Have Australia really been the better team in this Ashes?

The GOAT did what exactly?

Auatralia got the biggest advantage in the way the injury substitution rules played out. Anderson missing for England first ya was a big loss. Smith being replaced mid test for Australia was a big gain. In a 2-2 series they were key moments.

Maybe not 4-0 but could easily have been 4-1 or 3-2 England's way. The two of the three most significant "lucky" moments favoured Australia. If Anderson doesn't break down in the first, they win that one. If no sub rule in the second, they win that one. But if Paine uses DRS right in the third (or Lyon takes the ball cleanly), we pull that one back. So, probs 3-2 England's way.

But we were lucky to win the first, which we wouldn't if Anderson didn't break down leaving the Poms a strike bowler down. So one up, one down, all balanced out in the end. (And we were very lucky the concussion sub rule came in in July! Without it we would have lost at Lords)

I don’t think so. It stays with the holder unless the other side is good enough to take it from them.

Australia wasn't a better team than England. If it weren't for Smith and perhaps Cummins Australia would have lost this series 4 - 0.

Every series, the number one aim is to win. Devalues the meaning of a series other wise. Retaining Ashes should be secondary.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda. That's a rabbit hole worth avoiding. We're hanging out for scraps if we reduce ourselves to finding ways to be not as bad as our opponent. There's pretty limited satisfaction to be gained from that, and it's not a great look either. Credit where it's due, England stand to have beaten us in two Tests, and had us on the ropes in the draw. And people should stop kidding themselves that somehow England didn't beat us at Headingley because we blew it. They won. They got within an hour of saving Old Trafford, and had they succeeded we'd be on our way to another Ashes loss as we speak.

I agree with nearly everything you said but test cricket will never, ever die. There might slight tweaks to it but it is still seen as the pinnacle of cricket.

True, plus poor umpiring favoured England. Australian selectors have a lot to answer for. Why the %#$& would you persist with David Warner??? Most people would've dropped him after the third match.

Is there a better way to determine who wins the ashes when a series is drawn?

I agree 2-2 is probably a true reflection of where the two teams are at but it COULD have been different. Results don't always reflect the strength of the teams. England beat India 4-1 but the series was a a lot closer than the result suggests.

Aussie very unlucky not to have won 3 tests really. We are on the wrong side of poor umpiring to have won 3 innings.

DRS errors, you mean? Bad cricket costs ya. And imploding under the pressure leads to it. 2-2 equals a true reflection of where our team's at, unless by some miracle we win this. If you want to know what 3-1 looks like, cast your mind back to 2010/11, when England smashed us. I'm not buying the "feel good" narrative people seem to want to kid themselves with. We're not two Tests better than England under any circumstances. 2-1 at a stretch. But 2-2 is the truth of it, assuming we lose this. The scorebook doesn't lie.

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Could easily have been 3-1 to Australia, had it not been for umpiring decisions and DRS.

Actually, the number one aim is to bring the Ashes home, hence the celebrations.

(Just put this reply on another thread but realised that it's probably just as appropriate in answering this question, so apologies for the cut and paste job.. This has been an Ashes series where quality has been in short supply on both sides. 30 players have turned out in total - about eight -four on each side - can look back on their series with something approaching justified pride). Two bald men fighting over a comb, if you ask me. By no stretch of the imagination are these two good sides, far less two great ones. Both in the middle of the pack in a non-vintage era of Test cricket where the number one side in the world came to England last year and, albeit rather unluckily, were on the wrong end of a 4-1 scoreline. Not convinced that the vintage eras of Test cricket will come again for any side, mind you. The curse of T20, the new 100 ball format and God knows what in the future - 5 over matches, probably, as attention spans of spectators dwindle still further - will ensure that Test match techniques become scarcer and scarcer and true 5 day champions fewer and fewer. The W. Indies in the 80s and Australia in the late 90s and early 2000s had a generation of unrepeatably marvellous players who happened along simultaneously in such numbers that their Second XIs would probably have been the Number 1 sides in the world if their First XIs hadn't existed. Can't expect that to happen every day - my worry is that countries don't much care about the Test match format these days, outside The Ashes and those rare India-Pakistan series and I shall be surprised if the five day game is still alive and kicking at all a couple of decades from now.

Actually, Smudge, I stand corrected, and agree that England were better. I just looked at the cards again and realised that the First Test made all the difference. England lost that because Anderson broke down. In the first innings, they had the Aussies 8/122. But without Anderson, the Aussies went on to make 284 They had a lead of 90 in the first innings but without him, didn't have the firepower to restrict the Aussies' second innings. In fact, Root, Denly and an out of form Ali had to bowl 64 overs. Since the first Test, they've been the better team aside from the fourth Test, winning one, drawing another they would have won if not for rain, and now building a near unassailable lead in this one. Three out of four Tests they were the better side, and in the other, they were a bowler short but on top for the first half. For a series that will likely end 2-2, that First Test and Anderson's injury is the difference.

Way to completely miss the point