[quote author=Portly link=topic=41229.msg1238600#msg1238600 date=1293621853]
Nowadays, Ashes matches are actually balanced on a knife-edge and can turn on a single factor. Last week, after Perth, Australia were the dog's bollocks. This week, their national team is allegedly in crisis. I suggest that the Aussies might not have won so convincingly in Perth, had not Mitchell Johnson unexpectedly found some swing and seam in the wicket, and England might not have won in Melbourne if Strauss had not won the toss and put the Aussies in when conditions favoured the bowlers more than any other time in the match.
[/quote]
That may be. But i like it more when two evenly matched sides are going at it hammer and tongs and the match takes unexpected turns within a game. Three of the test matches have been pretty one sided. Twice England have dominated and once Australia. If you consider entertainment as a factor, then Cricket loses out in the end. They should stop making pitches that plays extremely bowler friendly on the first day morning alone, which make the toss very very critical.
I enjoyed watching the second SA v Ind test much more than the Ashes. The game was evenly poised till the umpires got the decision for AB and Boucher wrong in the second innings. After the first innings i thought SA would romp this. Then India did the unexpected and dismissed SA for 130 odd runs. I thought perhaps India will do SA. Then After India's second innings it was 50-50 because India were about 50 to 70 runs short of feeling safe. Which is a lot in a low scoring game. I think if AB was around (he was playing a very chancy innings up to the point...so there is no telling), he would have probably taken the game away from India.