Nice article.
As for the question you pose, I think you hit the nail on the head here.
"In 2005 England were an admirable, but very distant second, but on their day who was greater?"
I would back the current England side over the course of a long Test Series, but the 2005 side would produce some fireworks.
I think the question lies with, are the opposing teams as strong as they once were.....I've got my doubts.
But you can only beat what is on offer at any given time and congrat's to England for achieving the No.1 status.
thanks hazsa and rabbitohs much appreciated
Stats point to 2012, but you can't always trust the stats
"I think the question lies with, are the opposing teams as strong as they once were.....I've got my doubts."
I agree. In certain positions England have got much better than their 2005 counterparts, most notably the spinner and wicket keeper. However, Australia have IMHO regressed further than England have improved and therefore I think this current England team would be overcome by the 2005 Australia team.
good point duncan but again on the flipside could the 2005 side emulate what the current squad have done and reached the pinnacle of test cricket if they were around today?
i would have to disagree with you ther duncan.
England's batting is better than it was in 2005, Cook has the potential to be seen as one of the great batsmen of his era. Ian Bell has also matured into an excellent middle order batsman, whereas he was completely out of his depth in 2005. Michael Vaughan did make one lovely century in 2005, but other than that he was, to be frank, a liability with the bat. Added to a tail which rarely wagged, which went up to 7, whereas now only upto 10. And yet England Still, deservedly, won the 2005 ashes.
Yes, the field is not as strong as it was in 2005, but this England outfit is stronger than that of 2005
England's bowling attack is not only stronger now, but has more depth as well. We can pick any 3 from a pool of 6 pace bowlers and there would be no noticeable change in performance.
The only thing we lack is a back up spinner, but Monty seems to have had a good season in CC, and is in the team for the current game v Pak Pres XI, so we'll see how that pans out.
HMM,.....You have said it all in that one comment of...................We can pick any 3 from a pool of 6 pace bowlers and there would be no noticeable change in performance.
Every great team of the past has had at least 2 strike bowlers who stand out above the rest....England have 6 similar class of bowlers, none that great....
....
A bowling unit with interchangeable parts (last time I looked with 5 in the test top 20) that continues to function regardless of which parts you use, or 2 players that are heavily relied upon, who's absence significantly reduces the potency of the attack.
I know which I prefer......
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Apparently you don't need the 'x-factor' to beat Australia and India....
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
maybe put it this way out of the 2005ashes side and the team that secured the ashes in aus combined what team would you select?
1) Trescothick (ability to score quickly)
2) Cook
3) Trott (as Vaughan had a relatively poor ashes with the bat bar headingly)
4) Pietersen (of today)
5) Bell (of today)
6) Flintoff
7) Prior
8) Broad
9) Swann
10) Simon Jones
11) Anderson
I'm sorry, but this all smacks of sour grapes.
'Yes you are No.1, but it was harder when we were number one.'
'We were a better No.1 than you are.'
There were no other 'great' sides around when the Aussies were on top, or they would have had more of a challenge. The Windies were on the slide and the Saffers were too busy filling racial quotas and fixing matches to worry about. India and Pakistan were, as the have always been, Jekyll and Hyde teams and the rest were as they always have been.
India reached No.1 without winning a series against any of the top ranked teams, and were hammered when you came up against a good side - England. They are now getting hammered by an average side.
The Aussies were not exceptional when they first rose to the No.1 spot, they became that way after the winning bred confidence.
and i would take strauss over vaughan as captain justtt
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
no way strauss is a better captain than vaughn. remember the last tour to the windies?
I agree, I think he doesn't quite have the 'wow' factor he did in 2005 but its just the fact that he can now go on beyond the 158 and hit big scores. It was mainly because i put it in the order of the batting lineup back then as now he is a no4 but then was no5 i think hope that clears it up.
u9525, i am talking about the specific ashes that have just gone by for each captain, how they performed in each. Vaughan didn't bat well in ashes 2005 but tactically was magnificent.
Strauss had an alright series with the bat but was overshadowed by cook, trott and KP but again was tactically astute and sound, bar a very slight criticism of his refusal to use a 3rd slip.
Definitely have Strauss in there as captain over Vaughan.
Strauss is known as the Field Marshall within the camp, and his role in building, developing, and leading this team on the field cannot be underestimated.
Vaughan was the perfect captain for 2005; flamboyant, creative, 'outside the box'/ any other cliche. That was a great summer, a once in a lifetime summer where nearly everything came together and clicked.
Overall Vaughan is outclassed by Strauss in almost every department.
I'm sorry, but this all smacks of sour grapes.
'Yes you are No.1, but it was harder when we were number one.'
'We were a better No.1 than you are.'
---------
Maybe, but I will try and make a case that the great Australian side of the early to mid 2000s were in fact better than the current number 1 England side.
There were no other 'great' sides around when the Aussies were on top, or they would have had more of a challenge. The Windies were on the slide and the Saffers were too busy filling racial quotas and fixing matches to worry about. India and Pakistan were, as the have always been, Jekyll and Hyde teams and the rest were as they always have been.
---------
And so the other sides in world cricket currently are not very good either.
India reached No.1 without winning a series against any of the top ranked teams, and were hammered when you came up against a good side - England. They are now getting hammered by an average side.
-------
Agreed, I have frequently stated I did not believe India were a good number 1 side.
The Aussies were not exceptional when they first rose to the No.1 spot, they became that way after the winning bred confidence.
Considering the rankings were introduced in 2003 and Australia were already obviously the best side in the world by some margin I do not know what you mean by this comment.
As for my argument, let's take the Australia side of the 06/07 Ashes as I believe this was the last time Australia could claim to be undoubtedly the best team in the world and compare them man for man against the current England team. Then to be fair I will name my best combined XI from the two teams.
Hayden vs Strauss I take Hayden
Cook vs Langer I take Cook
Ponting vs Trott I take Ponting
Clarke vs Bell I take Bell
Hussey vs KP I take Hussey
Symonds vs Morgan I take Symonds
Gilchrist vs Prior I take Gilchrist
Lee vs Bresnan I take Bresnan
Warne vs Swann I take Warne
Clark vs Broad I take Clark
McGrath vs Anderson I take McGrath
So I've picked 8 Australians from 06/07 and only 3 Englishmen from 2012.
If I had to make a combined team from the two sides it would look like this:
Hayden
Cook
Ponting
Hussey
Bell
KP
Gilchrist
Warne
Anderson
Clark
McGrath
Which boosts the English contingent up to 4 players. I know this is highly subjective but I firmly believe that the Australia team of 06/07 is better than the current England team and I would go as far as to say the Australia team from 2005 is better as well, I even believe it was a better side than the England team of 2005 even though England won the series.
As for what the OP said, I believe this current England side is a better outfit than the 2005 team and they are totally deserving of their number 1 status as they are the best side in world cricket.
Sign in if you want to comment
England 2005 vs 2012
Page 1 of 2
posted on 11/1/12
Nice article.
As for the question you pose, I think you hit the nail on the head here.
"In 2005 England were an admirable, but very distant second, but on their day who was greater?"
I would back the current England side over the course of a long Test Series, but the 2005 side would produce some fireworks.
posted on 11/1/12
I think the question lies with, are the opposing teams as strong as they once were.....I've got my doubts.
But you can only beat what is on offer at any given time and congrat's to England for achieving the No.1 status.
posted on 11/1/12
thanks hazsa and rabbitohs much appreciated
posted on 11/1/12
Stats point to 2012, but you can't always trust the stats
posted on 11/1/12
"I think the question lies with, are the opposing teams as strong as they once were.....I've got my doubts."
I agree. In certain positions England have got much better than their 2005 counterparts, most notably the spinner and wicket keeper. However, Australia have IMHO regressed further than England have improved and therefore I think this current England team would be overcome by the 2005 Australia team.
posted on 11/1/12
good point duncan but again on the flipside could the 2005 side emulate what the current squad have done and reached the pinnacle of test cricket if they were around today?
posted on 11/1/12
i would have to disagree with you ther duncan.
England's batting is better than it was in 2005, Cook has the potential to be seen as one of the great batsmen of his era. Ian Bell has also matured into an excellent middle order batsman, whereas he was completely out of his depth in 2005. Michael Vaughan did make one lovely century in 2005, but other than that he was, to be frank, a liability with the bat. Added to a tail which rarely wagged, which went up to 7, whereas now only upto 10. And yet England Still, deservedly, won the 2005 ashes.
Yes, the field is not as strong as it was in 2005, but this England outfit is stronger than that of 2005
posted on 11/1/12
England's bowling attack is not only stronger now, but has more depth as well. We can pick any 3 from a pool of 6 pace bowlers and there would be no noticeable change in performance.
The only thing we lack is a back up spinner, but Monty seems to have had a good season in CC, and is in the team for the current game v Pak Pres XI, so we'll see how that pans out.
posted on 11/1/12
HMM,.....You have said it all in that one comment of...................We can pick any 3 from a pool of 6 pace bowlers and there would be no noticeable change in performance.
Every great team of the past has had at least 2 strike bowlers who stand out above the rest....England have 6 similar class of bowlers, none that great....
....
posted on 11/1/12
A bowling unit with interchangeable parts (last time I looked with 5 in the test top 20) that continues to function regardless of which parts you use, or 2 players that are heavily relied upon, who's absence significantly reduces the potency of the attack.
I know which I prefer......
posted on 11/1/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/1/12
Apparently you don't need the 'x-factor' to beat Australia and India....
posted on 11/1/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/1/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/1/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/1/12
maybe put it this way out of the 2005ashes side and the team that secured the ashes in aus combined what team would you select?
1) Trescothick (ability to score quickly)
2) Cook
3) Trott (as Vaughan had a relatively poor ashes with the bat bar headingly)
4) Pietersen (of today)
5) Bell (of today)
6) Flintoff
7) Prior
8) Broad
9) Swann
10) Simon Jones
11) Anderson
posted on 11/1/12
I'm sorry, but this all smacks of sour grapes.
'Yes you are No.1, but it was harder when we were number one.'
'We were a better No.1 than you are.'
There were no other 'great' sides around when the Aussies were on top, or they would have had more of a challenge. The Windies were on the slide and the Saffers were too busy filling racial quotas and fixing matches to worry about. India and Pakistan were, as the have always been, Jekyll and Hyde teams and the rest were as they always have been.
India reached No.1 without winning a series against any of the top ranked teams, and were hammered when you came up against a good side - England. They are now getting hammered by an average side.
The Aussies were not exceptional when they first rose to the No.1 spot, they became that way after the winning bred confidence.
posted on 11/1/12
and i would take strauss over vaughan as captain justtt
posted on 11/1/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/1/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/1/12
no way strauss is a better captain than vaughn. remember the last tour to the windies?
posted on 11/1/12
I agree, I think he doesn't quite have the 'wow' factor he did in 2005 but its just the fact that he can now go on beyond the 158 and hit big scores. It was mainly because i put it in the order of the batting lineup back then as now he is a no4 but then was no5 i think hope that clears it up.
posted on 11/1/12
u9525, i am talking about the specific ashes that have just gone by for each captain, how they performed in each. Vaughan didn't bat well in ashes 2005 but tactically was magnificent.
Strauss had an alright series with the bat but was overshadowed by cook, trott and KP but again was tactically astute and sound, bar a very slight criticism of his refusal to use a 3rd slip.
posted on 11/1/12
Definitely have Strauss in there as captain over Vaughan.
Strauss is known as the Field Marshall within the camp, and his role in building, developing, and leading this team on the field cannot be underestimated.
Vaughan was the perfect captain for 2005; flamboyant, creative, 'outside the box'/ any other cliche. That was a great summer, a once in a lifetime summer where nearly everything came together and clicked.
Overall Vaughan is outclassed by Strauss in almost every department.
posted on 11/1/12
I'm sorry, but this all smacks of sour grapes.
'Yes you are No.1, but it was harder when we were number one.'
'We were a better No.1 than you are.'
---------
Maybe, but I will try and make a case that the great Australian side of the early to mid 2000s were in fact better than the current number 1 England side.
There were no other 'great' sides around when the Aussies were on top, or they would have had more of a challenge. The Windies were on the slide and the Saffers were too busy filling racial quotas and fixing matches to worry about. India and Pakistan were, as the have always been, Jekyll and Hyde teams and the rest were as they always have been.
---------
And so the other sides in world cricket currently are not very good either.
India reached No.1 without winning a series against any of the top ranked teams, and were hammered when you came up against a good side - England. They are now getting hammered by an average side.
-------
Agreed, I have frequently stated I did not believe India were a good number 1 side.
The Aussies were not exceptional when they first rose to the No.1 spot, they became that way after the winning bred confidence.
Considering the rankings were introduced in 2003 and Australia were already obviously the best side in the world by some margin I do not know what you mean by this comment.
As for my argument, let's take the Australia side of the 06/07 Ashes as I believe this was the last time Australia could claim to be undoubtedly the best team in the world and compare them man for man against the current England team. Then to be fair I will name my best combined XI from the two teams.
Hayden vs Strauss I take Hayden
Cook vs Langer I take Cook
Ponting vs Trott I take Ponting
Clarke vs Bell I take Bell
Hussey vs KP I take Hussey
Symonds vs Morgan I take Symonds
Gilchrist vs Prior I take Gilchrist
Lee vs Bresnan I take Bresnan
Warne vs Swann I take Warne
Clark vs Broad I take Clark
McGrath vs Anderson I take McGrath
So I've picked 8 Australians from 06/07 and only 3 Englishmen from 2012.
If I had to make a combined team from the two sides it would look like this:
Hayden
Cook
Ponting
Hussey
Bell
KP
Gilchrist
Warne
Anderson
Clark
McGrath
Which boosts the English contingent up to 4 players. I know this is highly subjective but I firmly believe that the Australia team of 06/07 is better than the current England team and I would go as far as to say the Australia team from 2005 is better as well, I even believe it was a better side than the England team of 2005 even though England won the series.
As for what the OP said, I believe this current England side is a better outfit than the 2005 team and they are totally deserving of their number 1 status as they are the best side in world cricket.
Page 1 of 2