Best Ashes Teams

[Matt79]

Based on the Roland Perry (shudder) idea of the same name:

Pick you best Ashes teams, based on performances in Ashes. Can be either based on what you've seen or of all time.

All Time:
Trumper
Morris
Bradman
Border
Waugh
Miller
Gilchrist
Warne
Lillee
McGrath
Alderman

Pretty much picks itself in large part, IMO. Alderman, Trumper and Border are probably the most contestable, but remembering Terry destroying England in 89 and 93, I'll take him thanks.

In terms of players I've actually seen play:
Slater
Taylor
Ponting
Border
Waugh
Hussey/M.Waugh
Gilchrist
Warne
McGrath
Alderman
Reid

Although the idea of McGrath at 9 fills me with dread.

Will need to consider the English one a bit more carefully.

 

[Matt79]

English Teams:
Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hammond
Barrington
Pietersen
Botham
Flintoff
Knott+
Laker
Larwood
Barnes

In my time watching the game:
Trescothick
Vaughan
Gower
Pietersen
Thorpe
Stewart+
Flintoff
Botham
Gough
Jones
Fraser

Much harder, given 2005 was the only series England had a really good team since I started taking much notice.

 

[rivera213]

ENGLAND (That I've seen, "live" or footage):
Boycott
Gooch
Vaughan
Gower
Botham
Flintoff
Knott
Underwood
Willis
Headley
S.Jones


AUSTRALIA (That I've seen):
Langer
Slater
G.Chappell
M.Waugh
Border
S.Waugh
Gilchrist
Warne
Thomson (just over Gillespie. I can't get over the 74/75 series which I've seen so much of)
Lillee
McGrath


It's amazing how 2 of our best seam bowlers post-Willis (Headley and Simon Jones- very possibly the 2 best) have also been the 2 most unlucky with injury.


* I don't want to jinx KP by putting him in the team, but I'm sure by the end of his career he will be in here.

 

[GIMH]

My time (basically 97-07):

Strauss
Vaughan*
Hussain
Pietersen
Thorpe
Stewart+
Flintoff
Gough
Hoggard
S Jones
Tuffnell

Picking Tuffers on the basis of the Oval 97. Haven't given the team much thought, probably some glaring ommissions. Chose Strauss over Tresco on the basis that Tresco has never tonned up against the Aussies, even though he might have actually scored more runs than Strauss in the series where Strauss did well, will have to look that up

Australia much harder for me, never really paid attention to their players when I was younger so anything I choose would be based on the last 3 series, think I'll give it a miss

 

[rivera213]

English Teams:
Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hammond
Barrington
Pietersen
Botham
Flintoff
Knott+
Laker
Larwood
Barnes

No Hutton or Trueman?

You'll have every Yorkshireman after you! Lol

 

[Richard]

From England Ashes teams of my memory (essentially 1990/91 onwards) I'd go for something like...
Gooch (1990/91-1993)
Atherton (1990/91-1994/95)
Hussain (c) (1997-2002/03)
Pietersen (2005-2006/07)
Stewart (w) (1993-2002/03)
Thorpe (1993-1997)
Ramprakash (1993-2001)
Flintoff (2005-2006/07)
Headley (1997-1998/99)
Gough (1994/95-1998/99)
Fraser (1989-1994/95)

Few doubts over that.

For Australia I'd probably have a stab at...
Taylor (c) (1989-1998/99)
Slater (1993-1998/99)
Boon (1989-1993)
M Waugh (1990/91-2001)
Border (1989-1993)
S Waugh (1989-2002/03)
Healy (1993-1997)
Warne (1993-2006/07)
Hughes (1989-1993)
McDermott (1990/91-1994/95)
McGrath (1997-2006/07)

Which funnily enough is almost exactly the team that would have played the 1993 Ashes if fitness had allowed - the only change being Reiffel in for the still-at-that-stage-novice McGrath.

 

[aussie]

From England Ashes teams of my memory (essentially 1990/91 onwards) I'd go for something like...
Gooch (1990/91-1993)
Atherton (1990/91-1994/95)
Hussain (c) (1997-2002/03)
Pietersen (2005-2006/07)
Stewart (w) (1993-2002/03)
Thorpe (1993-1997)
Ramprakash (1993-2001)
Flintoff (2005-2006/07)
Headley (1997-1998/99)
Gough (1994/95-1998/99)
Fraser (1989-1994/95)

Few doubts over that.

For Australia I'd probably have a stab at...
Taylor (c) (1989-1998/99)
Slater (1993-1998/99)
Boon (1989-1993)
M Waugh (1990/91-2001)
Border (1989-1993)
S Waugh (1989-2002/03)
Healy (1993-1997)
Warne (1993-2006/07)
Hughes (1989-1993)
McDermott (1990/91-1994/95)
McGrath (1997-2006/07)

Which funnily enough is almost exactly the team that would have played the 1993 Ashes if fitness had allowed - the only change being Reiffel in for the still-at-that-stage-novice McGrath.

On England can't see how Headley during that period would be better than Caddick 99-2001 or Jones 2005.

For Australia hard to put Healy's peak period over Gilchrist & also Gillespie at his best is on par with Hughes, but thats personal preference i guess...

 

[Matt79]

No Hutton or Trueman?

You'll have every Yorkshireman after you! Lol

Larwood/Trueman was a line ball one, but I wanted to factor in dominating a series as well as over all record. By that rationale in fact, maybe Tyson should be in there somewhere as well. But Larwood's effort in somewhat quelling Bradman is the stuff of legend.

Re Hutton, agreed it's ridiculous but Hobbs and Sutcliffe had clearly better records. Could play one of them at three I suppose, but who comes out?

 

[Richard]

On England can't see how Headley during that period would be better than Caddick 99-2001 or Jones 2005.

Caddick unfortunately didn't play against Australia between 1999 and May 2001 which was his period of bowling superbly - the only time he really bowled semi-decently against Australia was 1997; Jones' two outstanding innings' in 2005 are no match for Headley's four good games in 1997 and 1998/99.

For Australia hard to put Healy's peak period over Gilchrist & also Gillespie at his best is on par with Hughes, but thats personal preference i guess...

Hughes in 1989, 1990/91 and 1993 was a fair bit better than Gillespie in 2001 and 2002/03. Gillespie, of course, was his usual perennially-injured self in 1997 and 1998/99.

As for Healy, he had three good Ashes (1993, 1994/95 and 1997) to Gilchrist's two (2001 and 2002/03). Thus, I'd have to have him. Though it should be noted that Gilchrist's best >>>> Healy's best and Gilchrist's worst >>>> Healy's worst. But Healy just played far more Ashes cricket than Gilchrist.

 

[Richard]

Re Hutton, agreed it's ridiculous but Hobbs and Sutcliffe had clearly better records. Could play one of them at three I suppose, but who comes out?

Would have Hutton over Barrington TBH and would have him over Pietersen right now without so much as a single backward glance.

Hobbs and Sutcliffe opening, Hutton three. Always been my choice, for absolutely any accross-ages England team.

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

From England Ashes teams of my memory (essentially 1990/91 onwards) I'd go for something like...
Gooch (1990/91-1993)
Atherton (1990/91-1994/95)
Hussain (c) (1997-2002/03)
Pietersen (2005-2006/07)
Stewart (w) (1993-2002/03)
Thorpe (1993-1997)
Ramprakash (1993-2001)
Flintoff (2005-2006/07)
Headley (1997-1998/99)
Gough (1994/95-1998/99)
Fraser (1989-1994/95)

Few doubts over that.

 

[rivera213]

On England can't see how Headley during that period would be better than Caddick 99-2001 or Jones 2005

Healdey against Australia was superb. Injury is the only thing which stopped him.

35 wickets @ 24.77 with a SR of 43.3.

Really hard to argue with that tbh.

I've gone with both Headley and S.Jones. But both were better than Caddick and Gough IMO.

Larwood/Trueman was a line ball one, but I wanted to factor in dominating a series as well as over all record. By that rationale in fact, maybe Tyson should be in there somewhere as well. But Larwood's effort in somewhat quelling Bradman is the stuff of legend.

Ja, Larwood did seem to have Bradman in his pocket at times so fair enough. It's been said that Larwood deserved better stats too.

Tyson @ Melbourne on that wicket with the wind behind him wouldn't have been the highlight of the Aussie batsmen's careers, that's for sure! Lol.

Re Hutton, agreed it's ridiculous but Hobbs and Sutcliffe had clearly better records. Could play one of them at three I suppose, but who comes out?

Hutton never played @ 3 during his life at test level, but baring in mind Hobbs-Sutcliffe worked so well as a partnership, it'd be hard to put 1 of those @ 3.

I'm all for having 3 openers as No.1-3 in a line-up and Hutton would be able to do it I'm sure.

You could go:

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Hammond
Barrington/Pietersen

It's definitely tough. I couldn't do an "all things considered XI" because there are too many great players who peaked during the Ashes series.

That 4 would be my top 4 "old boys" XI.

In regards to Barrington vs Pietersen. I'd go for Barrington as it stands.

A RUN average of 54.12 in the Ashes when he was actually a pretty defensive player. He probably should've had 8 or 9 centuries as opposed to 5 but still wasn't bad. Lol

I'm sure KP will play til at least the 2013 Ashes though so not really fair to compare him with Ken atm. I'm hoping KP blows Ken's record out of the water. No-one has got as much **** as Pietersen has in the media that I can remember.

 

[Matt79]

Would have Hutton over Barrington TBH and would have him over Pietersen right now without so much as a single backward glance.

Hobbs and Sutcliffe opening, Hutton three. Always been my choice, for absolutely any accross-ages England team.

As a right now thing, sure. That's a call I'm making in full consciousness (but admittedly without explicitly stating it) that it anticipating future performances. That said, I'm very confident KP will fulfill that anticipation.

For Hutton, for these exercises, I dislike selecting players out of position. Hutton was an opener, and when there are middle order players of the quality of Hammond, Barrington and Pietersen, not to mention others like Leyland and Gower, to chose from, don't feel the need to try to turn him into a middle order player. Remember as well that I'm basing this only on Ashes performances, not their over all records as players.

 

[Richard]

Aside from the uselessness of multiple-laugh-smiley-exclusive posts... if there is any sensible response there, what's the reaction to Ramprakash for? He was good in his limited appearances in 1993 and 1997, and excellent in 1998/99 and 2001.

 

[Richard]

As a right now thing, sure. That's a call I'm making in full consciousness (but admittedly without explicitly stating it) that it anticipating future performances. That said, I'm very confident KP will fulfill that anticipation.

I see. Well, I've said many times that I like to assess players for these purposes only once their careers are over - predicting future performances seems fairly pointless to me TBH. Might as well just wait and see.

For Hutton, for these exercises, I dislike selecting players out of position. Hutton was an opener, and when there are middle order players of the quality of Hammond, Barrington and Pietersen, not to mention others like Leyland and Gower, to chose from, don't feel the need to try to turn him into a middle order player. Remember as well that I'm basing this only on Ashes performances, not their over all records as players.

I don't like selecting players wildly out-of-position either, but there's any number of openers who've had success at three and I see absolutely no reason why Hutton would not perform as well at three as he did at the top.

If it was a question of putting Hutton at five or six that'd be a different matter.

 

[rivera213]

People forget Ramps averaged 49+ IN Australia and 42 (in the era where 40 meant you were a test class batsman) against them overall.

He was no doubt a test flop overall, but against Australia he did pretty well. He should've turned 3 of the 6 half-centuries into centuries and we'd be looking at an average of 45+ against by far the ebst team of the era.

 

[zaremba]

In terms of players I've actually seen play:
Slater
Taylor
Ponting
Border
Waugh
Hussey/M.Waugh
Gilchrist
Warne
McGrath
Alderman
Reid

Although the idea of McGrath at 9 fills me with dread.

Will need to consider the English one a bit more carefully.

Terrific team. I wouldn't disagree with any component in it. Yes there's a long tail but there's plenty of batting ahead of it, and it's a bowling attack to strike fear in any Pom who's watched Ashes cricket in the last 20-odd years.

 

[zaremba]

English Teams:
Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hammond
Barrington
Pietersen
Botham
Flintoff
Knott+
Laker
Larwood
Barnes

In my time watching the game:
Trescothick
Vaughan
Gower
Pietersen
Thorpe
Stewart+
Flintoff
Botham
Gough
Jones
Fraser

Much harder, given 2005 was the only series England had a really good team since I started taking much notice.

Once again, I like your choices. Yes Hutton's a hard one to leave out: maybe KP would make way for him, but KP does represent a nice counterpoint to Barrington in the middle order.

The players-I've-seen XI is a pretty strong one overall but the lack of a spinner reflects how weak we've been in that department since the days of Derek Underwood.

 

[Richard]

If we'd chosen to keep our wickets uncovered I'm pretty confident Emburey and Edmunds would've been a spin duo to rank, if not quite with Illingworth and Underwood, then not very far behind.

Croft and Tufnell would probably have been pretty damn good too - maybe even better than E&E.

And I can't help but salivate at what Swann-Panesar could do on uncovered decks.

 

[Richard]

I'm all for having 3 openers as No.1-3 in a line-up and Hutton would be able to do it I'm sure.

Indeed it's worked very well for both teams on plenty of occasions. Never more so than 1970/71 when England had Boycott and Luckhurst opening with Edrich at three. And in 2006/07 there were six left-handed openers in the originally planned top three\four of each (Trescothick, Strauss, Cook; Langer, Hayden, Hussey - though Langer of course isn't actually an opener). In 1989 (and 1990/91) Australia had Marsh and Taylor, with Boon (who was perfectly capable of opening though even better at three) at three; in 1993 and 1994/95 it was Taylor-Slater-Boon. Australia for a fair while had Lawry opening with Simpson\Stackpole, and Redpath (who was a bit of a Boon himself - could do both roles well but slightly best at three) at three. The list goes on.

I'd have more confidence in Hobbs-Sutcliffe-Hutton than any other one-two-three pairing you could come-up with. Including Woodfull-Ponsford-Bradman which was not merely imaginary-down-the-ages but actual at one time.