whatwhat wrote:I don't know, I mean the last twenty years the Australian team did rely on them to eat through the batting order a hell of a lot. While Australia are still a great team I think their dominance is over just as the west indie's period was when ambrose, richards and walsh grew old.
As for why you lost this series, no character when it really mattered. Yes, Australia got more wickets and runs. But when they needed to bowl monty out in the first test to win, it didn't happen. When you needed to hold strong when your first wicket fell at seventy odd not out on friday, you didn't. Wheras, England, held on against the odds in cardiff. Broke haddin and clark's partnership at edgebaston, and followed through the order. Bowled a stunning innings to defy your 73 not out on friday. Them moments show australia certainly lacked the spirit england had.
Yes, you won at headingly. Hands down, the england side got it completely wrong. Both batting and bowling. But the rest of the series speaks for itself, you didn't perform when it mattered.
I think to a certain extent you underestimate england aswell. I can't see where "it should have been different." I think teams were more evenly matched than you make out.
You're right that the dominance of old Australia is gone. I'm not disputing that, as it was clear when South Africa beat us here at home.
I'm just looking at this series as one that got away. I think in the run of play we performed more strongly than the English on most occasions, this is supported by the runs to wickets averages.
You're welcome to disagree, just as you're welcome and entitled to enjoy the win. I'll look forward to playing you down here in a few years time.
