-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
where would england rank among the great sides of the past?
- Thread starter DingDong
- Start date
subshakerz
International Coach
Here's Simon Wilde's top ten test teams. Perhaps England can beat 9 or 10....
Simon Wilde's top 10 Test teams - Times Online
Simon Wilde's top 10 Test teams - Times Online
they are not even the best team at the moment, forget about being in the list of the great teams of the past! if they win this series convincingly, and manage to avoid losing in the subcontinent this winter and the next one, then they deservedly belong in that rarefield realm.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
Ignoring the obvious fact that England aren't Number 1 and yet might not be, they're also not a great side.
You have to get away from the idea that the Number 1 team is going to be an Australia or West Indies of the past sweeping all before them for 15 years. There are no great sides in world cricket at the moment and the Number 1 could well fluctuate regularly.
You have to get away from the idea that the Number 1 team is going to be an Australia or West Indies of the past sweeping all before them for 15 years. There are no great sides in world cricket at the moment and the Number 1 could well fluctuate regularly.
John Blaze
Banned
Imran's side > Ponting's side
Xuhaib
International Coach
tbf they went toe to toe with the top side on that list won away to India, England and Nzl were unbeaten at home but yeah they cannot match the aura and domination that Punter side had.Imran's side was more a scrappy fighting unit that would tend to overachieve.Imran's side > Ponting's side
BoyBrumby
Englishman
Ponting and Imran didn't just have "a side" tho, both were in charge of their nations for a considerable time & the XIs evolved. The, if you will, "Classic Early Period Ponting" XI:Imran's side > Ponting's side
Hayden
Langer
Ponting*
Lehmann
Clarke
Martyn
Gilchrist+
Warne
Lee
Gillespie
McGrath
was one of the very best teams ever assembled.
As for England, looooooong way to go yet. A more pertinent question would be if they're better than the Vaughan-lead side of 2004-2005.
Although, I will say that I think that if England win this series they've earned the right to be considered #1 currently regardless of what the rankings say. Cricket watchers have become too slavishly devoted to the ICC's rankings, a system that once, let's not forget, said South Africa were better than the Aussies despite the former then never having beaten the latter after their return to tests following the Apartheid ban.
Xuhaib
International Coach
Wrong.
Imran became a skipper in 82 and by 86 the side that was playing was basically handpicked by Imran, he made some hard decisions when he became captain in 82 dropped his best friend Sarfraz and his cousin Majid both have not been on good terms with him since then.
Spark
Global Moderator
Howe_zat
Audio File
Depends how many you include it as "one of" really, because I don't think it was as good as the 2001 or 2006 vintage.
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
England are nowhere near. They're a good team with some good players, that's all.
As to whether they are the best in the world, one of the funny things about the ICC rankings is that they don't tell you who is the best team currently but rather who has been the best team over a certain (and of course entirely arbitrary) period of the recent past. So if England were to win this series by 2 matches, their elevation to number 1 would be largely retrospective.
As to whether they are the best in the world, one of the funny things about the ICC rankings is that they don't tell you who is the best team currently but rather who has been the best team over a certain (and of course entirely arbitrary) period of the recent past. So if England were to win this series by 2 matches, their elevation to number 1 would be largely retrospective.
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
It would confirm that they deserve to be considered alongside India and SA - no more and no less. As would any sort of series win, actually.
I'm not bothered about ICC rankings. Pretty meaningless I feel and doesn't add much.
What we're seeing at the moment is a shuffling of the pack in the wake of Aussie decline - as many of us predicted. England are not manifestly superior to India and SA yet. Graft a couple of authentic greats on to an England team that has depth, consistency, discipline and great team spirit and they could start to be compared with the truly great teams of the past.
In fact, the more interesting question may be whether this England team is the best to have played Test cricket without an authentic great player in their ranks?
What we're seeing at the moment is a shuffling of the pack in the wake of Aussie decline - as many of us predicted. England are not manifestly superior to India and SA yet. Graft a couple of authentic greats on to an England team that has depth, consistency, discipline and great team spirit and they could start to be compared with the truly great teams of the past.
In fact, the more interesting question may be whether this England team is the best to have played Test cricket without an authentic great player in their ranks?
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
I suppose an overall assessment of Flintoff''s career couldn't support that particular label, even if his performances in 2005 were authentically great. So maybe the 2004-05 side fits.
Before that, maybe 1970/71 if you view Boycott and Snow as very good indeed rather than genuinely great.
Good shouts.
04-05 England were built around a great bowling unit rather than great players. Although they had the benefit of Simon Jones and who knows how he would be rated if he had strung together a meaningful career.
Throw in Underwood and Knott to 70/71 England and it gets tricky.
Is this a peculiarly English thing to have very strong teams without star individuals?
04-05 England were built around a great bowling unit rather than great players. Although they had the benefit of Simon Jones and who knows how he would be rated if he had strung together a meaningful career.
Throw in Underwood and Knott to 70/71 England and it gets tricky.
Is this a peculiarly English thing to have very strong teams without star individuals?
flibbertyjibber
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Not sure this current side is as good as the 03-05 side, it certainly has greater depth to it but the team which won the ashes in 05 was a very good side who beat a great Aussie team with a bit of luck along the way.
The current team probably hasn't peaked yet and may well improve anyway over time when we introduce Taylor into the batting side (nobody can yet tell) and with the bowlers still having a few years left in the tank and likely lads like Finn and Bresnan waiting in the wings we will be a top 3 side for a while.
Are we good enough to dominate like Australia did until recently? I don't think we are but time will tell on that one. Be fun finding out anyway if we do keep on winning matches.
The current team probably hasn't peaked yet and may well improve anyway over time when we introduce Taylor into the batting side (nobody can yet tell) and with the bowlers still having a few years left in the tank and likely lads like Finn and Bresnan waiting in the wings we will be a top 3 side for a while.
Are we good enough to dominate like Australia did until recently? I don't think we are but time will tell on that one. Be fun finding out anyway if we do keep on winning matches.