sussexpob wrote:Arthur Crabtree wrote:Well remembered point about Mark Taylor, that was a big talking point going into the series. And good point about the Texaco Trophy performances which bore the notions of a fresh start and hope. But Australia had actually won in WI a couple of years before which represented the beginning of a new epoch for the game. My recollection was that there was more hope about Aussie weaknesses going into 2005. There was always some delusional optimism going into every Ashes series back when they used to win every time.
I wouldnt say it was Aussie weakness in 2005, more England felt they had a team that had improved enough to compete at home with Australia. In 1997, it felt the Australia team just werent that good, and could be exploited..... in 2005, they had a magnificent team, far better imo, but England had players who were playing at a top level, and prospects coming off the belt that had something about them. England in 2005 were peaking.
Of course though, you are 100% correct in the comment about delusion. In 1999 we expected to compete (and tbf, it wasnt a disasterous tour, we could have drawn all the way to the last day).....I think the main one was in 2001 though, there seemed a very misguided idea that England were ready in that series to compete with Australia due to Caddick and Goughs home seasons in 2000 (they were unplayable against bad opposition) and the Fletcher era bringing with it a more solid batting outlook...... that felt like the most stinging of the Ashes series to take pre whitewash. Australia were world class, but we were a much better team that we performed. 2003 away came with expectation, but not personally..... I think at the time I largely agreed with McGrath's bi-annual 5-0 prediction.
There were a few games where Gilchrist had kept them alive going into 2005 and I think there was an unconvincing display that winter v NZ. I suppose my memories are shaded by what actually happened.