• 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.

England Test XI of the past 10 years

Shaggy Alfresco

State Captain
I was bored just now, so to keep myself occupied I made a best England Test XI of the past 10 years, in the hope it would stimulate a cerebral and entertaining debate. Thoughts?

Atherton
Vaughan
Hussain (c)
Thorpe
Pietersen
Stewart (wk)
Flintoff
Hoggard
Caddick
Gough
Panesar
 

gio

U19 Cricketer
Atherton is an interesting one, average wise, not as good as Trescothick. But his nattling qualitys were very strong. Hussain is also questionable, an excellent captain at the time, but his record was poor in comparison to most of the current English batsman...

It's a very interesting debate though, as you have a very successful England side and an absolutely dire side in the same period...
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Anyone seriously arguing Trescothick > Atherton is mad IMO. Atherton and Gooch are England's only real class openers since Boycott IMO, though Cook obviously should be before long. Shame Gooch doesn't quite qualify for this any more.

Think Shahid has got it roughly spot-on, TBH, would go Stewart a bit higher myself... maybe summat like...

Atherton
Cook
Hussain (c)
Vaughan
Stewart (w)
Pietersen
Thorpe
Flintoff
Caddick
Gough
Hoggard
Substitute MSP in for Caddick on a spin-receptive surface. Maybe bring Bell at seven in for Hussain and move everyone else up one. Thorpe and Pietersen, of course, are crazily low but that's what happens when you pick so many good batsmen. And I'm very much in favour of seven batsmen four bowlers.
 

Shaggy Alfresco

State Captain
It's a very interesting debate though, as you have a very successful England side and an absolutely dire side in the same period...
Personally I feel that England, especially under Hussain, were underrated. I think you can see that from my selections.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Saying England were "absolutely d i r e" 1997-1999" is just wrong IMO. There were many fine cricketers to play in that period.
 
Last edited:

gio

U19 Cricketer
Anyone seriously arguing Trescothick > Atherton is mad IMO. Atherton and Gooch are England's only real class openers since Boycott IMO, though Cook obviously should be before long. Shame Gooch doesn't quite qualify for this any more.
Interesting. I personally would prefer Atherton, but I can certainly see the argument for Trescothick. At the time Atherton would have been preferable due to the bowling attacks around at that time, but the current England side might be better with Tres in it than Atherton.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Nah, see - I reckon Atherton'd average 50-plus had his last Test been his first. And probably at a healthier strike-rate than he managed in his day, too.

That's, of course, given freedom from his back problems. Even with them, though, I still think he'd do better than Trescothick has.

And if he had the amount of luck Trescothick has done - heaven knows what he might manage.

More significantly, I reckon if Trescothick had played at the time Atherton did, with decent bowling and catching, he'd have averaged about 25 and played 10 or 15 Tests at best.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Being the worst test side in the world isn't dire? News to me.
There were any multitude of reasons for that, not all of which concerned the calibre of cricketers available to the best team of the time.

And this is all that's being discussed here. Not output performance, but calibre of individual player.
 

gio

U19 Cricketer
There were any multitude of reasons for that, not all of which concerned the calibre of cricketers available to the best team of the time.

And this is all that's being discussed here. Not output performance, but calibre of individual player.
I made no reference to the calibre of player. I only said it's interesting as your comparing players who were part of varying degrees of sucess in their respective eras.
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I made no reference to the calibre of player. I only said it's interesting as your comparing players who were part of varying degrees of sucess in their respective eras.
Well... I suppose it is. It just says that you can have poor players in successful teams and vice-versa, really.

And, perhaps more significantly, someone can be successful in one era - more successful than someone else in a previous one - with less skill.
 

gio

U19 Cricketer
Well... I suppose it is. It just says that you can have poor players in successful teams and vice-versa, really.

And, perhaps more significantly, someone can be successful in one era - more successful than someone else in a previous one - with less skill.
Absolutely. I think the teams mentioned here would probably be the best available... No place for Tuffers? 8-) His Oval performance in the Ashes '97 enough for consideration? :unsure:
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
MSP > Tufnell IMO.

And certainly less of a destabilising influence. Quite the opposite, in fact.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Anyone seriously arguing Trescothick > Atherton is mad IMO. Atherton and Gooch are England's only real class openers since Boycott IMO, though Cook obviously should be before long. Shame Gooch doesn't quite qualify for this any more.

Think Shahid has got it roughly spot-on, TBH, would go Stewart a bit higher myself... maybe summat like...

Atherton
Cook
Hussain (c)
Vaughan
Stewart (w)
Pietersen
Thorpe
Flintoff
Caddick
Gough
Hoggard
Substitute MSP in for Caddick on a spin-receptive surface. Maybe bring Bell at seven in for Hussain and move everyone else up one. Thorpe and Pietersen, of course, are crazily low but that's what happens when you pick so many good batsmen. And I'm very much in favour of seven batsmen four bowlers.
Would definately have Trescothick over Cook ATM since what Tres has accomplished since 2000 is worth a bit a more than what Cook as done so far. Agree with the everything else although i might alter the batting line-up a bit.
 

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Cook hasn't done enough yet, he is too young to even be considered for any sort of "Best Of" side even though chances are he will be a hypothetically choice for these sides later in his career, but at the moment I don't think he has been tested enough and lasted the distance.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Cook, to me, has done enough right now to show he's a better batsman than Strauss and Trescothick. If I was picking a side right now I'd go for him ahead of both.

There's a bit of presumption on my part to have him in an eclectic side of any sort after just over a year of Test cricket but, well... some players just look a bit special. Cook is one.

I'll seriously eat my computer if he doesn't go down as at least a top-shelf player, barring serious mishap, obviously.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Cook hasn't done enough yet, he is too young to even be considered for any sort of "Best Of" side even though chances are he will be a hypothetically choice for these sides later in his career, but at the moment I don't think he has been tested enough and lasted the distance.
Cook, to me, has done enough right now to show he's a better batsman than Strauss and Trescothick. If I was picking a side right now I'd go for him ahead of both.

There's a bit of presumption on my part to have him in an eclectic side of any sort after just over a year of Test cricket but, well... some players just look a bit special. Cook is one.

I'll seriously eat my computer if he doesn't go down as at least a top-shelf player, barring serious mishap, obviously.
Long term Greigy in the making?

I maintain he looks the goods, but still has to show a real improvement re. his off stump techinique against consistent attacks. If he does, I agree he'll be top shelf. If not, he'll continue to be a every good player vs ok attacks, but slightly limited against good ones imo.
 

Top