Best Ashes Teams

[Trumpers_Ghost]

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.

Yes he was superb on days of the full moon when not menstrating.

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

I suppose I'll have a go too, rather than chuckling at amusing selections.

Perenially winning Sons of Oz XI

Langer (best record v Eng of the possibles)
Hayden (on par v Eng with Slater and Taylor, overall record & Langer partnership gives nod)
Ponting
Jones (toss up with M.Waugh but think jones was a better bat)
Border
S.Waugh
Gilchrist
Warne
Aldermann
MacGill
McGrath

12th man: Mcdermott (can easily slot in for Macgill, both owned England reasonably equally)
Worried about the rabbit plague in the tail however

Soap Dodgers XI

Gooch
Broad
Vaughn
Gower
Thorpe
Botham
Flintoff
Russell
Gough
Fraser
Tufnell

12th Man: Caddick

While without the depth of the Australians outside the XI, the team looks alright.

In direct comparisons
Top order-------- Aust ++
middle order----Aust ++
fielding -------Aust +
pace bowling----- Eng
spin bowling -----Aust +++
Tail end batting ------Eng
winning mentality------Aust +

cheers

 

[Top_Cat]

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.

His numbers are a fairly misleading. Either he scored in dead rubbers where the Aussies were notorious for taking their foot off the gas or in 1998 away and 2001 at home, he basically hung around while the batsmen at the other end got out.

I know it can be said you can only take the chances you're given but to that, you have to then ask yourself why England refused to pick him before the final Test of his first two Ashes series'. From the chatter at the time, the English selectors didn't rate him either. And upon getting picked for full Ashes series' in 1998 and 2001, he, again, hung around. When the team needed a player to take the game by the scruff of the neck, he......hung around putting the pressure on the guys at the other end to actually do the job. They'd get out trying to do it, he'd sit on his bat at the other end in the midst of the inevitable collapse. Not exactly a team player.

You could plot a graph of 'points when momentum shifted to the opposition' against 'Ramps at the crease' and almost see r = 1 for the correlation. This is why he should be nowhere near any Ashes side. Certainly not one that wants to actually win games.

 

[Richard]

It's not surprising they didn't rate him in 1993 and 1997, given how diabolical his performances were against other sides (averaged about 14 against teams other than Australia from 1991 to 1995/96). However, if you can find me five England middle-order batsmen in the last 20 years who've done better against Australia than Ramprakash did in 1998/99 and 2001 (whatever the means for his success, fact is he succeeded, and I unlike you couldn't care less whether he used positive or negative play to do so) I'll happily replace him with the one that isn't Hussain, Pietersen, Stewart or Thorpe.

 

[Richard]

Yes he was superb on days of the full moon when not menstrating.

Actually he was very good in two full Ashes series'. Simple as that.

No random-pick-outs there as you're rather patronisingly attempting to imply I'm afraid.

 

[Richard]

Soap Dodgers XI

Gooch
Broad
Vaughn
Gower
Thorpe
Botham
Flintoff
Russell
Gough
Fraser
Tufnell

12th Man: Caddick

If I was given to stupid multiple-laugh-exclusive posts I might use one here. Russell ahead of Stewart? However disappointing Stewart may have been on some occasions against Australia, he was better than Russell, no questions asked. And Broad (who bashed one joke of an attack in 1986/87) over Atherton (who scored multiple runs against three successive quality attacks in 1990/91, 1993 and 1994/95) is simply nonsensical.

As for Tufnell based essentially on a single game (maybe two at a push, the other being SCG 1990/91) that's pretty nonsensical too.

 

[Top_Cat]

It's not surprising they didn't rate him in 1993 and 1997, given how diabolical his performances were against other sides (averaged about 14 against teams other than Australia from 1991 to 1995/96). However, if you can find me five England middle-order batsmen in the last 20 years who've done better against Australia than Ramprakash did in 1998/99 and 2001 (whatever the means for his success, fact is he succeeded, and I unlike you couldn't care less whether he used positive or negative play to do so) I'll happily replace him with the one that isn't Hussain, Pietersen, Stewart or Thorpe.

Depends on whether you're picking a side with the best numbers or one that'll win.

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

If I was given to stupid multiple-laugh-exclusive posts I might use one here. Russell ahead of Stewart? However disappointing Stewart may have been on some occasions against Australia, he was better than Russell, no questions asked. And Broad (who bashed one joke of an attack in 1986/87) over Atherton (who scored multiple runs against three successive quality attacks in 1990/91, 1993 and 1994/95) is simply nonsensical.

As for Tufnell based essentially on a single game (maybe two at a push, the other being SCG 1990/91) that's pretty nonsensical too.

I thought i'd check the stats to back my opinion on this and was actually surprised that I was right. Russell>>>>>>>Stewart at keeping. In Ashes Russell=Stewart in batting results. If this wasn't based on Ashes, I'd go Stewart. Not Stupid and far more Sensible than Healy>Gilchrist.

Atherton was ordinary, although he did try hard. Broad was a series winner, even if he couldn't back it up.

Tuffnell, well that maybe is nonsensical but who else Giles? Embury? Hemmings? none any better and a fifth paceman would be pointless.

I concede Tufnell, and accuse you of total ignorence in regard to Russell.

cheers

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

thought I'd actually check Atherton's stats to see if they agreed with my impresion of Atherton's ordinariness and was quite shocked at just how diabolical they were.
1 century in 33 matches, with an average under 30. Poor

 

[King Pietersen]

England:

1. Sir Jack Hobbs- 3636 runs at 55.26
2. Herbert Sutcliffe- 2741 runs at 66.85
3. Len Hutton- 2428 runs at 56.46
4. Ken Barrington- 2111 runs at 63.96
5. Kevin Pietersen- 963 runs at 53.50 or David Gower- 3269 runs at 44.78
6. Alec Stewart +- 1810 runs at 30.67
7. Sir Ian Botham- 1673 runs at 29.35 + 148 wickets at 27.65
8. Jim Laker- 79 wickets at 18.27
9. George Lohmann- 77 wickets at 13.01
10. Sydney Barnes- 106 wickets at 21.58
11. Bob Willis- 128 wickets at 26.14

My attempt at an XI. Not entirely sure of the batting order of the tail, but none of them were particularly strong with the bat, so I don't think it should matter too much.

Australia:

1. Bill Ponsford- 1558 runs at 47.21
2. Arthur Morris- 2080 runs at 50.73
3. Sir Don Bradman- 5028 runs at 89.78
4. Allan Border- 3548 runs at 56.31
5. Steve Waugh- 3200 runs at 58.18
6. Keith Miller- 1511 runs at 33.57 + 87 wickets at 22.40
7. Adam Gilchrist- 1083 runs at 45.12
8. Shane Warne- 195 wickets at 23.25
9. Ray Lindwall- 144 wickets at 22.44
10. Dennis Lillee- 167 wickets at 21.00
11. Glenn McGrath- 157 wickets at 20.92

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

I'll have a go at the alltime craziness too

Aus

Trumper
Morris
Bradman
G.Chappell (or maybe Ponting or Mcabe, hard to split)
Border or S.Waugh (fencesitting again)
Gilchrist
Miller
Warne
Davidson (think he'd offer more balance to an attack than Lindwill who was similar to Lillee)
Lillee
McGrath (thought about Spofforth, went for what I know)

Eng

Hobbs
Sutcliff
Hutton
Hammond
Barrington
Compton
Botham
Knott
Laker
Trueman
Tyson

I know far less about old school English cricket than Australian, so I may have made some bad calls; possibly Barnes in for one of the middle order to strengthen the bowling.


cheers

 

[zaremba]

Eng

Hobbs
Sutcliff
Hutton
Hammond
Barrington
Compton
Botham
Knott
Laker
Trueman
Tyson

I know far less about old school English cricket than Australian, so I may have made some bad calls; possibly Barnes in for one of the middle order to strengthen the bowling.


cheers

I'd be more than happy with Tyson, Trueman, Botham, Hammond and Laker as a bowling attack. Compton with a few left-arm sillies as well.

It's hard to know quite where Barnes sits in this sort of company, but from what I've read (largely thanks to a wonderful CW thread about him 2 or 3 months ago) he would probably be up there.

 

[zaremba]

G.Chappell (or maybe Ponting or Mcabe, hard to split)
Border or S.Waugh (fencesitting again)

OK off the fence now - pick 2 from those 5

For me, Ponting and Waugh

 

[rivera213]

I suppose I'll have a go too, rather than chuckling at amusing selections.

Perenially winning Sons of Oz XI

Langer (best record v Eng of the possibles)
Hayden (on par v Eng with Slater and Taylor, overall record & Langer partnership gives nod)
Ponting
Jones (toss up with M.Waugh but think jones was a better bat)
Border
S.Waugh
Gilchrist
Warne
Aldermann
MacGill
McGrath

12th man: Mcdermott (can easily slot in for Macgill, both owned England reasonably equally)
Worried about the rabbit plague in the tail however

Soap Dodgers XI

Gooch
Broad
Vaughn
Gower
Thorpe
Botham
Flintoff
Russell
Gough
Fraser
Tufnell

12th Man: Caddick

While without the depth of the Australians outside the XI, the team looks alright.

In direct comparisons
Top order-------- Aust ++
middle order----Aust ++
fielding -------Aust +
pace bowling----- Eng
spin bowling -----Aust +++
Tail end batting ------Eng
winning mentality------Aust +

cheers

Dude, you can't slam Richard for putting in Ramps and then put in Tufnell, Broad and to a lesser degree Russell (he was a quality gloveman but poor with the bat IMHO).

His numbers are a fairly misleading. Either he scored in dead rubbers where the Aussies were notorious for taking their foot off the gas or in 1998 away and 2001 at home, he basically hung around while the batsmen at the other end got out.

I know it can be said you can only take the chances you're given but to that, you have to then ask yourself why England refused to pick him before the final Test of his first two Ashes series'. From the chatter at the time, the English selectors didn't rate him either. And upon getting picked for full Ashes series' in 1998 and 2001, he, again, hung around. When the team needed a player to take the game by the scruff of the neck, he......hung around putting the pressure on the guys at the other end to actually do the job. They'd get out trying to do it, he'd sit on his bat at the other end in the midst of the inevitable collapse. Not exactly a team player.

You could plot a graph of 'points when momentum shifted to the opposition' against 'Ramps at the crease' and almost see r = 1 for the correlation. This is why he should be nowhere near any Ashes side. Certainly not one that wants to actually win games.

In that case you should completely disregard every run scored when a series was won since naturally people take their foot of the gas but the bowlers like Warne and McGrath still tried their best to get wickets.

I personaly wouldn't put Ramps in my Ashes XI, just sticking up for him since his record aginst Australia- dead rubber or not, is still impressive. Not everyone average 42 against that Aussie bowling line up so he can't have sucked.

I'll have a go at the alltime craziness too

Aus

Trumper
Morris
Bradman
G.Chappell (or maybe Ponting or Mcabe, hard to split)
Border or S.Waugh (fencesitting again)
Gilchrist
Miller
Warne
Davidson (think he'd offer more balance to an attack than Lindwill who was similar to Lillee)
Lillee
McGrath (thought about Spofforth, went for what I know)

Eng

Hobbs
Sutcliff
Hutton
Hammond
Barrington
Compton
Botham
Knott
Laker
Trueman
Tyson

I know far less about old school English cricket than Australian, so I may have made some bad calls; possibly Barnes in for one of the middle order to strengthen the bowling.

For Eng, given the sheer depth of No. 1-5, I'd drop Compton (which hurts since I'm an Arsenal fan! Lol) and put in a 4th seamer (Willis for me).

Statistically, George Lohmann with 77 wickets @ 13..01, SR of under 43 in 15 matches would be the choice- though I'm extremely skepticaly about the depth of players in the late 19th/early 20th century.

 

[Top_Cat]

In that case you should completely disregard every run scored when a series was won since naturally people take their foot of the gas but the bowlers like Warne and McGrath still tried their best to get wickets.

I personaly wouldn't put Ramps in my Ashes XI, just sticking up for him since his record aginst Australia- dead rubber or not, is still impressive. Not everyone average 42 against that Aussie bowling line up so he can't have sucked.

Again, his numbers are misleading and I'm gathering by what you're saying you didn't see him bat in either 1998 or 2001. Not talking about his dead rubber Tests but the ones where he got a full series. Not once did his batting contribute to a win but, on many occasions, he did the exact opposite and was a large contributor to letting the Aussies back into the match.

Call it a bias but I'm no fan of a player who seems so unwilling to bat for the team, preferring instead of bat the same way no matter the match situation. It's a huge knock, for mine. The problem with that attitude is that it's essentially saying to the guy at the other end "It's up to you to win the game, I'm just going to bat how I bat." if he was scoring big, that'd be one thing but he faffed about so many times for 100+ balls, essentially doing very little to contribute to a win. When a bloke is just sitting on his bat handle, the obvious tactic is to contain him and lay the pressure on the other guy knowing he'll crack eventually. And that's exactly what the Aussies did. That he managed to keep his numbers above 40 says more about how good a player he wasn't than how good he was, in my view.

 

[Uppercut]

OK off the fence now - pick 2 from those 5

For me, Ponting and Waugh

Allan Border has to be there. 3548 runs in Ashes matches! 3548! Hell, Steve Waugh only made 3200, and he was around forever. And at an average of 56!

I can't help but think he's a bit underappreciated sometimes. Border and Waugh, for me.

 

[Matt79]

Plus he'd keep the wags and Craig McDermott in line. "you'll be on the next ****ing plane home sunshine!"

In all seriousness, would take Border or Waugh's hardness and mental toughness over Ponting's at time less than ideal demeanour in a heartbeat - and I'm not even in the camp that thinks Ponting is a knob, it's just that AB was exceptional in that regard.

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

OK off the fence now - pick 2 from those 5

For me, Ponting and Waugh

ok,but I changed my mind three times since I hit the post button.

Greg Chappell and Alan Border

 

[NUFAN]

From 89 onwards - haven't looked at stats, just picked who I seem to remember doing well vs England.

1 David BOON
2 Michael SLATER
3 Ricky PONTING
4 Mark WAUGH
5 Steve WAUGH
6 Allan BORDER
7 Ian HEALY
8 Shane WARNE
9 Merv HUGHES
10 Craig McDERMOTT
11 Glenn McGRATH

12 Matthew ELLIOTT

 

[zaremba]

ok,but I changed my mind three times since I hit the post button.

Me too, even as I typed my "come off the fence" post. Have changed my mind in view of Uppercut's post - I'd be happy to go with Border after all. I went for Waugh just because he seemed always to turn it on when his team needed it most and was critically important to Australia's dominance over England. Mind you, precisely the same things could be said about Border.

And Ponting, great player though he is, maybe hasn't the record he ought to have v England... so maybe Chappell...