You're kidding. England were the better side. Flintoff was man of the match by a mile.
Nope. While Flintoff did play well, especially considering his
"injured" condition, I cannot think that England played consistantly
better than Australia.
In my (honest) opinion, neither side batted "well" in the first 2
innings - yes, a lot of runs were scored at a ridiculous rate, but (and
here's the thing), nearly all of the batsmen that were dismissed were
dismissed by "soft dismissal" - that is, they got themselves out.
If you look at England's 1st innings, of the recognised batsmen that
got under 50, 4 got themselves out, after 3 of them made a start (plus
Trescothick's awful shot to get out on 90...) - that's not good.
The Aussies were nearly as bad, with 3. England's second innings
was particularly woefull - if it weren't for Flintoff, they'd have been
really in "it". Only 1 of the top 8 batsmen made more than
25. Three of the others made starts (got 20), and then got
out. That's never a good sign (I know Shane Warne was on very
good form, but still...). Australia's second innings ... I'll
leave most of that as "obvious", but I will say that England's bowling
was quite crap - when the opposition need 108 to win, conceding at
least 12 byes, and 15 no balls is not the thing to do! (England gave
away 40 extras, a large amount on the last day...)
Well, that's just my (bowlers') opinion!
* In reference to "making starts", by the time a batsman's made 15-20,
they're "in" (in terms of settling, judging line-and-length well,
etc). If a (recognised) batsman gets out for 20-30, they've
generally got themselves out.
