England 2004/05 v England 2010/11

Well?

England got as high as number 2 in the rankings in 2005, and had the likes of Flintoff and Simon Jones at their peaks, combined with the consistent fast starts that Trescothick provided. On the other hand, Giles was the spinner, and he was hardly world class, and the batting lineup was a bit shaky, and there would be at least one 120 all out per series. Also, Duncan Fletcher the Coach was a stubborn old bugger, very much set in his ways, and with a group of favourites he was loath to drop. There was a bit of a bubble culture in and around the team.

The current team has a world class and consistent top six, a consistently threatening pace attack, and a world class spinner. However captain Strauss is not as good as Michael Vaughan in the field.

Which team is better?

Personally, i'd go with the current team. With the 2004/05 lot, there was always a slight lack of ruthlessness, and opposition tails would often add vital runs, and our batsmen would often get out for pretty 60s, but then point to their averages of over 40 as proof of their quality. There was also a couple of players (namely Flintoff and Harmison) who didn't really have the absolute focus and ambition as pretty much everyone in the current side. Probably dragged that side down on a few occasions.

Possibly the present batters, Swann and keeper, 2005 seamers.

Though if Tremlett keeps up the form, and Anderson keeps on the upcurve ...

Oh, and Tres for Kev - doesn't matter if he comes in at 4, still more reliable!

Well you would take Fred 2003-6 & Jones over Broad/Anderson.

For me, a combination team would be something like-

Trescothick
Strauss
Cook
Trott
Vaughan(c)
Prior+
Flintoff
Swann
S.Jones
Hoggard
Anderson

JKLever wrote:Well you would take Fred 2003-6 & Jones over Broad/Anderson.

I'd take 2005 ashes Fred for sure. But other than that, well, he didn't really take that many wickets, did he. Always bowled a heavy ball and kept it tight, but probably bowled half a yard too short, too often. Only took two 5fers in his whole career, didn't he?

But took wickets at about 26 in that period. Deffo half a yard too short though.

Still think Jonah would've turned into a monster at test level. He really had perfected the outswinger by early 2005.

All might have beens....

On Fred - I'm sure he would have been more effective if a. he had got fitter earlier, and b. he had had a more consistent bowling unit around him more of the time. As it was, he was being overbowled, for heroics. Occasionally worked, often had its limits (in terms of toll on the body, apart from anything).

You get the feeling that the current lot wont take their eye off the ball so easily. The 2005 ashes was seen as the pinnacle for that side. A few egos became over-inflated, and a few players took their eye off the ball with all of the sponsorship deals coming their way.

These days, there is much more depth beneath the top side. I'd back our Lions side to give most test teams a decent game.

PeterCS wrote:All might have beens....

On Fred - I'm sure he would have been more effective if a. he had got fitter earlier, and b. he had had a more consistent bowling unit around him more of the time. As it was, he was being overbowled, for heroics. Occasionally worked, often had its limits (in terms of toll on the body, apart from anything).

Might have been more effective if he'd taken the new ball as well. I often felt his skills with the old ball meant they overlooked the potential damage he could cause with the new ball.

Fred: about 130 wickets @ 27 from 03-06. Averaged 40 with the bat, as well.

I'd take the '05 team personally, but they may have been better with Flower as coach.

The batting is equal, IMO. Spinner and keeper better in '11, fast bowlers better in '05.

The 05 team just missed out on having a smart batting line-up, as Thorpe was phased out (averaging about 55 over two years) for Pietersen, when it could and probably should have been Bell.

Also, Vaughan averaged less than 40 as captain, and Pietersen - though going through a leany - is still contributing more than that.

Combined:

Trescothick
Strauss *
Cook
Trott
Pietersen
Flintoff 05
Prior +
Swann
Harmison 05
Jones 05
Anderson 11

Would've been a handful, I reckon.

Trescothick
Strauss * 11
Cook
Trott
Pietersen 05
Flintoff 05
Prior +
Swann
Harmison 05
Jones 05
Anderson 11

Yeah, that's definitely the composite team IMO. 6-5 to the '05, which is about how much I'd shade them.

I'd probably go with Tremlett 11 over Harmison 05. Tremlett is even taller than harmi, doesn't lose all that much in pace, and bowls more consistently with a more repeatable action. In all honesty, Harmi's real purple patch lasted about six months in 2004. In the 2005 Ashes he bowled well in the first innings at Lord's and that was about it.

Harmi had a purple patch, for sure, but either side of it he was bloody good in fits and starts. People only remember the end days.

Tremlett's just starting out. I imagine if India go to town on him later in the summer he won't even tour this winter, so let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Aye Dello, most of the sh!t about Harmison on here is some of the biggest load of bollocks I've ever heard. Absolute rot. But whatever, we've all got our own opinions.

He was average outside of that 2004 golden period. Sure, there was the odd very good spell here and there, but considering all of the inconsistency, the questionable attitude, and the homesickness, was it all worth it for one decent spell every three tests?

The soft, lacking in confidence Tremlett of 2007 gave the Indians all sort of problems. I think the stronger mentally and physically Tremlett will do ok this Summer.

You're counting your chickens too soon.

With Tremlett, you've just got to take it game by game. It's only a matter of time before he goes ping. He'll do well to make it through the series, let alone the summer.

Tremlett's played sweet FA Tests, what, 7? F*cking hell. Trott's a great after 18 Tests, Tremlett's walked into a team, displacing two 200+ veterans after 7 Tests. If this here be that there case, I's don'ts knows crickets.

Period XI

1. Trescothick v Australia 2005
2. Strauss v South Africa 2004/05
3. Cook v Australia 2010/11
4. Trott v Everyone 2009-2011
5. Pietersen v Australia 2005
6. Prior v West Indies 2007
7. Flintoff v Australia 2005
8. Broad v Australia 2009
9. Swann v Pakistan 2010
10. Harmison v West Indies 2003
11. Simon Jones v Australia 2005

Depends which Harmi it is ...Homesick PHS or the bowler who was number one on the rankings thanks to cleaning uo the Windies and a few others

Good Trembler is better than the first ...but nowhere near the second ....yet

DJ_Smerk wrote:Period XI

1. Trescothick v Australia 2005
2. Strauss v South Africa 2004/05
3. Cook v Australia 2010/11
4. Trott v Everyone 2009-2011
5. Pietersen v Australia 2005
6. Prior v West Indies 2009
7. Flintoff v Australia 2005
8. Broad v Australia 2009
9. Swann v Pakistan 2010
10. Harmison v West Indies 2003
11. Simon Jones v Australia 2005

Pigsy or Jimmikins before Lady Di ...IMHO

Henry wrote:He was average outside of that 2004 golden period. Sure, there was the odd very good spell here and there, but considering all of the inconsistency, the questionable attitude, and the homesickness, was it all worth it for one decent spell every three tests?

and yet you chose vaughan? or was he chosen purely for his captaincy?

Mainly for the captaincy, I admit.

Hoggard was more likely to dominate an entire bowling innings and had a touch of mastery to the control of movement he placed on the ball. But Jimmy's a little more crackerjack all in all. He'd probably fit in with the composite bowling side very well. Taking the new ball with probably Jonah, Harmison was most steady at first change around 10 overs, then Flints. Would've been a testing time.