quote:

Originally posted by The Supreme Emperor of Planet Zog:

quote:

Originally posted by filosofee:

quote:

Originally posted by PeterCS:
2. Cured cricketmania

Really PCS What happens if England win the WC?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA

Oh stop it, you're making my sides hurt.

Good to read someone's having a laugh Zoggy.

I think you should write to your monarch - Auntie Betty at Buck Palace and demand MBE's for your Aussie team mates........

Well the DVD will always bring a smile to the face.......

I hope they put out a DVD for this series.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob:

quote:

Originally posted by Mo-Mo:

quote:

Originally posted by Rob:
Yes but without Gilo we would have lost in 2005 as well.

how?

As he hit the winning runs in the 4th test and got a 50 which enabled KP to save the 5th?

Although you could argue if England went for a specialist batsman in place of Giles, with KP/Vaughan providing actual spin bowling, the margin of victory would have been greater (or at least more comfortable).

Giles has a ridiculously poor record vs Warne, as seen from the last 2 Ashes.

9. Simon Jones didn't get injured.

They might in Aus. I wish they hadn't cocked up your name, Santos. One of my favourite episodes.

'We're jamming, I hope you like jamming too'.

quote:

Originally posted by Mo-Mo:

quote:

Originally posted by Rob:

quote:

Originally posted by Mo-Mo:

quote:

Originally posted by Rob:
Yes but without Gilo we would have lost in 2005 as well.

how?

As he hit the winning runs in the 4th test and got a 50 which enabled KP to save the 5th?

Although you could argue if England went for a specialist batsman in place of Giles, with KP/Vaughan providing actual spin bowling, the margin of victory would have been greater (or at least more comfortable).

Giles has a ridiculously poor record vs Warne, as seen from the last 2 Ashes.

Shrugs, you are comparing my skill at decorating to Picasso. HArdly a fair comparison.

He was the best spinner England had for 5 years, and was as good a bowler as the likes of Emburey. Good luck to the guy.

quote:

Originally posted by Mo-Mo:
Although you could argue if England went for a specialist batsman in place of Giles, with KP/Vaughan providing actual spin bowling, the margin of victory would have been greater (or at least more comfortable).

I'll second that.

It could have been a 6 test series...

Real positives IMO

Pieterson had a good series and made some good knocks throughout.

Bell improved

Monty bowled well

that's about it if you ask me!

quote:

Originally posted by Santo L. Halper:
I hope they put out a DVD for this series.

Working title:

"BIGGEST BACKLASH SINCE BIG SHIP WHITEWASH"

quote:

Originally posted by Rob:
He was the best spinner England had for 5 years, and was as good a bowler as the likes of Emburey. Good luck to the guy.

Can't argue with that.

But I can argue with your statement that England wouldn't have won the Ashes without him.

10. Mick didn't get more injured.

quote:

Originally posted by Mo-Mo:

Although you could argue if England went for a specialist batsman in place of Bell the margin of victory would have been greater (or at least more comfortable).

Fair point.

quote:

Originally posted by NoodlesAmbrose:

quote:

Originally posted by Rob:
He was the best spinner England had for 5 years, and was as good a bowler as the likes of Emburey. Good luck to the guy.

Can't argue with that.

But I can argue with your statement that England wouldn't have won the Ashes without him.

Shrugs. Argue away.

quote:

Originally posted by Mo-Mo:
Although you could argue if England went for a specialist batsman in place of Giles, with KP/Vaughan providing actual spin bowling, the margin of victory would have been greater (or at least more comfortable).

That's true for Trent Bridge.

But England did play 6 batsmen + Flintoff at The Oval.

Collingwood batted at Number 7 for his MBE winning 7 runs.

Cheers.

Jones and giles have played their final games for england

quote:

Originally posted by Mo-Mo:

Although you could argue if my aunt went for specialist balls in place of a Duke the margin for error would have been greater (or at least less comfortable).

True.

I've been quite impressed with the bowling of Anderson. In the first session he showed all the rest the length (if not the line) to bowl... and he was getting the ball to swing... but no-one seemed capable of taking note.

Flintoff's first few overs were full of balls back of a length and shorter balls: he rapped Symonds on the pad but (typically) with a ball going over the stumps.

Anderson's removal from the attack when he was getting the ball to swing confused me.

quote:

Shrugs, you are comparing my skill at decorating to Picasso. HArdly a fair comparison.

I meant Giles the batsman vs Warne.

My belief is you don't pick a spinner for the sake of it. I genuinely believe MV/KP would carry out the job of containing bowler as well as Giles.

England won the Ashes in spite of Giles' presence (IMO).

England always used him to spell the quickies and keep them fresh- and his economy rate was normally pretty good. Did a vital job in the 2002-2005 period.

11. For the umpteenth time they failed to beat us once when McGrath wasn't playing.

There's no answer to that degree of optimism.

quote:

Originally posted by Hass:

quote:

Originally posted by Mo-Mo:
Although you could argue if England went for a specialist batsman in place of Giles, with KP/Vaughan providing actual spin bowling, the margin of victory would have been greater (or at least more comfortable).

That's true for Trent Bridge.

But England did play 6 batsmen + Flintoff at The Oval.

Collingwood batted at Number 7 for his MBE winning 7 runs.

Cheers.

But at the Oval they were effectively playing 3 bowlers (Giles failed to take a wicket). My argument is based on the assumption that a specialist quick would have replaced Giles.

13. We can all get an extra night's sleep.

Hear hear, Pete.