Which is the better team - England 2004-05 or England 2009-2010?

[vcs]

Saw this being discussed and thought it merited a separate thread.

 

[Xuhaib]

Current side England 2004-5 was very much reliant on Flintoff the batting was iffy and had a spinner who was a wheely bin the current side is much more balanced not as reliant on individuals and has the best spinner in the world which is a massive advantage imo.

 

[morgieb]

What it seems.....

Strauss (2004-05) = Strauss (now)
Trescothick = Cook
Vaughan > Trott
Pietersen (2005) = Pietersen (now)
Bell (2004-05) << Bell (now)
Flintoff >>>>> Collingwood
G Jones <<<< Prior
Giles <<<<<<<<< Swann
Harmison < Anderson
Hoggard = Broad
S Jones = Tremlett

So the current side's better than the 2005 side, imo.

 

[M0rphin3]

What it seems.....

Strauss (2004-05) = Strauss (now)
Trescothick = Cook
Vaughan > Trott
Pietersen (2005) = Pietersen (now)
Bell (2004-05) << Bell (now)
Flintoff >>>>> Collingwood
G Jones <<<< Prior
Giles <<<<<<<<< Swann
Harmison < Anderson
Hoggard = Broad
S Jones = Tremlett

So the current side's better than the 2005 side, imo.

AWTA, would say Cook marginally >Trescothick though. And Vaughan>Trott, is hard to say as Trott's doing very well consistently.

 

[vic_orthdox]

The thing to remember with England in that time was that Vaughan wasn't that great a player; by the time he'd gotten the captaincy, he was a good batsman, but never reached the heights of earlier (as far as I remember).

 

[Dissector]

Actual results > paper strength

When the current team achieves a series win comarpable to Ashes 2005 we can talk.

 

[NZTailender]

Actual results > paper strength

When the current team achieves a series win comarpable to Ashes 2005 we can talk.

2005: 2-1
2009: 2-1
currently: 2-1

Edit: get what you mean though. 2005 was a tougher hurdle, no doubt about it. However, player and performance-wise I think this England team is better.

 

[morgieb]

Actual results > paper strength

When the current team achieves a series win comarpable to Ashes 2005 we can talk.

Except they've got the same result as Ashes 2005 away from home....

 

[Dissector]

Except they've got the same result as Ashes 2005 away from home....

Against a vastly weaker Australian team.

 

[GIMH]

Dissector's whole argument against this side seems to be the fixture list.

 

[Dissector]

No, it's based on results. This England team had an opportunity to beat a top side but could only manage a drawn series and that too only by the skin of their teeth. The 2005 managed to beat a much better team than SA (2009). And even if you include the 2005 defeat to a good Pakistani side, it wasn't remotely as embrassing as the defeat to the West Indies in 2009.

 

[GIMH]

As I said yesterday, WI away wasn't really the start of this side, it was the Moores squad playing under an interim coach and captain.

Since then, we've won all of our home series, and won and drawn one away, and lead one with one to go.

You say SA away is an easier opponent than Aus 05 at home, but the key point is that we were away. A better argument would be that the 04-05 side won in South Africa and this side didn't, however I feel that it was a much better SA side we faced last winter.

If you want to talk results, remind how we went in Australia last time? 9 of the 05 Ashes twelve played in that series.

 

[biased indian]

As I said yesterday, WI away wasn't really the start of this side, it was the Moores squad playing under an interim coach and captain.

Since then, we've won all of our home series, and won and drawn one away, and lead one with one to go.

You say SA away is an easier opponent than Aus 05 at home, but the key point is that we were away. A better argument would be that the 04-05 side won in South Africa and this side didn't, however I feel that it was a much better SA side we faced last winter.

If you want to talk results, remind how we went in Australia last time? 9 of the 05 Ashes twelve played in that series.

if the same australian team was playing now the result could well have been 1-3 instead of 2-1 now

that is why the victory in 2005 even if at home would be greater than what they achive now away in australia

 

[Dissector]

As I said yesterday, WI away wasn't really the start of this side, it was the Moores squad playing under an interim coach and captain.

I really don't want to get into metaphysical arguments about where "this side" starts and doesn't. The thread title talks about 4/5 versus 9/10 and England was beaten by the West Indies in 2009.

 

[GIMH]

Well it's stupid to bring that into it, but obviously it suits your argument so whatever.

 

[GIMH]

if the same australian team was playing now the result could well have been 1-3 instead of 2-1 now

that is why the victory in 2005 even if at home would be greater than what they achive now away in australia

No, I completely disagree.

Look, the 05 team was great and I think all English cricket fans will remember that summer very fondly.

However, the 05 team didn't kick on. This one has set their stall and is doing it. All the players said in 05 that we wanted to go and become world #1 but they never actually did anything about it after the Ashes.

This side is ranked third and that side was second, that's true. However, whilst Australia back then were a class above any side about now, I'd say this is a much more competitive era in general.

However, I guess people's perceptions might change if this side beats India this summer and then goes on to be #1, so from the POV I can see Dissector's point.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I think there is far more depth in the current set up, if there was 1 injury to any player in 05 we were stuffed. Now we have been able to bring in Tremlett and Bresnan with no downturn in results or performance.

The only things different between the sides are Flintoff who we were perhaps too reliant on in 05 and Vaughan's captaincy was more dynamic than Strauss but the players in the current set up overall are more than a match for their 05 counterparts.

It is always difficult to compare different sides as the teams they play against are so diferent too but i think this side has a very slight edge, not by much but just enough.

 

[fredfertang]

I'd back the current side every time - the current lot are nothing like so dependent on someone making a major contribution or producing a moment of inspiration

 

[Dissector]

I think people are underestimating the potential problems with this batting lineup in testing conditions. Apart from Perth the combination of pitches and bowling Australia has produced hasn't posed much of a challenge. The likes of Cook and Pietersen who looked poor in the recent past have made merry in good batting conditions. How well they do against Zaheer or Steyn/Morkel on a green pitch is open to question.Also someone like Trott is new to international cricket and it often takes a year or two for a new player to be sorted out. Let's see if he can continue to maintain his performances.

I also think people are overestimating Swann a bit. Like I said on the other thread he only averages 36 against top 4 teams. I honestly doubt he will be much of a factor against India. Fast bowling is the only area where England is truly consistent IMO.

Overall I think England fans are overreacting to the Ashes win and this England team won't be quite as impressive as they expect over the next two years. I guess we will have to wait and see.

 

[GIMH]

They are all fair points and it is fair to say they still have plenty to prove. The batting is weaker in testing conditions, but inversely we have bowlers capable of exploiting these conditions to the max, and we have a long batting line-up that can stabilise a collapse from nowhere (Lord's earlier this year, for example).

Plus we're discussing whether they are better than the last successful England side, whom you can make many similar arguments against.