What would Englands best XI be from 1997-2007?

taipan wrote:Looking at these England teams, I think most of the other major test nations, best teams for this period, would be stronger than England.

For instance SA would look something like this:

Kirsten
Smith
Kallis
Cullinan
Gibbs
MacMillan
Boucher
Pollock
Klusener
Symcox
Donald

Rhodes

5 quickies, centurions up to 10 and the world's greatest ever fielder as 12th man. I would back this team against any English team of the era. At least 6 if not more would walk into the England team.

Six? I'd say Donald, Pollock and Kallis are the only shoe-ins.

It's interesting to me that SA were never dominant over England in that period - I'd say it was about fifty-fifty in tests.

Rob I wrote:Six? I'd say Donald, Pollock and Kallis are the only shoe-ins.

It's interesting to me that SA were never dominant over England in that period - I'd say it was about fifty-fifty in tests.

Kirsten was better than any English opener of the period. Boucher would pick himself as Stewart was more of a stand in keeper than a specialist.Cullinan's record is better than most of the English middle order of the time. Even Smith stacks up against Tresco and Strauss.

Remember we are looking at an era, not a specific series.

The other point is that not many of the English players would be certainties for the SA team. Definitely none of the bowlers mentioned.

India - 97-07

Sehwag
Sidhu (do we have anyone else?)
Dravid
Sachin
Laxman
Ganguly
Dhoni
Kumble
Srinath
Zaheer
Sreesanth/Prasad/Munaf or Bhajji in spin friendly conditions.

And I can see only Kirsten, Pollock, Donald and Kallis who would go into both sides.

However KP, Thorpe, Monty and Vaughan would probably get into the SA side. Maybe Stewart and Gough (Klusener?) as well.

Righto.

Trescothick
Vaughan
Hussain(c)
KP
Thorpe
Stewart(+)
Flintoff
Caddick
Gough
Hoggard
Panesar

Trescothick is the best opener we've had since Gooch, it's all well and good mentioning Australia, but there're other teams we played.
Vaughan was out of this world on occasion and as a free-and-easy opener was a revelation.
Hussain, gritty and better than people rate him IMO. As JKL mentioned, he's possibly the most unlucky batsmen in terms of poor decisions that I've seen in a while. Tough captain, although a little defensive - he had to be with the team he inherited.
KP - World Class.
Thorpe, incredibly even record against nigh on all the teams, home and away. IMO, the best batsmen we've had in a while.
Stewart. Who really wants to give him the gloves? Not many, I'd bet. But the old who else question comes in. One of the best players of pace I've seen, was quite inept against quality spin, which would be a problem in the middle order but hey ho.
Flintoff, regardless of what people say, he was a solid number 6. I just prefer him as a carefree, marauding batsman at 7.
Caddick, can't be underestimated. If jug-ears didn't have to toe the line, he'd have been fresher for his bursts and not carted when tired.
Gough, best bowler we've had since Willis and Botham. Quite special, shame his body couldn't match his heart. 30+ Ashes catches dropped tells some of the story, the fact he didn't reach 300 Test wickets is criminal.
Hoggard, Mr. Reliable and consistant throughout the world overall. His best matches have been abroad, with 4 7-fers.
Panesar, Best spinner we've had since Underwood.

Don't think the tail is that bad, personally. Flintoff at 7 with Caddick and Gough at least has some that know how to hold a bat. Good mix of stroke-makers and grit. Not a bad side.

taipan wrote:

Rob I wrote:Six? I'd say Donald, Pollock and Kallis are the only shoe-ins.

Kirsten was better than any English opener of the period. Boucher would pick himself as Stewart was more of a stand in keeper than a specialist.Cullinan's record is better than most of the English middle order of the time. Even Smith stacks up against Tresco and Strauss.

Remember we are looking at an era, not a specific series.

Come to think of it, I would take Kirsten over Atherton.

Stewart developed into much more than a stand-in - from '95 onwards I'd say he was as good a keeper as Russell, and the equal of anyone in the world other than Healey. Perhaps a better approach would be to play Boucher and retain Stewart as opener (he averaged 46 overall in a time where there were some excellent fast attacks).

I'd take Thorpe over Cullinan due to his better record against Australia.

I'm unconvinced that Smith is better than Tres.

Gough would definitely be my third bowling pick behind Donald and Pollock.

So a joint side might be

Kirsten
Stewart
Kallis
KP
Thorpe
Flintoff
Boucher (w)
Pollock
< insert carp spinner of choice >
Gough
Donald

Kirsten was sheer quality. Top drawer opener. Would've averaged 50+ against these attacks, no worries.

Smith, however, is a sh!thouse, FTBing, tosspot from beyond the stars. He wouldn't even get in my clown XI. He's been averaging 37 after his 1st 20 Tests, which in this era is a joke.

doremi wrote:And I can see only Kirsten, Pollock, Donald and Kallis who would go into both sides.

However KP, Thorpe, Monty and Vaughan would probably get into the SA side. Maybe Stewart and Gough (Klusener?) as well.

Monty doesn't even appear to be a first choice for England judging by forummers comments recently.

Vaughan?

amazed that no one mentioned giles...his stylish batting would strengthen the tail...(where have I heard that before???)

I would choose:

Atherton
Stewart
Vaughan
Thorpe
KP
Flintoff
Russell
Gough
Hoggard
Jones
Monty

I prefer Stewart as specialist batsman and he must open rather than be lost to spin in the middle. There's no denying the tail is uncomfortably long, but I resist the temptation to include Hussein or Trescothick at the expense of Jones or Hoggard, especially when injury was always a risk for more than one of these bowlers.

I support all those who exclude Caddick. He was very good mostly when it was too late and I question his commitment to and ability to be part of the team. Harmison is simply too inconsistent and erratic.

So a joint side might be

Kirsten
Stewart
Kallis
KP
Thorpe
Flintoff
Boucher (w)
Pollock
< insert carp spinner of choice >
Gough
Donald

Looks about right to me. I'd certain open with Stewart. Kallis, KP, Thorpe and Freddie are a good mix - Kallis could crab along while the others score the runs. Pollock is obviously a very strong No 8 batsman as well.

JGK wrote:

So a joint side might be

Kirsten
Stewart
Kallis
KP
Thorpe
Flintoff
Boucher (w)
Pollock
< insert carp spinner of choice >
Gough
Donald

Looks about right to me. I'd certain open with Stewart. Kallis, KP, Thorpe and Freddie are a good mix - Kallis could crab along while the others score the runs. Pollock is obviously a very strong No 8 batsman as well.

Except Flintoff is not really a no 6

Yeah, can't see Flintoof batting ahead of Bouch and Pollock.

So 5 bats then Bouch Pollock Flintoff all averaging 30. Not the most frightening batting line up around.

The question is, do you really need Flintoff in this side?

i'd drop Gough and put Vaughan in at 3.

Would be a better balance. But would like to compare Cullinan's stats against Vaughan's

Cullinan was a bigger FTB.

taipan wrote:Would be a better balance. But would like to compare Cullinan's stats against Vaughan's

This team is booked to play 5 tests against the 1997-2007 Oz fream team that includes Warnie, of course . .

tac wrote:

taipan wrote:Would be a better balance. But would like to compare Cullinan's stats against Vaughan's

This team is booked to play 5 tests against the 1997-2007 Oz fream team that includes Warnie, of course . .

Are we picking horses for courses or the best team?

taipan wrote:

tac wrote:

taipan wrote:Would be a better balance. But would like to compare Cullinan's stats against Vaughan's

This team is booked to play 5 tests against the 1997-2007 Oz fream team that includes Warnie, of course . .

Are we picking horses for courses or the best team?

Doesn't matter . . . i'm just having a poke at Cullinan.

Typical dubber - poking any male who stands still long enough.

Oh, dear . . . taily sinking to zim-like levels.

Means I still have a very long way to go before I get down to your level.