England 05 v England 13

[ImpatientLime]

Marto was awesome... My absolute favorite batsman from that aussie side.
The whole lineup was found out in that series tbh, the bowling from the English quartet was simply too good. Martyn actually played a vital innings at Lord's in the second innings, unlike Hayden who cashed in when conditions were the easiest in the series. That hundred was useless

That whole series made me very uneasy about Haydos tbh. I know he was in poor form leading up to it, but I've rarely seen a supposed top drawer bat look so utterly clueless against the ball moving sideways.

Pretty sure he got one or two massive reprieves from the umpires at the MCG in 2006.

 

[Furball]

Marto was awesome... My absolute favorite batsman from that aussie side.
The whole lineup was found out in that series tbh, the bowling from the English quartet was simply too good. Martyn actually played a vital innings at Lord's in the second innings, unlike Hayden who cashed in when conditions were the easiest in the series. That hundred was useless

How is a 1st innings ton when you're a)replying to the opposition sticking 400 on the board and b) you need a win to square the series useless?

 

[GIMH]

We didn't post 400 but I largely agree. I would say though that there was criticism that he was playing for himself rather than the situation, very compact and ground out. However our attack was in form and the skies were black. The main criticism I always had was that he and Langer took the light too eagerly. You can understand why but they really needed the runs more quickly.

 

[OverratedSanity]

How is a 1st innings ton when you're a)replying to the opposition sticking 400 on the board and b) you need a win to square the series useless?

Took the light, gave away the initiative. So, so dumb

 

[OverratedSanity]

We didn't post 400 but I largely agree. I would say though that there was criticism that he was playing for himself rather than the situation, very compact and ground out. However our attack was in form and the skies were black. The main criticism I always had was that he and Langer took the light too eagerly. You can understand why but they really needed the runs more quickly.

Yep. Pretty much this. "Useless" was harsh but the point stands

 

[Furball]

We didn't post 400 but I largely agree. I would say though that there was criticism that he was playing for himself rather than the situation, very compact and ground out. However our attack was in form and the skies were black. The main criticism I always had was that he and Langer took the light too eagerly. You can understand why but they really needed the runs more quickly.

Yeah, he could have just played as normal and got out for 10.

I agree with the light criticism although that decision looks worse in hindsight because of the subsequent weather on days 3 and 4.

 

[subshakerz]

Reading some of these comments, I cant help but think how overrated this current English outfit is to some of its fans. Its the same side that was whitewashed in the UAE, was comprehensively beaten by South Africa at home and was outplayed in NZ and within 1 wicket from defeat, all in the last 2 years.

England in 2005 had a settled team that had won I think 5-7 series on the trot, including winning in South Africa. I am pretty sure this current side would be dismantled if they had faced the Aussies in 2005.

 

[Salamuddin]

Reading some of these comments, I cant help but think how overrated this current English outfit is to some of its fans. Its the same side that was whitewashed in the UAE, was comprehensively beaten by South Africa at home and was outplayed in NZ and within 1 wicket from defeat, all in the last 2 years.

England in 2005 had a settled team that had won I think 5-7 series on the trot, including winning in South Africa. I am pretty sure this current side would be dismantled if they had faced the Aussies in 2005.

Absolutely spot on.
England are a good team but certainly not a great one and nor do I think they will develop into a great one - contrary to what a lot of English supporters thought in 2011 when they beat India 4-0 to become no.1.

Their batting is very good and In my view their real strength. But they don't have the bowling strength to be a truly great team and with Anderson now 31 and Swann going on 35 you'd have to think the success they have had so far is probably the peak of what they will achieve.

 

[Jono]

Reading some of these comments, I cant help but think how overrated this current English outfit is to some of its fans. Its the same side that was whitewashed in the UAE, was comprehensively beaten by South Africa at home and was outplayed in NZ and within 1 wicket from defeat, all in the last 2 years.

England in 2005 had a settled team that had won I think 5-7 series on the trot, including winning in South Africa. I am pretty sure this current side would be dismantled if they had faced the Aussies in 2005.

Absolutely spot on.
England are a good team but certainly not a great one and nor do I think they will develop into a great one - contrary to what a lot of English supporters thought in 2011 when they beat India 4-0 to become no.1.

Their batting is very good and In my view their real strength. But they don't have the bowling strength to be a truly great team and with Anderson now 31 and Swann going on 35 you'd have to think the success they have had so far is probably the peak of what they will achieve.

You both realise the 2005 team got bitchslapped by Pakistan in Pakistan not long after the 2005 Ashes yeah? So not that different to England losing to Pakistan in the UAE.

I think both teams had good peaks, and 2005 had better accomplishments, but the 2013 team (which isn't too different to the 2011 team that was on fire) are better on paper.

If the 2005 team can beat 2005 Australia with Geraint Jones and Ashley Giles, its not that impossible for the 2013 team to have beaten the 2005 Australian team. Particularly without McGrath.

 

[subshakerz]

You both realise the 2005 team got bitchslapped by Pakistan in Pakistan not long after the 2005 Ashes yeah? So not that different to England losing to Pakistan in the UAE.

Yes, England 2005 lost to a superior Pakistan side than the one England faced in UAE, but that doesn't erase their achievement and consistency earlier.

I think both teams had good peaks, and 2005 had better accomplishments, but the 2013 team (which isn't too different to the 2011 team that was on fire) are better on paper.

If history should teach you anything, its not to judge an English side on paper. England 2005 had a far better captain, far more consistent run of victories, a better pace attack and were just a more aggressive and confident outfit. England 2013 has a visible soft belly and is exposed quite quickly under pressure.

For England 2005, the Ashes 2005 were its peak after several impressive series victories. What is the peak for England 2013? Beating a hapless Australian side, the worst to ever come to the shores? You can argue it was the victory in India, but that was juxtaposed between losing 4 consecutive tests in UAE/Sri Lanka before and a horrid performance in NZ after.

If the 2005 team can beat 2005 Australia with Geraint Jones and Ashley Giles, its not that impossible for the 2013 team to have beaten the 2005 Australian team. Particularly without McGrath.

Based on their performance against South Africa 2012, this current English side would be mincemeat against Australia 2005.

 

[Jono]

I think the NZ series is a good line of argument for you as to why 2005 > 2013. I agree that is a good point and 2005 didn't play as poorly against such a weak team.

All my point is, and if you look at my earlier posts, I think the 2005 team has accomplished more but the 2013 team has the better lineup.

 

[subshakerz]

Whats the use of the better lineup if it cant deliver consistent results? We have a term for that: paper tiger. Otherwise the Pakistan team of the 90s looked superior to the 80s version, but in reality the 80s team was far better because they were more than the sum of their parts.

There's a lot more to judging a team than just reading the team sheet.

 

[Jono]

Whats the use of the better lineup if it cant deliver consistent results? We have a term for that: paper tiger. Otherwise the Pakistan team of the 90s looked superior to the 80s version, but in reality the 80s team was far better because they were more than the sum of their parts.

There's a lot more to judging a team than just reading the team sheet.

It was an observation - i.e. isn't it funny that the England 2013 team looks better than the England 2005 team.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Whats the use of the better lineup if it cant deliver consistent results? We have a term for that: paper tiger. Otherwise the Pakistan team of the 90s looked superior to the 80s version, but in reality the 80s team was far better because they were more than the sum of their parts.

There's a lot more to judging a team than just reading the team sheet.

So this team who have lost 2 of their last 17 series yes that is 2 of their last 17 series doesn't deliver consistent results?

I'd hate to see you definition of a team who does.

 

[Prince EWS]

It was an observation - i.e. isn't it funny that the England 2013 team looks better than the England 2005 team.

I think this is a fairly common phenomena in general though; teams usually look better on paper at the time than they do when they're looked at with the benefit of hindsight. You're not likely to pick players who you consider rubbish or who have no hope of succeeding unless your selection panel is poor or you're just in a really bad state, but a couple of players in the side will invariably not perform how you'd hoped for any number of reasons. When you look back on the side, those players stick out as being a lot worse than they did at the time they were selected.

 

[Jono]

Not in this case though, at the time of 2005 everyone thought Geraint and Giles were the weak links, and they stick out just as much now. Somehow the 2005 teams still achieved some amazing results though, but your keeper/#7 and your only spinner being weak links generally can prevent your team from reaching the heights that England reached back then.

 

[Daemon]

So this team who have lost 2 of their last 17 series yes that is 2 of their last 17 series doesn't deliver consistent results?

I'd hate to see you definition of a team who does.

If you're talking 17 series then it's not exactly "England 2013" anymore though is it? 17 series ago was early 2009..

 

[Jono]

Yeah its confusing as to whether England 2011 can be brought into this argument.

 

[Daemon]

Yeah its confusing as to whether England 2011 can be brought into this argument.

Agreed. When Strauss was around England felt like a more solid side than the current one, but it seems sort of unfair to not use the performances of England from '09/10 - present to judge the current side, because roughly 8 out of the 11 players back then are still playing.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Not in this case though, at the time of 2005 everyone thought Geraint and Giles were the weak links, and they stick out just as much now. Somehow the 2005 teams still achieved some amazing results though, but your keeper/#7 and your only spinner being weak links generally can prevent your team from reaching the heights that England reached back then.

That shows how good the pace attack was when Jones was fit and Flintoff was at his peak. Just a shame that both were crocks and unable to do it for a longer period. The current team have the best spinner and keeper/bat we have had since Underwood and Knott and add in Bell being a man not a boy and that makes the current side a lot stronger in 3 positions. Is Flintoff such a pull that he'd turn the series in the favour of 05 I don't know, he was great in that period though.