Best Ashes Teams

[rivera213]

People forget Ramps averaged 49+ IN Australia and 42 (in the era where 40 meant you were a test class batsman) against them overall.

He was no doubt a test flop overall, but against Australia he did pretty well. He should've turned 3 of the 6 half-centuries into centuries and we'd be looking at an average of 45+ against by far the ebst team of the era.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by Matt79

In terms of players I've actually seen play:
Slater
Taylor
Ponting
Border
Waugh
Hussey/M.Waugh
Gilchrist
Warne
McGrath
Alderman
Reid

Although the idea of McGrath at 9 fills me with dread.

Will need to consider the English one a bit more carefully.

Terrific team. I wouldn't disagree with any component in it. Yes there's a long tail but there's plenty of batting ahead of it, and it's a bowling attack to strike fear in any Pom who's watched Ashes cricket in the last 20-odd years.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by Matt79

English Teams:
Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hammond
Barrington
Pietersen
Botham
Flintoff
Knott+
Laker
Larwood
Barnes

In my time watching the game:
Trescothick
Vaughan
Gower
Pietersen
Thorpe
Stewart+
Flintoff
Botham
Gough
Jones
Fraser

Much harder, given 2005 was the only series England had a really good team since I started taking much notice.

Once again, I like your choices. Yes Hutton's a hard one to leave out: maybe KP would make way for him, but KP does represent a nice counterpoint to Barrington in the middle order.

The players-I've-seen XI is a pretty strong one overall but the lack of a spinner reflects how weak we've been in that department since the days of Derek Underwood.

[Richard]

If we'd chosen to keep our wickets uncovered I'm pretty confident Emburey and Edmunds would've been a spin duo to rank, if not quite with Illingworth and Underwood, then not very far behind.

Croft and Tufnell would probably have been pretty damn good too - maybe even better than E&E.

And I can't help but salivate at what Swann-Panesar could do on uncovered decks.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by rivera213

I'm all for having 3 openers as No.1-3 in a line-up and Hutton would be able to do it I'm sure.

Indeed it's worked very well for both teams on plenty of occasions. Never more so than 1970/71 when England had Boycott and Luckhurst opening with Edrich at three. And in 2006/07 there were six left-handed openers in the originally planned top three\four of each (Trescothick, Strauss, Cook; Langer, Hayden, Hussey - though Langer of course isn't actually an opener). In 1989 (and 1990/91) Australia had Marsh and Taylor, with Boon (who was perfectly capable of opening though even better at three) at three; in 1993 and 1994/95 it was Taylor-Slater-Boon. Australia for a fair while had Lawry opening with Simpson\Stackpole, and Redpath (who was a bit of a Boon himself - could do both roles well but slightly best at three) at three. The list goes on.

I'd have more confidence in Hobbs-Sutcliffe-Hutton than any other one-two-three pairing you could come-up with. Including Woodfull-Ponsford-Bradman which was not merely imaginary-down-the-ages but actual at one time.

[Trumpers_Ghost]

Originally Posted by Richard

Aside from the uselessness of multiple-laugh-smiley-exclusive posts... if there is any sensible response there, what's the reaction to Ramprakash for? He was good in his limited appearances in 1993 and 1997, and excellent in 1998/99 and 2001.

Yes he was superb on days of the full moon when not menstrating.

[Trumpers_Ghost]

I suppose I'll have a go too, rather than chuckling at amusing selections.

Perenially winning Sons of Oz XI

Langer (best record v Eng of the possibles)
Hayden (on par v Eng with Slater and Taylor, overall record & Langer partnership gives nod)
Ponting
Jones (toss up with M.Waugh but think jones was a better bat)
Border
S.Waugh
Gilchrist
Warne
Aldermann
MacGill
McGrath

12th man: Mcdermott (can easily slot in for Macgill, both owned England reasonably equally)
Worried about the rabbit plague in the tail however

Soap Dodgers XI

Gooch
Broad
Vaughn
Gower
Thorpe
Botham
Flintoff
Russell
Gough
Fraser
Tufnell

12th Man: Caddick

While without the depth of the Australians outside the XI, the team looks alright.

In direct comparisons
Top order-------- Aust ++
middle order----Aust ++
fielding -------Aust +
pace bowling----- Eng
spin bowling -----Aust +++
Tail end batting ------Eng
winning mentality------Aust +

cheers

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by rivera213

People forget Ramps averaged 49+ IN Australia and 42 (in the era where 40 meant you were a test class batsman) against them overall.

He was no doubt a test flop overall, but against Australia he did pretty well. He should've turned 3 of the 6 half-centuries into centuries and we'd be looking at an average of 45+ against by far the ebst team of the era.

His numbers are a fairly misleading. Either he scored in dead rubbers where the Aussies were notorious for taking their foot off the gas or in 1998 away and 2001 at home, he basically hung around while the batsmen at the other end got out.

I know it can be said you can only take the chances you're given but to that, you have to then ask yourself why England refused to pick him before the final Test of his first two Ashes series'. From the chatter at the time, the English selectors didn't rate him either. And upon getting picked for full Ashes series' in 1998 and 2001, he, again, hung around. When the team needed a player to take the game by the scruff of the neck, he......hung around putting the pressure on the guys at the other end to actually do the job. They'd get out trying to do it, he'd sit on his bat at the other end in the midst of the inevitable collapse. Not exactly a team player.

You could plot a graph of 'points when momentum shifted to the opposition' against 'Ramps at the crease' and almost see r = 1 for the correlation. This is why he should be nowhere near any Ashes side. Certainly not one that wants to actually win games.

[Richard]

It's not surprising they didn't rate him in 1993 and 1997, given how diabolical his performances were against other sides (averaged about 14 against teams other than Australia from 1991 to 1995/96). However, if you can find me five England middle-order batsmen in the last 20 years who've done better against Australia than Ramprakash did in 1998/99 and 2001 (whatever the means for his success, fact is he succeeded, and I unlike you couldn't care less whether he used positive or negative play to do so) I'll happily replace him with the one that isn't Hussain, Pietersen, Stewart or Thorpe.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Trumpers_Ghost

Yes he was superb on days of the full moon when not menstrating.

Actually he was very good in two full Ashes series'. Simple as that.

No random-pick-outs there as you're rather patronisingly attempting to imply I'm afraid.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Trumpers_Ghost

Soap Dodgers XI

Gooch
Broad
Vaughn
Gower
Thorpe
Botham
Flintoff
Russell
Gough
Fraser
Tufnell

12th Man: Caddick

If I was given to stupid multiple-laugh-exclusive posts I might use one here. Russell ahead of Stewart? However disappointing Stewart may have been on some occasions against Australia, he was better than Russell, no questions asked. And Broad (who bashed one joke of an attack in 1986/87) over Atherton (who scored multiple runs against three successive quality attacks in 1990/91, 1993 and 1994/95) is simply nonsensical.

As for Tufnell based essentially on a single game (maybe two at a push, the other being SCG 1990/91) that's pretty nonsensical too.

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by Richard

It's not surprising they didn't rate him in 1993 and 1997, given how diabolical his performances were against other sides (averaged about 14 against teams other than Australia from 1991 to 1995/96). However, if you can find me five England middle-order batsmen in the last 20 years who've done better against Australia than Ramprakash did in 1998/99 and 2001 (whatever the means for his success, fact is he succeeded, and I unlike you couldn't care less whether he used positive or negative play to do so) I'll happily replace him with the one that isn't Hussain, Pietersen, Stewart or Thorpe.

Depends on whether you're picking a side with the best numbers or one that'll win.

[Trumpers_Ghost]

Originally Posted by Richard

If I was given to stupid multiple-laugh-exclusive posts I might use one here. Russell ahead of Stewart? However disappointing Stewart may have been on some occasions against Australia, he was better than Russell, no questions asked. And Broad (who bashed one joke of an attack in 1986/87) over Atherton (who scored multiple runs against three successive quality attacks in 1990/91, 1993 and 1994/95) is simply nonsensical.

As for Tufnell based essentially on a single game (maybe two at a push, the other being SCG 1990/91) that's pretty nonsensical too.

I thought i'd check the stats to back my opinion on this and was actually surprised that I was right. Russell>>>>>>>Stewart at keeping. In Ashes Russell=Stewart in batting results. If this wasn't based on Ashes, I'd go Stewart. Not Stupid and far more Sensible than Healy>Gilchrist.

Atherton was ordinary, although he did try hard. Broad was a series winner, even if he couldn't back it up.

Tuffnell, well that maybe is nonsensical but who else Giles? Embury? Hemmings? none any better and a fifth paceman would be pointless.

I concede Tufnell, and accuse you of total ignorence in regard to Russell.

cheers

[Trumpers_Ghost]

thought I'd actually check Atherton's stats to see if they agreed with my impresion of Atherton's ordinariness and was quite shocked at just how diabolical they were.
1 century in 33 matches, with an average under 30. Poor

[King Pietersen]

England:

1. Sir Jack Hobbs- 3636 runs at 55.26
2. Herbert Sutcliffe- 2741 runs at 66.85
3. Len Hutton- 2428 runs at 56.46
4. Ken Barrington- 2111 runs at 63.96
5. Kevin Pietersen- 963 runs at 53.50 or David Gower- 3269 runs at 44.78
6. Alec Stewart +- 1810 runs at 30.67
7. Sir Ian Botham- 1673 runs at 29.35 + 148 wickets at 27.65
8. Jim Laker- 79 wickets at 18.27
9. George Lohmann- 77 wickets at 13.01
10. Sydney Barnes- 106 wickets at 21.58
11. Bob Willis- 128 wickets at 26.14

My attempt at an XI. Not entirely sure of the batting order of the tail, but none of them were particularly strong with the bat, so I don't think it should matter too much.

Australia:

1. Bill Ponsford- 1558 runs at 47.21
2. Arthur Morris- 2080 runs at 50.73
3. Sir Don Bradman- 5028 runs at 89.78
4. Allan Border- 3548 runs at 56.31
5. Steve Waugh- 3200 runs at 58.18
6. Keith Miller- 1511 runs at 33.57 + 87 wickets at 22.40
7. Adam Gilchrist- 1083 runs at 45.12
8. Shane Warne- 195 wickets at 23.25
9. Ray Lindwall- 144 wickets at 22.44
10. Dennis Lillee- 167 wickets at 21.00
11. Glenn McGrath- 157 wickets at 20.92