England 05 v England 13

[Prince EWS]

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.

It's not just about the weak links though as such. Giles is a constant in a way because he was regarded as a mediocre squad player then and he is still is now, but Jones for example was someone people expected a lot more development from with the bat (at the very least). More relevantly though we've since had Flintoff's purple patch with the bat end, Vaughan seriously decline, Harmison found out and Simon Jones never play again. These players looked a lot better to us in 2005, at least in what people expected them to become, than they do now. The same will probably be true for a bunch of a current group - we'll look back on them and rate them lower than we do now - and if we don't then it'll probably mean they do achieve more than the 2005 side.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

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

It isn't England 2013 who lost in UAE either but that gets shoved in too.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

It's not just about the weak links though as such. Giles is a constant in a way because he was regarded as a mediocre squad player then and he is still is now, but Jones for example was someone people expected a lot more development from with the bat (at the very least). More relevantly though we've since had Flintoff's purple patch with the bat end, Vaughan seriously decline, Harmison found out and Simon Jones never play again. These players looked a lot better to us in 2005, at least in what people expected them to become, than they do now. The same will probably be true for a bunch of a current group - we'll look back on them and rate them lower than we do now - and if we don't then it'll probably mean they do achieve more than the 2005 side.

I think we are seeing the decline in Trott of the current side. I can't see him ever getting his average back to 50 again. He made a brilliant start but in the last couple of years he has levelled off to a good not a great bat which is basically what he is. Maybe Prior has peaked too though with only one bad summer in the last 5 he has plenty in the bank to give him time to come good again.

 

[subshakerz]

Well its strange when discussing England 2013 to focus on their performances from 2009-2011 all under a different captain while ignoring their relatively lackluster 2012-2013.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Strange when discussing England 2013 then that you will focus on stuff from the previous year under a different captain. Can't have it both ways subshakerz.

Under Cook England are yet to lose a series and in 14 matches since he took over last year they have lost only 1 match. Crap record that.

 

[wpdavid]

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.

One could argue that he would, simply because he was instrumental in winning a series against an Aus side that were superior in rather more than 3 positions. Simon Jones' all-too-brief appearance gave that side another dimension which the present line-up can't match. And i'm not convinced that Anderson is so massively superior to Hoggard. As for the spinners, there's no questioning that Swann is superior, but the extent is exaggerated by the arrival of UDRS.

I remember this being discussed after we beat India 4-0 in 2011, and being astonished how dismissive some posters were about it even being close, as apparently the more recent side was soooo superior. Obviously Pakistan in the UAE and the home series against SA put things in rather a different light.

tbh I'm equally astonished how black and white some posters are making this. The current side's record over 17 tests can't be very different to what the other lot did after Vaughan took over in 2003 until somewhere around 2006. Both achieved creditable results in India; arguably the 2006 draw was more creditable than the 2012 win because India were stronger then.

fwiw I think it would have been closer after the 2010/11 Ashes. Not that Aus were very good, but winning 3 tests by an innings over there was extraordinary.

The current team has too many weaknesses imo: Trott in decline, 2 out of the top 6 positions not really decided, and the 3rd quick situation looks horrible. Throw into that mix the fact that Anderson and Broad had a total of three effective matches between them in the recent Ashes series, and you do worry where the wickets are going to come from when the pitches don't suit Swann.

 

[Pothas]

Brilliant series win in South Africa does not get as much praise as it should either, the England team did really good things before that 2005 win.

 

[wpdavid]

Brilliant series win in South Africa does not get as much praise as it should either, the England team did really good things before that 2005 win.

True. SA were transitional, but it's never easy winning over there. From memory, only Aus have done so since their readmission.

Even the 3-0 win in WI is under-rated imo, as they didn't usually lose that heavily at home. As we discovered in 2009.

 

[GIMH]

I think there's a lot of sense been talked here but I can't agree that it's remotely close between Anderson and Hoggard. Hoggard was useful and at times excellent. Anderson is our best seamer of the past 20-25 years for me.

 

[Pothas]

Yeah could not agree more.

 

[Furball]

Well its strange when discussing England 2013 to focus on their performances from 2009-2011 all under a different captain while ignoring their relatively lackluster 2012-2013.

Yeah, winning in India and giving Australia the biggest beating they've had in England for a long time is pretty crap, eh?

The 2005 side did **** all in the couple of years after beating Australia. If we consider the 2011 win over India as this team's equivalent then the last 2 years have been far superior.

 

[subshakerz]

Strange when discussing England 2013 then that you will focus on stuff from the previous year under a different captain. Can't have it both ways subshakerz.

Under Cook England are yet to lose a series and in 14 matches since he took over last year they have lost only 1 match. Crap record that.

Still had that crap series against NZ under his belt. Ashes 2005 never did that badly against a poor team.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah, winning in India and giving Australia the biggest beating they've had in England for a long time is pretty crap, eh?

The 2005 side did **** all in the couple of years after beating Australia. If we consider the 2011 win over India as this team's equivalent then the last 2 years have been far superior.

We are comparing England 2005 to England 2013, not England 2007 with England 2011. Based on that, England 2005 had a hot streak which culminated in them beating an all-time great team. This English 2013 side has had a mixed run of form lately, and is clearly not capable of that achievement of beating all-timers, as they were beaten decisively by South Africa at home last year.

 

[watson]

Yeah, winning in India and giving Australia the biggest beating they've had in England for a long time is pretty crap, eh?

The 2005 side did **** all in the couple of years after beating Australia. If we consider the 2011 win over India as this team's equivalent then the last 2 years have been far superior.

There's some truth in that, although ****-all is probably a bit of an overstatement.

ENG were obviously very hung-over when they toured Pakistan at the end of 2005 ;


LOST V PAK 2005/06 0-2
DRAW V IND 2005/06 1-1
DRAW V SL 2006 1-1
WON V PAK 2006 3-0
LOST V AUS 2006/07 0-5
WON V WI 2007 3-0
LOST V IND 2007 0-1
LOST V SL 2007/08 0-1
WON V NZ 2007/08 2-1
WON V NZ 2008 2-0
LOST V RSA 2008 1-2
LOST V IND 2008/09 0-1
LOST V WI 2008/09 0-1

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/team/series_results.html?class=1;id=1;type=team

 

[Stapel]

The 2013 side underperformed (not all of them of course, but on the whole, they did imho), yet they beat Aus 3-0. The 2005 side really excelled to beat the world's undisputed #1 side in a spectactular series. The excelling 2005 side would beat the underperforming 2013 side, I guess. If both team would perform at par, the 2013 side would probably be the better one.

 

[subshakerz]

The 2013 side underperformed (not all of them of course, but on the whole, they did imho), yet they beat Aus 3-0. The 2005 side really excelled to beat the world's undisputed #1 side in a spectactular series. The excelling 2005 side would beat the underperforming 2013 side, I guess. If both team would perform at par, the 2013 side would probably be the better one.

Or maybe the Australia 2013 was just really, really bad to not capitalise on a underperforming England team. Did England also underperform in NZ? Or is it a case of every time this English team doesnt do well they are underperforming?

 

[centurymaker]

I think PEWS is right. Rather than them under-performing, it is probably a case of them being somewhat overrated due to factors he talked about.

 

[Stapel]

Apart from England being overrated or not, it is fair to say Cook, Trott, Prior and to an extend Pietersen did not bat at their expected level!

 

[Furball]

Because Australia bowled really, really well.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

05

1. Trescothick
2. Strauss
3. Vaughan
4. Bell
5. KP
6. Flintoff
7. Jones
8. Giles
9. Hoggard
10. Jones
11. Harmison


13

1. Cook
2. Root
3. Trott
4. KP
5. Bell
6. <insert preferred>
7. Prior
8. Bresnan
9. Broad
10. Swann
11. Anderson

My combined would be

1. Trescothick
2. Cook
3. Vaughan (c)
4. KP (obviously, but probably from 05)
5. Bell (today)
6. Flintoff
7. Prior
8. Broad
9. Swann
10. Hoggy
11. Anderson

Tempted by Simon Jones, but his sample is just too small. He was amazing in 05 though.