Well done England. I thought that we might have snuck out of the noose when we were only 216-2 than came that run out!

See you all back here next series.

It was a closer run thing than the score suggests. Botham said after lunch yesterday, how shocked he was by the amount of England fans coming up to him saying that the Aussies were dominating and going to win.
As a Brit, obviously I'm over the moon about winning the ashes but on balance a draw would of been a fairer result. If the Aussies had put Hauritz into the side, things may well of been different.

heh, that's an understatement.
I was so convinced the Aussies had it in the bag I didn't watch the final test. :damn:

Oh me of little faith.

I couldn't watch the test series (the Yanks are philistines about cricket, so it's either a case of paying $250 for a season pass on satellite TV or miss it altogether)), but judging for the after-match reports, it really didn't seem as if England was capable of winning that final test. The team had either lucked out due to the weather or played half-assed cricket in every test except the other one they won. To me it seems like this was England's luckiest test ever. To win when they seem to have played so inconsistently can only be attributed to pure luck.

The memory I'll take away with me from the 5th test comes from my own mother. She was deeply upset about Harmison's inclusion into the England squad over the ladies favourite, Ryan Sidebottom. During the Aussies 2 innings she set about explaining why Sidebottom was clearly the better choice...and for about 90% of the time it looked like she'd be proven right. No wickets coming from Harmison or anything...until he popped up with 3. Yes, I know they were all against the Aussies lower order, but Steve Harmison...I salute you if only for making her eat some humble pie. :salute:

Looks like the tattoo on my right bicep stays then.....shoulda made you kiss it in Texas :DL

:o A draw would have resulted in the cons retaining the Ashes (the replica anyway). You can surrender your passport at the nearest government office the next time your passing. :DL

Check out the stats for England and I'm confident you'll be even more puzzled as to the result. Or it could simply be down the fact the opposition were even worse than us.....for a change. :hmmm:

I think in fairness to Harmison it was more a case of not being utilised enough by Strauss who tended to favour the other three, Broad, Anderson and Flintoff.

An understandable trait considering the hitty missy form of England in recent years.


http://www.thegoogly.com/images/2008/04/10/ecb_logo.gif

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/OtherSport.../4082301AU.jpg

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/mult...350_54358a.jpg

The way the series turned out only reinforces how important it is not to have a really bad session at any time. Four days of good work can be undone by just two hours of sloppy cricket and Australia who lost Six wickets in the evening session on the second day at Lords and a staggering Eight wickets after lunch on the second day at the Oval will need no reminder.
I feel Australia just about shaded it over the Five tests but they performed badly at crucial points which cost them overall. England owe plenty to Collingwood, Anderson and Panesar who batted bravely to save the first test that Australia dominated. But that said Australia bowled without conviction on the last day at Cardiff and let the match drift when they should have won convincingly. Had Australia left Cardiff with a series lead then they surely would be going home with the Ashes again.

Well Done England!

Just remember, we'll be back to get them!:up:

Not in 2009 they won't :DL