The Curse of the 2005 Ashes?

[Cricketman]

I don't know if anyone else has realized this or not, but most of the "Ashes Hero's" for England in 2005 are basically gone now.

Strauss - Still there.
Trescothik - Gone.
Vaughn - Out of form, some England fans want him out.
Bell - Still there.
G. Jones - Gone.
Flintoff - on a comeback trial, was gone for a long time, and was seriously out of form (with the bat)/injured for a long time..
Pietersen - Still there
Harmison - Gone.
S. Jones - Gone.
Giles (crap) - Gone.

The players that looked so good back then all slowly started to get injured or seriously lost their form. If you remember back in 04/05, Harmison was one of the best bowlers in the game, a force to be reckoned with. He took 7/12 against a team (don't remember who) and was among the highest wicket takers in the year. What is he known for now, on the international scene at least? Extras.

Simon Jones, swung the ball miles and was a fantastic fast bowler. An injury later, he hasn't been back since.

Flintoff, came together with the other two to make one of the best bowling attacks in the world. He would steam in, hurl a few down with genuine speed clocking 150kmph. He could actually bat, too! He was the best allrounder in the game.

Trescothick, one of the best openers in the world, suffered from depression and retired from cricket.

G. Jones - always rusty behind the stumps but was probably the best keeper for England in the post-Stewart era.

All (or at least most) of these cricketers faced freak injuries or a radical loss of form and they're simply not the cricketers they used to be. England were safely the second best side in the world then, what happened?

 

[evertonfan]

Over expectation of the English media and a whole new army of cricket fans for whom the Ashes was their first taste of cricket. It's the same story with the 2003 Rugby World Cup success. Add to that the success getting to the heads of some players leading them into thinking that perhaps they were better than they actually were.

 

[Skater]

I can name the line up from memory for the first 4 Tests.

1. Marcus Trescothick
2. Andrew Strauss
3. Michael Vaughan (captain)
4. Ian Bell
5. Kevin Pietersen
6. Andrew Flintoff
7. Geraint Jones (wicketkeeper)
8. Ashley Giles
9. Matthew Hoggard
10. Steve Harmison
11. Simon Jones

What a lineup that was.

 

[Cricketman]

Oh yeah, what happened to Hoggard, too?

 

[evertonfan]

Some Aussie bumped in front of him in the pecking order.

 

[usy]

son, watch out, and, you never do so call Giles crap, you don't, ok.

 

[Skater]

Compare that to the line up from the 2nd Test vs South Africa:

1. Andrew Strauss (now faces the first ball of the innings, but is still there and pretty much in form)
2. Alastair Cook (not as dominating as Trescothick, but a world class batsman. A worthy replacement)
3. Michael Vaughan (captain) (still a very good captain, not in good form though now for a long while)
4. Kevin Pietersen (batting up one, and the spectacular innings are less frequent)
5. Ian Bell (moved down one, just as good now as he was then, if not better)
6. Tim Ambrose (facing the axe. Not good enough with the bat. Jones is better)
7. Andrew Flintoff (back after 18 months and bowling as well as ever. Batting not so much)
8. Stuart Broad (a strange one. Not taking enough wickets, but a good batsman).
9. Monty Panesar (much better than Giles but needs to learn variations)
10. James Anderson (is now becoming a reliable player, probably better than Harmison at this stage)
11. Darren Pattinson (sadly, not a great selection. Jones is better)

 

[Cricketman]

I'd still say the Ashes XI was a better one.

Plus, you don't look for runs from a bowler batting at 8, do you? I think Broad is a promising cricketer but right now, at least in tests, England can find someone else.

Anderson and Harmison (Old) are two completely different bowlers. Anderson uses swing to get wickets, while Harmison used mainly speed and bounce. I'd say the Harmison of 2004 was better, but Anderson is still good.

 

[evertonfan]

The 2004 Harmison was a flash in the pan. We will never ever see that again.

 

[zimrahil]

Add to that the success getting to the heads of some players leading them into thinking that perhaps they were better than they actually were.

I think this has a lot to do with it.

 

[angryangy]

Vaughan came into the Ashes with indifferent form and left with indifferent form. Things have scarcely changed, he just doesn't have the insane form that he had for a short time.

Flintoff was for some time in doubt for the Ashes, with a decision to remove bone spurs in his ankle leaving a minimum recovery time. It should be no surprise that he has continued to have ankle problems, as fast bowlers often do.

Geraint Jones was just mediocre and it was amazing that he managed to get so many games. It seems they counted on his batting average, which steadily declined throughout his Test career as the aberration of scoring a hundred was evened out. It was in fact not until the next Ashes that he was disposed of. England have not been so forgiving with keepers since, look how many keepers they have utilised; Read, Prior, Nixon, Mustard and Ambrose, three in Tests, all five in ODIs. It's arguable that all five are better behind the stumps and most have been more useful batsmen. But how many were cursed?

Simon Jones was always known to be plagued by injury; as was his father, I believe. He did not suddenly contract injuryitis. There have only been a couple of years where he was full fit in his ten year career and he has rarely played an entire domestic season. He has also very seldom played one day games. It is even thought that much of the impact of the Ashes was due to a long layoff in which he studied reverse swing, so maybe there's a touch of fortune to it.

I'm not certain that Hoggard and Harmison are done for, but better and younger cricketers have been cut loose. Harmison's career steadily declined after an exciting initial run and concerns have constantly been raised over his fitness outside of the English summer, mockingly described as homesickness. Hoggard is a toiler and a pretty classic sort of English player, but his replacement, Ryan Sidebottom, has clearly been worth his spot. As is natural, England management have looked to newer and younger players and Hoggard has struggled to get beyond the fringe.

But really, can you expect a team to not change hugely in 3 years? I don't mean that a side is always massively different after a couple of seasons, but eventually a team is going to reach a point where the old guard must make way for the new. Plus, a lot of those players are still about. The team might be hugely different now, but in six months, who knows, it might actually be more similar. That has certainly happened a couple of times for the Windies, you wouldn't recognise some of the sides they were sending about in 2005 amid contract disputes.

Finally, compare the opponent; Australia's XI at Lords in 2005
Langer
Hayden
Ponting
Martyn
Clarke
Katich
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
Gillespie
McGrath

Who's really been cursed, then?

 

[Sureshot]

6 have retired (from International cricket anyway). Isn't Katich back in the side after his Pura Cup form last season?

 

[Skater]

I believe only 4 will start the Swalec Test next year: Hayden; Ponting; Clarke & Lee.

For England: Strauss; Vaughan; Bell; Pietersen; Flintoff; Simon Jones.

I think 6 of our side that started the Lord's Test will start next year.

 

[sohum]

Everyone was in form at the same time. Any team that does that will look spectacular at the time and axes will fall as unrealistic expectations are created.

 

[Will_NA]

If I recall, Harmison had a really average series against South Africa. Nearly everyone else was hitting form or well in to it heading in to the Ashes.

Part of the problem is waiting for those Ashes heroes to either return or players like Harmison losing form. We can't expect players to consistently perform at that level and if England aspired to be at the level of India and South Africa rather than Australia, we'd probably do a lot better.