What would Englands best XI be from 1997-2007?

I think they just looked at the bigger picture - at most they were only going to get five more Tests out of Thorpe, yet they had two bright young bats in Pietersen and Bell banging down the door for selection.

They weighed it up, made an unsentimental decision (a rarity for England) and it just about worked out. Could Thorpe have chipped in a few more runs than Bell during the Ashes series? Probably.

But I think if he had played it would've been at the expense of the then uncapped Pietersen, as Bell was the man in possession. And, as we know, Pietersen topped the batting averages in the series.

So, like I say, on balance, it was fair enough.

Dello wrote:I think they just looked at the bigger picture - at most they were only going to get five more Tests out of Thorpe, yet they had two bright young bats in Pietersen and Bell banging down the door for selection.

They weighed it up, made an unsentimental decision (a rarity for England) and it just about worked out. Could Thorpe have chipped in a few more runs than Bell during the Ashes series? Probably.

But I think if he had played it would've been at the expense of the then uncapped Pietersen, as Bell was the man in possession. And, as we know, Pietersen topped the batting averages in the series.

So, like I say, on balance, it was fair enough.

Not disputing that it worked out in the end. England won the ashes after all, but the selectors couldnt possably have known that at the time of picking the squad. And it is surely a dangerous situation looking to the future during a series against the best side in the world, Bell may well have been a bright young talent but his selection for the ashes didnt really work out indeed if England had lost that series he would very likly have become the media scapegoat and have struggled to maintain his place in the side. In the minds of the selectors you may well be right ove rthe Thorpe versus Pietersen issue, thats certainly how the media saw it but just about everyone else in the country didnt consider it to be like that, and how Bell with 1 cap against the West Indies and 2 against Bangladesh can be considered the man in possession when Thorpe had 100 caps and 12 years of success over just about ever team he faced is beyond me.

Well, Bell's average was about 270 after his three Tests. How were they going to drop him to accomodate Thorpe and Pietersen?

I think England's decision to pick Bell ahead of Thorpe in 2005 was a major mistake.

It was a big enough mistake to cost them the Ashes. Luckily for England it didn't, but that was more good luck than good management.

I can understand blooding the new guy in a run of the mill series. But in a major series like that you need to pick your best team regardless of age. Bell was a passenger keeping out a classy veteran.

But Bell did take ten catches.

Leading up to the 2005 series, it was always being seen as Pietersen v Thorpe, and the other option- Bell v Thorpe, was never really considered by anyone.

Sure, Bell averaged over 200 in Test cricket, but that was against the woeful Bangladesh. Not even up to 2nd division county cricket standards. Thorpe's back was giving him grief, but he'd just had a cortisone, and had made runs for Surrey in the days before selection for that first Test. He probably should have been picked. But.....Who the hell cares. We won the Ashes anyway, and Bell was brilliant at short leg throughout the series(Why doesn't he still field there?)

Alastair Cook
Michael Vaughan
Nasser Hussain*
Kevin Pietersen
Greham Thorpe
Andrew Flintoff
Alec Stewart+
Craig White
Darren Gough
Matthew Hoggard
Monty Panesar

12th Man: Paul Collingwood

I would have preferred to have selected Stewart rather than Cook as a specialist opener - but then who do you have as keeper? Jack Russell barely played and was gone as a batsman by 1997, and however fine a keeper Read is I don't think you can put him in an all-time team.

I have tried to balance the team as much as possible - a left hand / right hand opening partnership. Cook is selected as he is more likely to score hundreds than Trescothick, Strauss and Atherton (who was a much better player 1992-97). Vaughan averages 62 as an opener before he became captain. Nasser Hussain is the best bad wicket batsman and was a combative captain. Thorpe and Pietersen have clearly been England's two finest batsmen of the period.

So then you've got Flintoff at 6 (more likely to score hundreds here than Stewart) who tended to more specialise in flashy cameo knocks when he was keeping also. Stewart does also average 63 batting at number 7 (although he only batted here very occasionally) and Craig White at number 8 to allow a five bowler policy and to strengthen the tail.

The bowling obviously needs to have Gough who was England's finest bowler for this period and Panesar has been England's only serious spinner. With Flintoff to bowl aggressively in short spells rather than as the stock bowler he was for the early part of his career and Craig White as the reverse swing option for those tricky overs when the ball isn't doing as much for the quick bowlers (don't be fooled by the high average he often bowled at the hardest times for a fast bowler, he was also geuinely quick between 1997-2000, although England in their wisdom often overlooked him for inferior players at the time). Simon Jones would be the other option for this role but I think White's batting and the fact Jones was so injury prone counts against him. So one more bowler needs to be picked, to share the new ball with Gough, I think Caddick and Harmison are far too erratic, Caddick mentally and Harmison physically so it boils down to Fraser or Hoggard. Fraser really has just 2 fantasic series in WI 97 & vs SA in 98 in this time period so you've got to take Hoggard for his endurance and durability.

The only quibble I have with that side that there is no place for Trescothick. I think he's a nailed down certainty (in place of Cook)

Its a close call either way. Cook has a better average and a much better centuries to innings ratio. Its been mainly tough matches for him since he's come into the side as well - plenty of games against the best two teams (Aus & India) and the best *ahem* bowler, Murali. Also I feel an England side would be up against it for other teams 97-07 line-ups so I like to have a fair proportion of grafters in there - him, Hussain and Thorpe.

Trescothick would be a much better fielder than Cook (and my team is lacking a first slip) and would be more of an aggressive option. He scored heavily but tended to not convert enough fifties into hundreds (a common English failing) and his lack of hundreds against Aus is another worry. Saying that in this time period there can't have been many better innings than his two match winning tons against SA (219 at the Oval and especially his 180 at Joburg) and his 193 in a losing cause at Multan.

Would the 1997-07 team beat a 1987-97 side?

Gooch*
Atherton
Stewart
Gower
Robin Smith
Lamb
Russell+
De Freitas
Gough
Fraser
Tufnell

Having just tried to pick an 87-97 team i'd have to say YES! The batting is arguably stronger for this side but just look at the bowling attack! I've not missed anyone out have I? I mean there's Devon Malcolm, an old Greame Dilley or a young Dominic Cork. Hardly inspiring is it!? Of the four bowlers Daffy and Tuffers never acheived anything like what was hoped of them, a young Darren Gough, who would probably be at his best a couple of years later and even Gus had his best series in 1998!

How about 77 - 87 then?

Gooch
Boycott
Gower
Gatting
Lamb
Smith
Botham
Taylor
Edmonds
Dilley
Willis

That side might give 97 - 07 a run for its money.

England's bext XI from 97-07 would still be no match for even an Aus third XI from the same period.