Best England side of this century

[subshakerz]

England and SA had a strange relationship for a number of years. SA would always win in England, and the reverse would happen.

It could probably be said that that era was not a strong time for World Cricket -The Aussies were in transition, but even so, the 10/11 Ashes was a real trouncing.

Actually, SA struggled to beat England in England after re-entry until G Smith came along. But the 2012 loss at home is the main reason I can't rate that Strauss side ahead of Vaughn's, who were able to fend off an ATG Aussie side at home.

 

[subshakerz]

Except mentally.

Definitely. The Vaughn side was mentally tougher IMO than Strauss'.

 

[Molehill]

Actually, SA struggled to beat England in England after re-entry until G Smith came along. But the 2012 loss at home is the main reason I can't rate that Strauss side ahead of Vaughn's, who were able to fend off an ATG Aussie side at home.

That 2012 series was a mess for a number of reasons. Wouldn't look too hard into that for comparison.

 

[GIMH]

The Strauss side had all the little pieces that add up to a briefly unfair team too, like most of their bowlers were bowling allrounders with incredible hand-eye, so even if you pushed through a top 6 in the form of their lives you were probably gonna get boshed by Bresnan, Swann and Broad. The bowling depth was great too, with guys like Onions frequently fit but not required.

That was the period even Liam Plunkett flirted with the idea of being a good test bowler.

Plunkett the Test bowler V2 actually came a bit later - circa 2014

 

[subshakerz]

That 2012 series was a mess for a number of reasons. Wouldn't look too hard into that for comparison.

Nah. We heard this same type of hype about that England side in 2011 once they beat India at home, and in 2012 they clearly seemed outmatched.

 

[GIMH]

Interesting to see such a strong consensus on 2010-12 over 05 - swear it's been closer in the past.

I was going to post a composite XI of the three sides but my heart won't let me make the Flintoff/Stokes call either way.

 

[sledger]

I was going to post a composite XI of the three sides but my heart won't let me make the Flintoff/Stokes call either way.

Stokes easily the better, and certainly much more reliable/consistent, batter (apart from Freddie in 04-05 maybe), but Flintoff easily the better (or at least more threatening) bowler for mine. I guess who was "better" overall would depend on what you needed more when picking a team.

 

[GIMH]

Stokes easily the better bat (apart from Freddie in 04-05 maybe), but Flintoff easily the better bowler for mine. I guess who was "better" overall would depend on what you needed more when picking a team.

Yeah, if we are literally just picking on the period then I guess Flintoff as the all-rounder is a no-brainer. But then you don't have Stokes the captain and Stokes the miracle worker

 

[sledger]

Yeah, if we are literally just picking on the period then I guess Flintoff as the all-rounder is a no-brainer. But then you don't have Stokes the captain and Stokes the miracle worker

Freddie I guess was a miracle worker in his own way, for much of his career, tbf. Although to a lesser extent.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Yeah, if we are literally just picking on the period then I guess Flintoff as the all-rounder is a no-brainer. But then you don't have Stokes the captain and Stokes the miracle worker

No reason why you couldn't pick both I think. Eg.

1 Cook
2 Tresco (?)
3 Trott
4 Root
5 KP
6 Stokes*
7 Prior
8 Woakes
9 Flintoff
10 Swann
11 Anderson

 

[sledger]

Yeah Flintoff purely as a bowler would be a good shout. It's how he should have been selected irl from about 2006 onwards tbh.

 

[Kirkut]

2010-2012 arguably the best.

In fact 2010-2012 bowling > 2005 Ashes bowling easily.

 

[Kirkut]

Still remember how sorted that 2011 side was, almost flawless.

 

[morgieb]

What was crazy about 2004/05 was that it looks a pretty middling side on paper. Flintoff wasn't a 6, Geraint Jones was crap, Giles was a non-entity off spinning wickets, none of the seamers were as consistently good as Anderson/Broad and there wasn't a top-class batter either (KP probably the closest but only played one series in that timeframe). But for that period it just somehow all clicked.

In contrast the only real weakness of Strauss's England on paper was the #6 (well, at least after Collingwood).

Tough to call re: the current side, there's definitely holes in the team but a lot of the holes in 2022 have definitely improved since then.

__________________________________________

As impressive as Vaughan's England win against Australia was in 2005 was I really don't think that side would've gotten all that close in Australia. They did beat South Africa away but mid-2000's South Africa really weren't that special. Far from a bad team, but it was a side in transition and a bit of a trough. Strauss's team delivered the biggest away win in Australia since the 80's West Indies, and also are the last team to win a series while touring India. So I think right now it's definitely the Strauss team.

The Stokes team could eclipse them all with good results in India and Australia though. They've certainly asked most questions of them thus far.

 

[subshakerz]

What was crazy about 2004/05 was that it looks a pretty middling side on paper. Flintoff wasn't a 6, Geraint Jones was crap, Giles was a non-entity off spinning wickets, none of the seamers were as consistently good as Anderson/Broad and there wasn't a top-class batter either (KP probably the closest but only played one series in that timeframe). But for that period it just somehow all clicked.

In contrast the only real weakness of Strauss's England on paper was the #6 (well, at least after Collingwood).

Tough to call re: the current side, there's definitely holes in the team but a lot of the holes in 2022 have definitely improved since then.

This is the notable thing. That side worked so well together and had tremendous self belief under pressure.

As impressive as Vaughan's England win against Australia was in 2005 was I really don't think that side would've gotten all that close in Australia. They did beat South Africa away but mid-2000's South Africa really weren't that special. Far from a bad team, but it was a side in transition and a bit of a trough. Strauss's team delivered the biggest away win in Australia since the 80's West Indies, and also are the last team to win a series while touring India. So I think right now it's definitely the Strauss team.

The Stokes team could eclipse them all with good results in India and Australia though. They've certainly asked most questions of them thus far.

Vaughn's team didn't lose except in Pakistan near then end of their streak. Strauss' team was whitewashed in UAE and then overwhelmed at home by SA.

I like to look for the more difficult team to defeat as an indication for who is stronger. Impressive victories are a great indication but high highs are diluted by low lows.

 

[chris.hinton]

When we was the best team in the rankings. 2011 was the ultimate

 

[kevinw]

Still remember how sorted that 2011 side was, almost flawless.

I would like to know what Anderson and Broad were averaging at the 2010-2012 cut off though. I reckon somewhere near the 30 mark each and their bowling averages have both dipped remarkably in the decade since.

 

[ma1978]

It was the mid 2000s

Vaughan, Trescothick deeply underrated, had Thorpe and KP, and the bowling unit was fleeting in its greatness but when it was on song, was ATG.

 

[howitzer]

It was the mid 2000s

Vaughan, Trescothick deeply underrated, had Thorpe and KP, and the bowling unit was fleeting in its greatness but when it was on song, was ATG.

Didn't overlap though. They probably should have for a bit, but didn't.

 

[Daemon]

Technically it would be cheating if it was declared so at the time. Otherwise the results stand or just say that any test Ajmal was ever involved in is null and void, including the prior series England won in 2010, which is absurd logic . And it's not like he was the only spinner England were struggling with that series.

I'm not saying the result is null and void, just that there is a giant asterisk next to it. It needs to be factored in when assessing Strauss' side.