What would Englands best XI be from 1997-2007?

Yes, dear . . .

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 . .

We'll need Vaughan at #1 and not captain then.

Well, I agree that the time period in question doesn't really suit Atherton. Take it back to 1993 and he's a shoo-in.

I also don't see how Jack Russell can even be seriously considered seeing that he played his last test in 1998.

That being the case, I'd opt for...

1. Marcus TRESCOTHICK
2. Michael VAUGHAN (c)
3. Nasser HUSSAIN
4. Kevin Pietersen
5. Graham THORPE
6. Alec STEWART (w/k)
7. Andrew FLINTOFF
8. Simon JONES
9. Darren GOUGH
10. Matthew HOGGARD
11. Monty PANESAR

Trescothick is not only a better batsman than Strauss, but he also scores at a quicker rate. Getting off to a quick start is important.

Hussain doesn't have a great record, but he's a fighter. England needs someone like that.

Simon Jones has only played 18 tests, but he's certainly performed when given the chance.

Hoggard, Caddick or Harmison? I think Hoggard's the most consistent of those three. With Gough and Jones already in the team you want someone who's steady.

Cheers.

7 of the 11 (if you count SiJo and Thicko) are current players...surely that can't be right.

Invader Zim wrote:7 of the 11 (if you count SiJo and Thicko) are current players...surely that can't be right.

Considering back in 1999 we were bottom of the test table and for the last 4 years we've been hovering around the 2-4 mark then I'd say it makes sense. The stand out players of the last 'era' were just that, with sprinklings of sh!thouse in between(Ramps, Crawley, McGrath et al).

6 of those 7 played in 2005 and only 2 of them totally sucked in 2006/7 so it does stand to reason that they have a big representation.

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

And that team would probably be...

1. Justin LANGER
2. Matthew HAYDEN
3. Ricky PONTING
4. Mark WAUGH
5. Steve WAUGH (c)
6. Damien MARTYN
7. Adam GILCHRIST (w/k)
8. Shane WARNE
9. Jason GILLESPIE
10. Damien FLEMING
11. Glenn McGRATH

The only possible change I could see would be brining in Slater to open, pushing Langer down to three and Ponting to six.

You could also make a case for Stuart MacGill playing ahead of Damien Fleming in matches at the SCG.

Cheers.

[goes to bed grumbling]

Hussey must be getting close to warranting a spot at 4 in that team.

Hass wrote:

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

And that team would probably be...

1. Justin LANGER
2. Matthew HAYDEN
3. Ricky PONTING
4. Mark WAUGH
5. Steve WAUGH (c)
6. Damien MARTYN
7. Adam GILCHRIST (w/k)
8. Shane WARNE
9. Jason GILLESPIE
10. Damien FLEMING
11. Glenn McGRATH

The only possible change I could see would be brining in Slater to open, pushing Langer down to three and Ponting to six.

You could also make a case for Stuart MacGill playing ahead of Damien Fleming in matches at the SCG.

Cheers.

Not Michael Edward Killeen? Not sure. MEW was aesthetically pleasing but has he the substance of 'the Huss'?

If Hussey's still going strong at this stage next year and we have a 1998-2008 team being picked then of course he'd make it.

But Hussey's barely been on the scene for two minutes.

I made an exception for KP in the English side because they didn't have any depth.

Hussey could well become an all-time great, but let's not jump the gate.

Obviously assuming peak fitness etc-

Trescothick
Stewart
Vaughan(c)
Pietersen
Thorpe
Flintoff
Russell+
Gough
S.Jones
Hoggard
Panesar

Who knows how good a bat Stewart could have been if he hadn't had to take the gloves so often. Look how much Sanga has benefited now that he isn't 'keeping for Sri Lanka. I think Stewie could have averaged at least 45. I saw highlights recently of the 1994 tour to the Windies and Stewie getting his 2 hundreds at Barbados. Awesome stuff.

Henry wrote:Obviously assuming peak fitness etc-

Trescothick
Stewart
Vaughan(c)
Pietersen
Thorpe
Flintoff
Russell+
Gough
S.Jones
Hoggard
Panesar

Who knows how good a bat Stewart could have been if he hadn't had to take the gloves so often. Look how much Sanga has benefited now that he isn't 'keeping for Sri Lanka. I think Stewie could have averaged at least 45. I saw highlights recently of the 1994 tour to the Windies and Stewie getting his 2 hundreds at Barbados. Awesome stuff.

Still top heavy in the bowling department.

When picking my team, i'm assuming that Flintoff is in his 2003-2005 batting form.

Henry wrote:When picking my team, i'm assuming that Flintoff is in his 2003-2005 batting form.

You don't need 4 frontline seamers. And Flintoff, even then, was not a no 6.

He averaged around 45 between 2003 and the end of 2005. For a while, he WAS a Test match number 6 and England fans were loving the fact that he allowed us to play 5 frontline bowlers.

Henry wrote:He averaged around 45 between 2003 and the end of 2005. For a while, he WAS a Test match number 6 and England fans were loving the fact that he allowed us to play 5 frontline bowlers.

Selective stats. And the rest of the time he has scored FA.

taipan wrote:
Selective stats. And the rest of the time he has scored FA.

Schmiddle-dee-schmee sniff. Selective stats. From 2003-2006 at the number 6 position: 30 matches, average 38.5. If we were talking the 1998-2001 Flintoff then Craig White would be in the team as the all-rounder. Get a clue.

Just as a frame of reference, below is a list of England players by average for the period 1997-2007 (qualification 1000 runs/50 wickets)
1. KP 2993 @51.60
2. Thorpe 4480 @47.66
3. Vaughan 5331 @44.06
4. Cook 1805@ 44.02
5. Collingwood 2152@ 43.92
6. Trescothick 5825@ 43.80
7. Bell 2261@ 43.48
8. Strauss 3223@ 40.80
9. Stewart 4282@ 37.61
10. Hussain 4921@ 37.00
11. Crawley 1126@ 35.19
12. Butcher 4288@ 34.58
13. Atherton 3067@ 34.08
14. Ramprakash 1817@ 33.65
15. Flintoff 3331@ 32.66
16. G.Jones 1172@ 23.92
17. Giles 1421@ 20.90

Bowlers
1. Fraser 58@ 22.88
2. Gough 179@ 27.79
3. Headley 60@ 27.85
4. S.Jones 59@ 28.24
5. Caddick 205@ 28.30
6. Hoggard 246@ 29.84
7. Cork 64@ 30.58
8. Harmison 207@ 30.71
9. Panesar 81@ 31.98
10. Flintoff 190@ 32.64
11. White 50@ 36.90
12. Anderson 62@ 39.03
13. Giles 143@ 40.60

Points to come from that. If Jones can be picked for 59 wickets then both Fraser and Headley must be under consideration. On the batting side of things, of the 8 batsmen to average 40 + in the period 7 are still active now and only Thorpe played any number of games before 2000. Athertons average of 34 probably precludes his selection for the side. And Stewart is really the only keeping option (Russell played only 9 innings scoring 90 runs@ 11, during the period) Unless of course G Jones is given the gloves................................no? Ok then

Thorpe was a legend. Shame he couldn't play a few more years.

doremi wrote:Thorpe was a legend. Shame he couldn't play a few more years.

Sadly he was not a part of Vaughan's (and thus Fletcher) bright new future for Englaish cricket, as he
belonged to the old Nasser Hussain brigade.

Merlin wrote:

doremi wrote:Thorpe was a legend. Shame he couldn't play a few more years.

Sadly he was not a part of Vaughan's (and thus Fletcher) bright new future for Englaish cricket, as he
belonged to the old Nasser Hussain brigade.

His back being farked may also be significant.

Basil wrote:

Merlin wrote:

doremi wrote:Thorpe was a legend. Shame he couldn't play a few more years.

Sadly he was not a part of Vaughan's (and thus Fletcher) bright new future for Englaish cricket, as he
belonged to the old Nasser Hussain brigade.

His back being farked may also be significant.

True - but he did return stronger and gave his committment to England when his marriage was dissolved -
was allowed to play his 100th test, then told to fark off!
And we inherited Bell .... 'nuff said!

Merlin wrote:

doremi wrote:Thorpe was a legend. Shame he couldn't play a few more years.

Sadly he was not a part of Vaughan's (and thus Fletcher) bright new future for Englaish cricket, as he
belonged to the old Nasser Hussain brigade.

That's not really true.

Thorpe had chronic back problems, announced at the start of the 2005 summer that he wouldn't be available for selection for the winter tours as he was taking up a coaching position in Australia - which was as good as announcing his retirement - and so England moved on and picked Kevin Pietersen for the Ashes. Worked out all right.

Even if they had wanted to pick him for the Ashes series, he wouldn't have been fit. And then he retired.

Hard to consider a guy part of the "bright new future" when he doesn't play any more.

Dello wrote:

Merlin wrote:

doremi wrote:Thorpe was a legend. Shame he couldn't play a few more years.

Sadly he was not a part of Vaughan's (and thus Fletcher) bright new future for Englaish cricket, as he
belonged to the old Nasser Hussain brigade.

That's not really true.

Thorpe had chronic back problems, announced at the start of the 2005 summer that he wouldn't be available for selection for the winter tours as he was taking up a coaching position in Australia - which was as good as announcing his retirement - and so England moved on and picked Kevin Pietersen for the Ashes. Worked out all right.

Even if they had wanted to pick him for the Ashes series, he wouldn't have been fit. And then he retired.

Hard to consider a guy part of the "bright new future" when he doesn't play any more.

Still think Thorpe was harshly treated, Englands best all condition all situation batsman for many a decade and hadnt done enough wrong in previous series to be dropped. His relatively average tour of South Africa is often given a s a reason, yet only trescothick and strauss in the form of his life finished above him in the averages. At the time he was left out of the first ashes test squad he was "fit". He scored a fifty in a C&G trophy match the day after the squad was announced and played a championship match for Surrey during the first test. The fact that he was taking up a coaching role that winter should not in itself have been enough to see him left out of the squad, indeed he had not wanted it to be announced during the summer, but it was about to become common knowledge in Australia and he deemed it better that the team managment find out from him rather than the media. As to his back problem in general, yes it was almost certainly going to curtail his career (as did Athertons) so it can hardly have come as a surpris eto the selectors that a 35 year old was making plans for the winter after Englands biggest series in years, when England would very probably have been looking to the future and the next ashes a series Thorpe certainly could not have made given the state of his back.