i dont think you can compare this current england team to any great sides. As a team we are good but definately not great. They done amazing to draw away in south africa but the 05 team won in south africa. 05 could be compared with great sides for a brief period of time but it didnt last long. The current team play amazing as a team for their abilities though
-
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.
where would england rank among the great sides of the past?
- Thread starter DingDong
- Start date
subshakerz
International Coach
While I am not an "everything was better in the past" sort of person, I do think cricket standards today are much lower than in the 90s or 80s. For example, the SA of the mid-late 90s, with Pollock, Donald, Kallis, Kirsten, etc, would IMO be the number 1 side today, yet were a distant number 2 of their time. Pakistan and West Indies in the 90s were inconsistent and shambles respectively, but looking at the players they had you would think they would be serious contenders today.
To be considered a great side, you dont need to be unbeatable, but able to win in different conditions outside of home. By that count, India under Dhoni are not a great side, as they haven't won a major series outside of home in SA, Sri Lanka, England, Australia. England can potentially be, we need to see how they perform in the subcontinent. Remember that Vaughn's side was beaten comprehensively in Pakistan following their Ashes triumph.
subshakerz
International Coach
As for Vaughn's side vs. Strauss, I would wait until the end of this series to see where Strauss' team stands. If they beat India, I would rate them ahead of the 2004-2005.
The batting is stronger, with Prior excellent at number 7 and Broad at number 8 giving more batting depth. The bowling slightly tilts towards Vaughn's side, as Flintoff is a fifth bowling option. Swann though is far far ahead of Giles, which makes me think that this side is capable of adapting to different conditions.
If they manage to bungle this series though, my ratings will change.
The batting is stronger, with Prior excellent at number 7 and Broad at number 8 giving more batting depth. The bowling slightly tilts towards Vaughn's side, as Flintoff is a fifth bowling option. Swann though is far far ahead of Giles, which makes me think that this side is capable of adapting to different conditions.
If they manage to bungle this series though, my ratings will change.
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
I think you're right not to include the side from Brearley's era. Not so much because of how they went against WI: 0-1 at home and 0-2 away was no disgrace against that lot. But their results were hugely inflated by other teams' Packer losses, and when they did face full-strength Aus they were whitewashed.This is a very, very good English side. The best I've seen by far - slightly ahead of Vaughan's 2004-05 side - by virtue of having more sustainable players. Not to mention, this batting is significantly better than that team's.
I am more interested in compiling a list of the best post-war English sides. Here goes mine:
1) Hutton's men - mid 50s
2) Strauss' men and Broad - right now!
3) Vaughan's men - mid noughties on par with Illingworth's team of the 1968-1971 era
How would you rate these teams? Is there any very good team I am missing out? Brearley's team has not been included because of their over-reliance on one player and terrible performance against the world's best side.
I'd happily place Hutton's team at number 1.
Illingworth's team were very solid, but it was similar to the Brearley era insofar as they won lots of series against relatively weak opponents and then came unstuck when others got their acts together. And they never faced the best side in the world at the time, of course. Like you, I wouldn't want to try and compare them to Vaughan's side.
Which leaves the question of how do we rate the present side? I'd really prefer to defer judgment for another 14 months or so. Am I right in thinking we host SA in 2012? If so, the result of that series and the current one will give us a much clearer idea.
smash84
The Tiger King
Interesting analysis
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
Largely agree. I've long held the view that the mid-1990's was something of a golden age for test cricket insofar as there were three or four very strong sides in Aus, SA, Pakistan and WI (albeit deteriorating pretty rapidly after Aus removed them from the top spot). Plus you had an increasingly competitive SL side, and England & India had a bunch of decent players who would have won far more matches in a weaker era. Certainly the bowling stocks were much higher then compared to today.
Last edited:
subshakerz
International Coach
Exactly. When I started watching cricket, India with Srinath, Prasad and Kumble were considered to have a merely useful attack, yet now India have a roughly equivalent attack in Zaheer, Ishant, and Harbi and are rated no.1 in the world. England fans often complain how bad the 90s were, yet both Caddick and Gough have significantly better stats than Flintoff, Harmison, Anderson, Hoggard, Broad. Standards have indeed fallen.
Yes, the 90s was cricket's true golden era, pace bowling was at its best, spin legends Warne/Murali/Kumble came to the fore, and there was a clear difference between great batsmen (Waugh, Lara, Tendulkar) and the merely very good. TV coverage was watchable also.
smash84
The Tiger King
great post. Agree with this
Furball
Evil Scotsman
IIRC Gough and Caddick averaged 28-29 and Anderson averages 30. That's not close to being 'significantly better.'
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
umm no
the same batsmen who did ok then, turned into greats in 00's
btw batting probably has gone up but not by much.
Last edited:
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
when good bowlers are in abundance, it's hard to even avg 40+
Jacknife
International Captain
You could also say, that Gough and Caddick played on more bowler friendly pitches compared of players of today.
John Blaze
Banned
Since people are so quick to jump on the fact current cricket favours the bat over the ball, leading to higher batting averages, shouldn't this mean that a bowling average of 30 now is better than an average of 30 in the 90's
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
yeah
bowling avg of 30 now is roughly equivalent to a bowling avg of 27 then.
bowling avg of 30 now is roughly equivalent to a bowling avg of 27 then.
tooextracool
International Coach
Im glad someone said it. It might have been great to watch but the England batting in 2005 was very close to a joke and the Australian bowlers, bar Warne, barely looked like taking 10 let alone 20 wickets.
I dont think its much of a contest. You have to factor in the intangibles, doing player by player comparisons are meaningless. The kind of bench strength that the England team have now is simply far superior to the one back in 2004-05.The fielding is sharper, the coaching is better, the selection is far far far better. Even if we do comparisons, you need to take into account for example that Graeme Swann is far more valuable than any player 2004-2011. The only thing that the 2005 ashes team had going for them was Simon Jones and Flintoff being in a purple patch.
tooextracool
International Coach
Dont think Anderson in his wildest dreams could bowl as well as Jones against Bangladesh and Australia that summer. I'm a big Anderson mark, but sorry, hes not even close.
smash84
The Tiger King
he did bowl well but to suggest that anderson could never hope to bowl that well is a bit much. never had u down as one for the johnny cakes, spark!