate for ....some length of time, went overboard with accolades bestowed on the team of champions.
Fielding and batting made no difference to the loss English cricketers take home - your own press give them (players) such a crucifixion I'm surprised that they'd entertain any thought of returning and also, how any young kid would feel with representing his country with the support out there is beyond me!
2007-01-10 06:40:00 · answer #2 · answered by renclrk 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As mentioned elsewhere, England were poor but Australia were superb. The biggest problem England have isn't batting or fielding but bowling! We never looked like taking 20 wickets, Harmison might as well have stayed at home for all the good he did, Flintoff was worried about his ankle and Anderson and Mahmood got slaughtered. Only Hoggy and Monty can take any credit with the ball. Come back soon Simon Jones and give Stuart Broad a chance instead of Harmison!
2007-01-10 06:56:45 · answer #3 · answered by igorolman 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think there have been several problems on this Australian tour.
1. Selection blunders. Giles and the wicketkkeeper guy (can't remember his name - Jones?). They did absolutely nothing. Fletcher must take most of the blame for this.
2. Underprepared. Not enough training. Not enough warm-up matches. There was almost a complacent attitude evident before the tour began.
3. Not tough enough, I'm afraid. No-one seemed capable of slugging it out when the heat went on. Consequently it was a return to the dismal battle collapses England are infamous for.
4. There has to be a real shake-up..
2007-01-09 22:49:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The real test of English team will be when they play New Zealand and if they perform the way they have done against Australia, one can term them as lack lusture and lame and bad performance.
They are playing against Aussies and Aussies is the best side and one should not judge team's bad performance against them. Even RSA or any other team for that matter would have lost to Aussies
2007-01-10 01:10:26 · answer #5 · answered by shrimal_sandeep 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A mixture of injuries to key players, meaning that the team is seriously under-strength , and the simple fact that the Aussies are very, very good. Which puts our Ashes victory in 2005 into perspective as a tremendous achievement.
2007-01-09 23:13:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Its because when they won the ashes back in 2005, it went straight to there head and they thought they were invinsible. From then on they have been inconsitent. And when you take 4 players who have been injured and havent played much cricket your asking for trouble.
2007-01-10 09:47:17 · answer #7 · answered by grezzor 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
english are much same like the indians.on their day they can beat the champions and if its not their time they can be easily ruined by a mole.the english were in form on their last ashes, but this time not a single player looked in touch,leaving bell for some instance.
2007-01-10 02:23:23 · answer #8 · answered by ammar z 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
England needs greater production from its top order if it is to compete with the best teams in the world.
2007-01-10 04:04:31 · answer #9 · answered by Noble 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Players that are injured, or gone home.
Confidence.
Lack of preparation.
Wrong seleections.
2007-01-10 12:54:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋