Originally Posted by FrayedEndsOfSanity
3) Why is this embarrasing? I never said England would have won the series just that it would not have been a whitewash. England had chances to win a test in the series but due to their ability to collapse it never happened. Just as much to do with England being shite in the series as Australia being brilliant. For the record Australia would still have won the ashes and series IMO.
4) Personal preference. I think if Lee had not been injury prone he would have been an immense bowler on the level of the Aussie bowling greats before him. Thought he was a very accurate and lethal bowler when on form.
Nope, that Australian team is up there for one of the all time best sides. At the time their averages were
Hayden (53.00), Langer (45.27), Ponting (59.29), Martyn (46.37), Hussey (79.85), Clarke (42.00) , Gilchrist (48.66) | bowlers; Warne (708 wickets at 25.41), McGrath (563 wickets at 21.64), Lee (231 wickets at 31.60), Clark (47 wickets at 17.80)
was an absolutely beastly side. Gilchrist was the greatest keeper in the world at the time, Hayden and Langer were still at the peak of their powers, Ponting was still in beast mode, Clarke was a good batsman, Martyn was a good, stylish player. Warne is the GOAT imo, McGrath was the GOAT in terms of line and length bowling, Lee was still quick and Clark was McGrath-lite.
McGrath was far more accurate, a far better bowler and far more effective.