Best Ashes Teams

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Not supported by the facts, I'm afraid. Especially in 1998, Ramps came in several times on the back of at least decent starts by the openers or was supported by the middle-order. Only in a couple of knocks was he the lone blocker propping up a losing team.

Have a look for yourself;

1st Test: Australia v England at Brisbane, Nov 20-24, 1998 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Chasing 480-odd, England were doing well enough to at least get close to the Aussie score on the back of decent knocks by Butcher and Hussain. I dictinctly remember them being well-placed at stumps on day 3 with Thorpe going well but Ramps bogged-down. Remember Ramps continuing on in that vein the next day and Thorpe getting out playing a wild pull shot because no runs were coming from the other end.

2nd Test: Australia v England at Perth, Nov 28-30, 1998 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Distinctly remember, after the England fightback after a disastrous first dig, Ramps and Hick putting on a decent partnership. Then, again, Ramps got bogged-down and Hick had to hit out (notably his two successive 6's off Dizzy towars the end of day 2). Next day, Hick got out trying to score because, again, Ramps just wasn't scoring anything. England needed runs and Ramps sat on his handle.

3rd Test: Australia v England at Adelaide, Dec 11-15, 1998 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Second dig in Adelaide. I know England weren't really in with a show of winning this Test but they couldn't just draw it either. So why not have a go? Instead, Ramps just hung around leaving all the scoring to someone else. Thankfully Fleming put him out of his misery with a massive in-swinging yorker.

A couple of positive examples;

4th Test: Australia v England at Melbourne, Dec 26-29, 1998 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Here, Ramps batted really well. Taking his chance on a really tough deck and was the only guy to look good against MacGill from what I remember. Stewart was playing a lone hand, needed support and got it from Ramps. Got a beauty from Nicholson in the second dig.

5th Test: England v Australia at The Oval, Aug 23-27, 2001 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Obviously his best Test against the Aussies.

Sorry Corey, but that's absolute bollocks. Thorpe plays a **** shot and it's Ramprakash's fault for not scoring quickly enough chasing 480 in a game they couldn't possibly win? Hick throws his wicket away and it's excusable because Ramps was playing too defensively after conceding a 120 run first-innings deficit? What the hell are you talking about?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Not supported by the facts, I'm afraid. Especially in 1998, Ramps came in several times on the back of at least decent starts by the openers or was supported by the middle-order. Only in a couple of knocks was he the lone blocker propping up a losing team.

Have a look for yourself;

1st Test: Australia v England at Brisbane, Nov 20-24, 1998 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Chasing 480-odd, England were doing well enough to at least get close to the Aussie score on the back of decent knocks by Butcher and Hussain. I dictinctly remember them being well-placed at stumps on day 3 with Thorpe going well but Ramps bogged-down. Remember Ramps continuing on in that vein the next day and Thorpe getting out playing a wild pull shot because no runs were coming from the other end.

2nd Test: Australia v England at Perth, Nov 28-30, 1998 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Distinctly remember, after the England fightback after a disastrous first dig, Ramps and Hick putting on a decent partnership. Then, again, Ramps got bogged-down and Hick had to hit out (notably his two successive 6's off Dizzy towars the end of day 2). Next day, Hick got out trying to score because, again, Ramps just wasn't scoring anything. England needed runs and Ramps sat on his handle.

3rd Test: Australia v England at Adelaide, Dec 11-15, 1998 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Second dig in Adelaide. I know England weren't really in with a show of winning this Test but they couldn't just draw it either. So why not have a go? Instead, Ramps just hung around leaving all the scoring to someone else. Thankfully Fleming put him out of his misery with a massive in-swinging yorker.

You still haven't answered my question - apart from Hussain, Stewart, Thorpe and Pietersen (after his time) who was doing better against Australia in the time in question?

Anyway I'll also say I disagree completely about the game at The WACA in 1998/99. For me, Ramprakash recognised that Hick was smacking it beautifully and played the perfect "foil" innings. Hick got out because he was always a chance to do so playing like that, not because he changed his attitude in response to Ramprakash's - it was the right way for Hick to play, but there was a 50\50 chance of it coming-off big and giving England a chance or not quite coming-off enough (the latter happened). I cannot see how anyone can possibly fault Ramprakash for his knock in that second-innings. The tail was then blown away by Gillespie, who avenged his destruction at Hick's hands, and no top-order batsman was ever going to stop that.

Also, I'll tell you beyond doubt that the openers never gave England a good start in 1998/99 - Atherton wasn't fit to do so. Butcher too played well only in the opening Test. It was Hussain who kept England afloat that series.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Trumpers_Ghost

cherry picking the acceptable and ignoring the bad is a wierd way to go about it.

For me the bad series are probably of more value in determination. Probably just reflects a different mindset between us. (interesting how you use a reverse philosphy to grade Hayden though).

Nah, no cherry-picking is involved - I'm not going through and selecting only the deliveries where Atherton hit fours and ignoring all balls that got him out. That'd be cherry-picking; anything else isn't.

I'm simply saying that 1989 and 2001 were completely irrelevant because Atherton was not yet Test-class\past-it and 1998/99 was completely irrelevant because he was quite obviously nowhere near the requistite fitness levels.

If you give any player in history these disadvantages they'll not have a chance either. Chris Broad or whoever. And Atherton and Broad, with all things equal, were not even close. Atherton was better than Broad with his eyes closed.

As for the differences of opinion in terms of opening batting, wicketkeeping and spin bowling, this is probably because these are the areas that Australia has had the biggest advantage over England in the last 20 years.
openers: Aust 4 really well performed options; England none really (except maybe Vaughn)
Wicketkeepers: Aust 2 alltime greats; Eng alot of chopping a changing, nothing outstanding (I don't rate Stewarts Ashes performences that higghly if you didn't notice)
Spinners: Aus 1 alltime great & 1 one well performed backup; Eng nothing of note
In other areas its not so one sided in Aust favour.

Stewart was a better batsman-wicketkeeper than Healy or anyone else Australia have ever had except Gilchrist. Simple as that. Someone who doesn't rate his Ashes performances much is wrong. Anyway, with regards spin, Australia had an advantage over everyone except Sri Lanka because they had a once-in-several-generations talent - on that isn't going to be repeated any time soon. Mostly, spin is redundant in both England and Australia in the absence (majority of the time) of a Warne.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by zaremba

I've seen you say this about Atherton on many occasions in my year or so on this forum, but I've never quite understood it.

In 1989 Athers was very much the coming man. He was a rising star who, although only 21 years old, was regarded by all and sundry as well capable of playing Test cricket, in very much the same way that I think that David Gower was in 1978. His record in various forms of cricket was by that stage already very impressive. Atherton was not out of his depth, and his 47 on debut was an innings of real promise.

So I can't see why you say that he shouldn't have played Test cricket at that time. Can you briefly explain your view on this?

Atherton himself says "I was not ready for Test cricket" ("my opinion and many others'") to sum-up his career at that stage. He was a month or so out of uni. He was indeed a hugely promising player (not, it turned-out, anywhere near as good as some people were apparently expecting - I only realised these expectations existed pretty recently) but there's a difference between promise (which his Cambridge and Lancs performances, and his second-innings debut 47, did indeed hint at) and calibre. Atherton in 1989 had the former but not yet the latter.

In 1989, England used 29 players - but still managed to bat Atherton out-of-position. The most chaotic, and worst, summer in the history of the game around these parts. Under happier circumstances, Atherton would have debuted in 1990, after an A tour, and excelled right from the very start of his career.

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Sorry Corey, but that's absolute bollocks. Thorpe plays a **** shot and it's Ramprakash's fault for not scoring quickly enough chasing 480 in a game they couldn't possibly win?

Rubbish that they couldn't win it. They were absolutely in a position to at least reach the Aussie total before the Ramps slow-down. The pitch had completely flattened out and there was plenty of time in the match.

Of course you can't blame Ramps directly for Thorpe's shot but it was brought about by the pressure of the situation. The day before, Thorpe was cruising. The following morning, despite being well-placed, Ramps put up the shutters leaving all the scoring down to Thorpe and as anyone who watched them knows, the best way to let a bowler like McGrath back into a match is to just block him out. That Thorpe got out trying to take the initiative doesn't excuse a poor shot but it's an understandable reaction to being crowded by an Aussie team who were being allowed back into a winning position by the dick at the other end who is content to just keep them out.

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Hick throws his wicket away and it's excusable because Ramps was playing too defensively after conceding a 120 run first-innings deficit? What the hell are you talking about?

Did you see the match? England were behind on first innings but on that deck (bouncy but no lateral movement) after scoring just over 100 in their first dig, they should have been behind by a hell of a lot more. Tudor bowled them back into the match. Again, had they taken the initiative, I'm guessing they'd have been ahead by a lot more than they eventually ended at. Hick and Ramps were out there for a long time and only one of them was seriously trying to score runs. The match was evenly poised when Hick and Ramps were out there after day 2 and Hick's batting put England slightly ahead. That momentum was killed the next day when, again, Mr Cautious refused to take the attack to the Aussie bowlers and instead let Gillespie, who'd bowled pretty badly to that point, to settle in and run through the tail. Again, you obviously can't hold him directly responsible but you also can't seriously suggest the way one player is batting has no effect on what the guy at the other end does.

It's moments like that which win or lose you Tests and series'. The Aussies made a virtual dynasty out of making sure when the match was still up for grabs, they put their best foot forward. Ramps certainly had the shots but, for reasons only known to him, went back into his shell instead.

A perfect example of someone doing it right against the Aussies is with Flintoff's knock at Edgbaston. England, having been belted at Lords, were in the ascendency on first innings, had the momentum ripped away from them by Lee and McGrath on day 4 and were well down when Flintoff hurt his shoulder as it would have appeared at the time that not only was the last batting hope injured but that he couldn't bowl. So Flintoff chanced his hand and totally took the wind out of the Aussie sails in what was probably no more than half-an-hour's batting. Suddenly both Jones and Harmison were also finding the boundary. Suddenly England were ahead in the game again. He only scored 70-odd but I'd argue the confidence the team got from that carried over the rest of the series. He set the tone, much like Harmison did in Brisbane first ball. Any sportsman in a serious team will tell you just how important moments like that are.

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by Richard

You still haven't answered my question - apart from Hussain, Stewart, Thorpe and Pietersen (after his time) who was doing better against Australia in the time in question?

It's a ridiculous question. That's basically the entire middle-order! That's like saying "Apart from virtually all the other batsmen in the order, who was doing better." or course there aren't going to be many but then, not many others were tried. Crawley was worse of course as was Atherton.

Anyway, this isn't about who had the better record.

Originally Posted by Richard

Anyway I'll also say I disagree completely about the game at The WACA in 1998/99. For me, Ramprakash recognised that Hick was smacking it beautifully and played the perfect "foil" innings. Hick got out because he was always a chance to do so playing like that, not because he changed his attitude in response to Ramprakash's - it was the right way for Hick to play, but there was a 50\50 chance of it coming-off big and giving England a chance or not quite coming-off enough (the latter happened). I cannot see how anyone can possibly fault Ramprakash for his knock in that second-innings. The tail was then blown away by Gillespie, who avenged his destruction at Hick's hands, and no top-order batsman was ever going to stop that.

As I said above, Gillespie was bowling rubbish to that point, he was just coming back from injury and having his action totally rebuilt after all. The batting on day 3 essentially let him bowl back into form and he blew away the tail with a burst of wickets. You just cannot give a quality bowler that sort of chance because they'll take it. No way of knowing this for sure but I'd argue had the England batsmen come hard at him, they'd have hit him out of the attack. A 'foil' also has to score runs, if nothing else just turning over the strike. That way, you score with little risk and don't allow the bowlers to settle. Just blocking, that's for if you're playing for a draw as far as I'm concerned.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by Richard

Atherton himself says "I was not ready for Test cricket" ("my opinion and many others'") to sum-up his career at that stage. He was a month or so out of uni. He was indeed a hugely promising player (not, it turned-out, anywhere near as good as some people were apparently expecting - I only realised these expectations existed pretty recently) but there's a difference between promise (which his Cambridge and Lancs performances, and his second-innings debut 47, did indeed hint at) and calibre. Atherton in 1989 had the former but not yet the latter.

In 1989, England used 29 players - but still managed to bat Atherton out-of-position. The most chaotic, and worst, summer in the history of the game around these parts. Under happier circumstances, Atherton would have debuted in 1990, after an A tour, and excelled right from the very start of his career.

Thanks for that, I hadn't heard that Atherton quote before.

Why do you say he was played out of position? He was not an opening batsman at this stage of his career. He had never opened in FC cricket in either 1988 or 1989 (although he had played a few matches as opener in 1987, mainly in University cricket). For Lancashire he batted at 3 with Mendis and Fowler opening, and he had also been batting at 3 for Cambridge.

In any case, number 3 shouldn't be much of a problem for an opener, surely? Particularly since IIRC he got to bat in the opening few minutes of the innings anyhow.

As for 1989 being the most chaotic in our history, the only one that I can think of which runs it close, and maybe even exceeds it, is 1988, in which we managed to get through almost as many players and 4 times as many captains.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Rubbish that they couldn't win it. They were absolutely in a position to at least reach the Aussie total before the Ramps slow-down. The pitch had completely flattened out and there was plenty of time in the match.

Of course you can't blame Ramps directly for Thorpe's shot but it was brought about by the pressure of the situation. The day before, Thorpe was cruising. The following morning, despite being well-placed, Ramps put up the shutters leaving all the scoring down to Thorpe and as anyone who watched them knows, the best way to let a bowler like McGrath back into a match is to just block him out. That Thorpe got out trying to take the initiative doesn't excuse a poor shot but it's an understandable reaction to being crowded by an Aussie team who were being allowed back into a winning position by the dick at the other end who is content to just keep them out.



Did you see the match? England were behind on first innings but on that deck (bouncy but no lateral movement) after scoring just over 100 in their first dig, they should have been behind by a hell of a lot more. Tudor bowled them back into the match. Again, had they taken the initiative, I'm guessing they'd have been ahead by a lot more than they eventually ended at. Hick and Ramps were out there for a long time and only one of them was seriously trying to score runs. The match was evenly poised when Hick and Ramps were out there after day 2 and Hick's batting put England slightly ahead. That momentum was killed the next day when, again, Mr Cautious refused to take the attack to the Aussie bowlers and instead let Gillespie, who'd bowled pretty badly to that point, to settle in and run through the tail. Again, you obviously can't hold him directly responsible but you also can't seriously suggest the way one player is batting has no effect on what the guy at the other end does.

It's moments like that which win or lose you Tests and series'. The Aussies made a virtual dynasty out of making sure when the match was still up for grabs, they put their best foot forward. Ramps certainly had the shots but, for reasons only known to him, went back into his shell instead.

A perfect example of someone doing it right against the Aussies is with Flintoff's knock at Edgbaston. England, having been belted at Lords, were in the ascendency on first innings, had the momentum ripped away from them by Lee and McGrath on day 4 and were well down when Flintoff hurt his shoulder as it would have appeared at the time that not only was the last batting hope injured but that he couldn't bowl. So Flintoff chanced his hand and totally took the wind out of the Aussie sails in what was probably no more than half-an-hour's batting. Suddenly both Jones and Harmison were also finding the boundary. Suddenly England were ahead in the game again. He only scored 70-odd but I'd argue the confidence the team got from that carried over the rest of the series. He set the tone, much like Harmison did in Brisbane first ball. Any sportsman in a serious team will tell you just how important moments like that are.

I don't doubt the importance of such moments but you're horrendously overrating aggressive batting. Ramprakash played the way that maximises his run-scoring ability. More runs win test matches, not quicker runs. There's no reason why, had Hick and Thorpe not thrown their wickets away, Ramps couldn't have went on batting and won England the match like Rahul Dravid did here with a scoring rate just as slow. I'd be more inclined to agree if you were to say that Ramps failed to accelerate adequately with the tail, which is what Flintoff did to great effect at Edgebaston. Criticising him for scoring slowly is a little bit unfair given those situations- but pinning the blame for Thorpe and Hick getting themselves out is utterly ridiculous.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by zaremba

Why do you say he was played out of position? He was not an opening batsman at this stage of his career. He had never opened in FC cricket in either 1988 or 1989 (although he had played a few matches as opener in 1987, mainly in University cricket). For Lancashire he batted at 3 with Mendis and Fowler opening, and he had also been batting at 3 for Cambridge.

In any case, number 3 shouldn't be much of a problem for an opener, surely? Particularly since IIRC he got to bat in the opening few minutes of the innings anyhow.

You know, I never knew Atherton only became an opener in 1990. No, three shouldn't be that much of a problem for an opener, but if Atherton had been an opener I'm rather surprised room couldn't be found for him given the merry-go-round in 1989.

Either way, thanks for the fill-in.

As for 1989 being the most chaotic in our history, the only one that I can think of which runs it close, and maybe even exceeds it, is 1988, in which we managed to get through almost as many players and 4 times as many captains.

Well yeah, 28 in 1988 (inc. 4-and-a-half captains) and 29 in 1989 - those two combined (following-on from 1986 and 1987 which were also wretched) kinda blend perfectly into the two most wretched years in English cricket history, but I tend to regard 1989 as just slightly worse because it had been preceded by 1988!

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

It's a ridiculous question. That's basically the entire middle-order!

Exactly. Basically the entire middle-order - but not absolutely the entire middle-order. There's one place left. I'm saying Ramprakash is the best man for that place. You're saying he's not. So tell me - who is?

That's like saying "Apart from virtually all the other batsmen in the order, who was doing better." or course there aren't going to be many but then, not many others were tried. Crawley was worse of course as was Atherton.

Anyway, this isn't about who had the better record.

Not many others were tried for good reason - there was no-one else who had a prayer in hell.

As I said above, Gillespie was bowling rubbish to that point, he was just coming back from injury and having his action totally rebuilt after all. The batting on day 3 essentially let him bowl back into form and he blew away the tail with a burst of wickets. You just cannot give a quality bowler that sort of chance because they'll take it. No way of knowing this for sure but I'd argue had the England batsmen come hard at him, they'd have hit him out of the attack.

I see it differently. The bowler controls the game. Gillespie bowled rubbish at Hick on the second evening, allowing Hick to play like that, and he then bowled far, far better on the third morning - it's not like he was bowling the same crap and Ramprakash was just letting him get away with it. Gillespie had tightened-up, so he couldn't be whacked around as he had been the previous day, and he got his rewards when he blew through the tail. Hick had to keep playing in the same manner because it was England's only chance, but if Gillespie bowled well it was not going to work. And Gillespie did, because he was indeed a quality bowler.

A 'foil' also has to score runs, if nothing else just turning over the strike. That way, you score with little risk and don't allow the bowlers to settle. Just blocking, that's for if you're playing for a draw as far as I'm concerned.

Ramprakash did score runs - it's not like he finished on 24* off 140 balls. Way I remember it Hick was cracking it all over everywhere and Ramprakash was nurdling it nicely (to what extent it's possible to do that on a bouncy, short-boundaried WACA - which is not all that much).

And the myth that nurdling it takes no risk is just that - a myth. Otherwise no bowler would ever be able to bowl dot-balls. Opening and closing the face and looking to manufacture into a gap a ball that is not bowled to go there is asking for almost as much trouble as trying to cut one that's too straight, pull one that's too full, drive one that's too wide, hit to leg one that's not close enough to your pads, etc.

[simmy]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

My time (basically 97-07):

Strauss
Vaughan*
Hussain
Pietersen
Thorpe
Stewart+
Flintoff
Gough
Hoggard
S Jones
Tuffnell

Picking Tuffers on the basis of the Oval 97. Haven't given the team much thought, probably some glaring ommissions. Chose Strauss over Tresco on the basis that Tresco has never tonned up against the Aussies, even though he might have actually scored more runs than Strauss in the series where Strauss did well, will have to look that up

Australia much harder for me, never really paid attention to their players when I was younger so anything I choose would be based on the last 3 series, think I'll give it a miss

I am sorry.... you seemed to have picked Hussain over Trescothick?!

[Richard]

Hussain did so much better than Trescothick against Australia it's untrue.

(And in fact against everyone else as well.)

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by Richard

You know, I never knew Atherton only became an opener in 1990.

So, given your attitude towards non-openers being turned into openers, eg Justin Langer, does that affect your regard for Atherton?

[Burgey]

God, England were **** in this period being discussed now. Thinking about it turns a mediocre day into a good one .

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by simmy

I am sorry.... you seemed to have picked Hussain over Trescothick?!

Tresco never tonned up against them, whilst he was a key man in 05 I felt Vaughan & Strauss deserved the opening spots more, Nasser at 3 was a must