where would england rank among the great sides of the past?

[Spark]

When I heard that Jones was injured and would probably miss the last Test, that's when I actually thought we could come back and draw that series. He was that good, and that important.

 

[Ikki]

Right now? Just behind the current 'great' Indian one.

 

[wpdavid]

Flintoff had to contribute heavily because with Bell and Harmison we were a man down in both disciplines.

Sure, but the bottom line is that he did what he did and it was good enough to beat what was still an outstanding Australian side. The thing I'm disagreeing with is that the current side would 'destroy' the 2005 vintage. Given that 2005 Australia didn't manage that particular feat, I think that's a leap of faith that I can't sign up to. It's effectively saying that 2011 England is significantly better than 2005 Aus. Of course, the current side may well have beaten our 2005 team, but that's another matter compared to destroying them.

 

[smash84]

yep,.....the destroying is the bone of contention here,......not beating them

 

[Furball]

Sure, but the bottom line is that he did what he did and it was good enough to beat what was still an outstanding Australian side. The thing I'm disagreeing with is that the current side would 'destroy' the 2005 vintage. Given that 2005 Australia didn't manage that particular feat, I think that's a leap of faith that I can't sign up to. It's effectively saying that 2011 England is significantly better than 2005 Aus. Of course, the current side may well have beaten our 2005 team, but that's another matter compared to destroying them.

The 2005 Australian side was a lot better on paper than on the field though.

Nostalgia clouds how the past is judged. Bar Warne, Ponting at Old Trafford and McGrath at Lord's, the standard of cricket served up by Australia was very ordinary indeed.

IMO the 2005 England side is pretty over-rated. As much as 2005 will probably always be my favourite series, it captured the imagination because of the drama and excitement in pretty much every Test. The actual quality of cricket, from both sides, wasn't the best.

England 2011 play much better cricket than their 2005 counterparts, which is why I think they'd win rather easily.

 

[smash84]

The 2005 Australian side was a lot better on paper than on the field though.

Nostalgia clouds how the past is judged. Bar Warne, Ponting at Old Trafford and McGrath at Lord's, the standard of cricket served up by Australia was very ordinary indeed.

IMO the 2005 England side is pretty over-rated. As much as 2005 will probably always be my favourite series, it captured the imagination because of the drama and excitement in pretty much every Test. The actual quality of cricket, from both sides, wasn't the best.

England 2011 play much better cricket than their 2005 counterparts, which is why I think they'd win rather easily.

ermm....no.........

A bowling attack consisting of McGrath, Warne, Kasparowicz, and Brett Lee was NOT at all ordinary. England batted pretty decently in that series as well. They played brilliantly as a unit and it really did look that Vaughn led from the front. It was probably the only neutral test series that I completely followed (I mean from the time that I saw McGrath limping off the field because he had stepped on a cricket ball and injured himself )

 

[Furball]

ermm....no.........

A bowling attack consisting of McGrath, Warne, Kasparowicz, and Brett Lee was NOT at all ordinary. England batted pretty decently in that series as well. They played brilliantly as a unit and it really did look that Vaughn led from the front. It was probably the only neutral test series that I completely followed (I mean from the time that I saw McGrath limping off the field because he had stepped on a cricket ball and injured himself )

That attack didn't play together once.

 

[smash84]

yes and in the squad I failed to mention that Gillespie (he was **** though) and a young Shaun Tait......maybe they did not deliver as they should have but you have to give credit to England's batting.....

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

Yeah, AWTA. They're a nice official achievement of sorts but they aren't the be all and end all of analysis. It's a system that refuses to take personnel into account - India would still be #1 if the best 15,000 cricketers in the country joined a rejuvenated ICL, for example - and it's also a system designed by the same organisation who tells us Johan Botha is a better one-day bowler than Lasith Malinga and that Paul Stirling trumps Chris Gayle in batting.

Based on achievements at the moment, I don't disagree with them at the moment as to India's #1 ranking. But there might come a time where I do, and I'd like to reserve the right to say so.

 

[Cevno]

The best team varies from a period of 6 months to a year right now based on form, injuries, retirements, players improving/declining etc... right now so they need to have some arbitary time period to judge.
The best team right now may be different to that in some instances but Rankings are then a indicator of the best team this whole period which is more important in a way.
Ofcourse, they aren't perfect though.

 

[Bun]

yes and in the squad I failed to mention that Gillespie (he was **** though) and a young Shaun Tait......maybe they did not deliver as they should have but you have to give credit to England's batting.....

when was tait delivered anything in tests?

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

This is a very, very good English side. The best I've seen by far - slightly ahead of Vaughan's 2004-05 side - by virtue of having more sustainable players. Not to mention, this batting is significantly better than that team's.

I am more interested in compiling a list of the best post-war English sides. Here goes mine:

1) Hutton's men - mid 50s
2) Strauss' men and Broad - right now!
3) Vaughan's men - mid noughties on par with Illingworth's team of the 1968-1971 era


How would you rate these teams? Is there any very good team I am missing out? Brearley's team has not been included because of their over-reliance on one player and terrible performance against the world's best side.

 

[Bun]

I disagree... the eng of 04-05 wouldve' dominated in any era but for it being in thwe great aussie era. this side isn't anywhere near that.

beating at home a side that's sub par it's resource avl isn't indicative of anything.

 

[G.I.Joe]

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.

It's been mentioned a thousand and one times already. The algorithm that had SA ahead of Australia is not the same as the one that's in operation currently.

 

[GIMH]

I disagree... the eng of 04-05 wouldve' dominated in any era but for it being in thwe great aussie era. this side isn't anywhere near that.

beating at home a side that's sub par it's resource avl isn't indicative of anything.

Ignoring the obvious sinister motive behind this post, Australia were sub par its resources in 05 too; McGrath was injured for the bulk of the series.

That England side wouldn't have dominated in any era. They didn't have the drive, or the depth. We had a world-class genius all-rounder on top of his or anyone's game for three years, some exceptional bowlers and some very good batsman. But there were obvious weaknesses as well. Wicket-keeper. Spinner. Vaughan rarely scoring. Bell. Harmison being eratic.

I think wpdavid is right that it'd be a close contest because Freddie was so awesome that you could have thrown anyone at him. But let's say you got a turning wicket. Or a close one where lower runs were likely to make a huge difference.

Imagine Harmison dispatching his dodgy balls for Cook to cut. Imagine the Bell of old trying to keep Tremlett or Swann out.

Don't want to talk the 05 side down too much. It was a very good team and they put in one of the great performances of a generation. But I have much more faith in the current lot.

 

[GIMH]

When I heard that Jones was injured and would probably miss the last Test, that's when I actually thought we could come back and draw that series. He was that good, and that important.

If he hadn't missed the second innings at Trent Bridge, it's hard to imagine that Test winding up such a nailbiter. We might have even been good enough for the innings win.

Dammit I feel like watching Ashes 05 highlights

 

[weeman27bob]

England 05 team would have been injured all the time though, and the reserve bowlers were absolute tosh.

 

[smash84]

the fact is that England 11 would not utterly destroy the one in 04-05. That was the main bone of contention. This side looks more solid also because it has fitter players and not those that would break down after a test or two.

This England side probably would have been beaten by Pakistan side of 92-93 I think so I don't really think it would be near AT top ten teams.

 

[Burgey]

Better than the Indian team.*

*sample size one test.

 

[Redbacks]

The thing is, there isn't really a better objective way to do it, is there?

Most post win threads in CC?