-
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.
Best England side of this century
- Thread starter Sunil1z
- Start date
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
You either accept the result or you don't.
It definitely reflect on Strauss' side. The entire lineup wasn't settled against spin in the series, not just Ajmal, even Rahman took 19 wickets in the series and outbowled Ajmal in the 2nd and 3rd test.
In fact, Ajmal never had a series like that against any other opposition at UAE.
Last edited:
The pace bowling attack from 2004-06 were genuinely scary. Harmison, Flintoff, Jones backed up by Hoggard frightened a lot of batsmen from that era with their pace, bounce, awkwardness and heavy ball bowling. They weren't without skill either.
I'll give them the edge over the other 2 teams unless it's a spin friendly track. 2010-12 with Swann and Monty give that team the edge
I'll give them the edge over the other 2 teams unless it's a spin friendly track. 2010-12 with Swann and Monty give that team the edge
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Totally agree. Problem here is posters are just reading off the team sheet and assume 2010 England have the better attack.
The Vaughn side's pace attack simply clicked so well at once and had variety. Their only handicap was not having a spinner of Swanns level.
That feeling when your fourth seamer is better than Lillee.
Adders
Cricketer Of The Year
2 names set the Strauss side apart from Vaughan's.......Prior and Swann.
They were both orders of magnitude better than their predecessor's. Argue all you like over the quicks or batting line ups from the 2 sides but having a world class spinner and keeper/bat is a massive plus in favour of team Strauss.
They were both orders of magnitude better than their predecessor's. Argue all you like over the quicks or batting line ups from the 2 sides but having a world class spinner and keeper/bat is a massive plus in favour of team Strauss.
Chubb
International Regular
I think you'll find Trescothick has a very low First Chance Average and was lucky, nothing more #Richard
Spark
Global Moderator
Other sides being also good at batting against shotput does not have bearing on whether England's batting was good at cricket.
And Flintoff does the same for Vaughans side. He averaged 40 with the bat and 28 with the ball under Vaughans captaincy and frightened the bejesus out of an ATG batting line up. No one is Strauss's side comes close to that. Bresnan the allrounder and Broad the enforcer are certainly not cutting it.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
The 2010 pace attack is being overrated. Didnt have much outside that glorious 2010 Ashes when it all came together. Anderson was excellent but the others were hit and miss.
nightprowler10
Global Moderator
I voted for 2004-06, with absolutely no agenda in mind at all.
Yeah, Broad had some truly magical bowling spells back then, but a good number of times he was very average. That's partly the teams fault for trying to make him an "enforcer" and also his for often bowling too short.
Bresnan was average and just in the right place at the right time. Tremlett was excellent for a few games, but didn't play enough to count.
That team won a lot thanks to scorecard pressure not bowling excellence.
Adders
Cricketer Of The Year
Each to their own but I strongly disagree......as much as I love big Fred and what he did in 2005 is the stuff of legend I'm not buying that at all.
I think this case of pace infatuation tbh......your not rating the latter attack because their not all bowling 90 mph.
The step down from Swann to Giles and Prior to Geraint ****ing Jones is massive. And when you've got a bloke called James Anderson in the Strauss side there is no way you can claim in gulf in quality in favour of the earlier team. It's rubbish.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
I think that Strauss team would have been beaten quite handedly by the Ashes 2005 side at home. As has been pointed out, they weren't the mentally strongest unit and I think this is the key distinguishing factor between the two teams that are roughly comparable in terms of overall teamsheet quality.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Man for man, the Pakistan team of the mid-late nineties is way ahead of the team of the mid-late 80s. Yet I think the latter team would bring in better results as they close enough in quality, were better captained and mentally stronger.
How did the almost identical England team from 2010-12 minus Strauss do against extreme pace in Australia in 2013? It basically ended careers.
Pace in the 2004-06 team was just an xfactor. They had plenty of skill too especially when it came to the old ball and reverse swing. Hoggard was also plenty good enough with the new ball to keep a young Anderson out of the side. It was a very balanced pace attack .
2004/06 vs 2010/12 comes down to a strong pace attack vs a strong batting line up that was exposed by extreme pace. Only one winner there IMO
Last edited:
Molehill
Cricketer Of The Year
They didn't need an all rounder. Swann was so much better than Giles that he could hold up an end in any conditions and you only needed 3 seamers to rotate around him. It was more like a classis Aussie side with Warne or Lyon. Plus the fact he batted at 10 and was a better bat than Giles too.
In that period you had Broad 27, Swann 22, Bresnan 26 batting averages. It was like having 3 mini all rounders below 7 frontline batsmen. As a batting line up it pisses all over 2005 and as Adders says, Swann and Prior are just so far improved from their 2005 contemporaries it doesn't bare comparison.
Combined team of the three eras.....
Trescothick (04-06)
Cook (10-12)
Trott (10-12)
Root (22-24)
Pietersen (04-06)
Flintoff (04-06)
Stokes (22-24) (c)
Prior (10-12)
Swann (10-12)
Anderson (22-24)
Broad (22-24)
My feeling is that Anderson/Broad were better bowlers later into their careers rather than earlier but please prove me wrong (I suspect both peaked somewhere in the middle of those eras). Prior at eight is a nice luxury if Stokes/Flintoff both bowl.
Trescothick (04-06)
Cook (10-12)
Trott (10-12)
Root (22-24)
Pietersen (04-06)
Flintoff (04-06)
Stokes (22-24) (c)
Prior (10-12)
Swann (10-12)
Anderson (22-24)
Broad (22-24)
My feeling is that Anderson/Broad were better bowlers later into their careers rather than earlier but please prove me wrong (I suspect both peaked somewhere in the middle of those eras). Prior at eight is a nice luxury if Stokes/Flintoff both bowl.
Molehill
Cricketer Of The Year
A couple of things worth considering on that team. KP averaged slightly more during the 10-12 era than 05-06 (a reminder his debut was the Ashes), but it doesn't make much difference. But he wasn't involved in the Test success before that series.
The other player to consider is Bell who averaged 65 in the 10-12 period (12 more than KP).