Take sides on the hot topics of the day

The Ashes

August 26, 2013

Is the 3-0 Ashes scoreline a fair reflection of the gap between the two teams?

ESPNcricinfo staff


England were the superior side in all departments. They managed to win by a convincing margin despite not being at their best.


Australia led on first innings in four of the five Tests. With better weather they could've prevailed at Old Trafford. With better luck, they could've won at Trent Bridge and Chester-le-Street.


© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

. Your ESPN name '' will be used to display your comments. Please click here to edit this.
Comments have now been closed for this article

August 27, 2013, 9:43 GMT


It is a fair reflection because...er....that was the result. You always know a team is in trouble when their post match analysis contains lots of words like 'if', 'only', 'would' and 'should'. "IF Broad had been given out (at Trent Bridge) Australia WOULD have won..." It's all nonsense of course because if you go back and change one incident in a match, thereafter events take a completely different course. England might have won by 100 instead of 14. Who knows? A team in trouble is also inclined to blame the weather, the pitch, the technology and the umpires. We've heard all this from the Australia apologists. "The umpire's decision affected the game" Every wicket , every run - they all affect the game. The umpire's job is to take decisions that affect the game! "England only won because of Bell". Yes, Bell is part of the team. A good selection, that. When all is said and done, England won three of the matches and Australia didn't win any. That was the gap between the teams.

October 11, 2013, 14:56 GMT


YES - the result was fair as per the laws of cricket the score was deemed 3-0. Sounds quite fair to me.

Cricket is all about winning those pivotal moments in test matches.

August 28, 2013, 10:51 GMT


I'm a little sick of readingvthat it was closer because England were well below there best. There players performed as well as they could given the situation and pressure of the opposition. The end result was 3-0. Players from both teams were below there best. Some of the English batsman struggled but that was because of class bowlingsame some Aussie batsman were below par but that was because of the English bowling. So spare me the whinging line.

August 28, 2013, 10:43 GMT


It is the result so yes fair. Australia had there chances in two of those losses but failed at the critical moments. Assuch England deserved those victories as they stepped up at the critical moments. As for the two draws Australia were in the better position before the rain interuptions but we still do not know I'd they played out weather free whether Australia would take there momentsvin critical games. I don't think there is far for Australia to improve but at this point of time they are struggling to win making the scoreline fair.

August 27, 2013, 13:31 GMT


Numbers never tell the full story, do they? You could look at different things (eg. the highest and total series scores of each side, the averages of batsmen and bowlers, even over rates and such), with each painting a slightly different picture of the series.

What the 3-0 does, is reflect on the consistency of the English performance. Sure, they were not head and shoulders above the opposition at every situation, but they played with the same level of competence throughout. Australia fluctuated throughout the series and even when they looked to be on top, they failed to finish off their opposition.

One can argue that a 2-1 or 3-1 score might have better reflected how well contested the series was, but that would not reflect the most important part of the 3-0 score... Australia simply did not manage to defeat their opponent in any of the games. Sport is often regarded as a representation of conflict. If you put up a strong showing, but fail to win battles, you generally lose the war.

August 27, 2013, 10:42 GMT


England deserve to win this series but scoreline 3-0 doesn't show the average quality of cricket played by both the Teams.This is a series for which England cannot be proud of & the Aussies cant be disappointed.I thought first test where aus lost the close match decides the tone of the test series which shows that Aus is good enough to compete you but they cant beat you.It is as simple as that. that made this series a kind of dead for cricket fans except from England.

August 27, 2013, 5:52 GMT


it is not a fair representation. The scoreline of 3-0 suggests England's dominance which was not the case. The difference was that England stepped up when needed to while Australia wilted at crucial junctures. but nowhere there appeared a confirmed possibility of and Australian win as even though they were in winning positions in two tests, somewhere in the back of the mind there was a thought that they could not do it. That is why fans were happy whenever England was challenged as Australia in a way was seen as the underdog. It was more like a bout of boxing where the professional plays well below his ability when facing and amateur. the amateur though trying valiantly, egged on by a cheering crowd gets punched out at critical junctures to lose the bout. The scoreline hence does not indicate his efforts rather his body is evidence to the battering that was received..the same way Australia is now.

September 15, 2013, 10:26 GMT


No. Australia were on verger of winning 1st and 3rd tests.

September 2, 2013, 6:49 GMT


No, for me the Aussies were much better than this display because the two of the drawn matches were in their pockets. Rain, bad lights and umpires' wrong calls to end play were the reason. It should have been 3-2.

August 28, 2013, 2:29 GMT


England obviously did enough to win as the result suggests and afterall this is all that is needed. Batting stalwarts like Cook, Trott and Prior had a below par series but that doesn't matter when the team is performing enough to win.

3 - Nil probably dosen't reflect the closeness as it turned out BUT I feel England were always in control and when needed to they just lifted a gear, this is what class teams do and that is what Australia used to do. Even when they played bad they still managed to win (except 2005).

Australia in my opinion is 2 class batsmen short and it would have been a much better contest with Ponting & Hussey in the side. I really thought these 2 greats would have left retirement until after this Australian Ashes summer.

Batsmen like Maddinson, Doolan, S Marsh & Phil Hughes (needs to be given a go selectors) are in the wings to filll the gap. Warner needs to stick to the shorter game, way too inconsistent for a test opener.