Undoubtedly both were monumental achievements to cherish. Firstly, in 2005 the Australian team had dominated the top of the rostrum for the best part of a decade in a side that contained world class talent in every position, yet England somehow prevailed against the Aussie heavyweights of Warne, Mcgrath, Ponting, Gilchrist and Lee, it was an incredible accomplishment. The same could be said for the most recent Ashes series, as England retained the ashes for the first time since 1986 by overwhelming their Aussie counterparts with a comprehensive 3-1 series win. Furthermore, what was so impressive was the exuberance shown as well as the confidence and efficiency in toppling this Aussie side, despite this team being a shadow of their great predecessors, was very impressive.
The question that comes to the forefront of my mind is whether or not this present English squad are superior to the 2005 version. Would have either side been capable of accomplishing what the other memorably achieved if they'd exchanged roles? England are now at the zenith of the Test rankings, quite an achievement in itself, whereas in 2005 England were an admirable, but very distant second, but on their day who was greater?
On a side-note, Test cricket no longer possesses the brilliance of a 1970's and 80's West Indian team or the all conquering Australians either side of the 21st century. This was extremely evident when India, the number one team in the world, toured these shores and returned home devoid of ambition, leadership and most important of all without a single victory in every format of the game after being mauled by a good, but far from a great England side. South Africa are always a threat and as they recently demonstrated with a colossal bowling performance to oust the Aussies for an abysmal 49, though they themselves were ousted for just 96 though went onto win the test, but like India will greatly suffer when their great experienced players retire in the not so distant future.
I think England 2012 would probably defeat the England of 2005. They're generally more dynamic and the selection of players is greater.
ReplyDeleteThat said, however, the England pace bowling attack is poor today with Stuart and Tim Leading the charge...
There is no doubt that the current crop are more consistent as they were able to get to reach the pinnacle of test cricket however, they wouldn't have been able to overhaul the Aussies in the rankings though may have been able to beat them at home but away is an entirely different matter.
ReplyDeletePersonally I would still include Flintoff and Jones if you combined the two squads but I disagree that we have a poor pace bowling attack. On the contrary i believe it is one of, if not the best, bowling attack in the world. When you have 6 interchangeable fast bowlers who can move in and out seamlessly of the squad that demonstrates great strength in depth. With the likes of Anderson (who leads the attack superbly) who is ably supported by Bresnan's consistency, Tremlett's pace and bounce, Broad's swing and bounce, Finn's wicket taking ability and then the likes of Onions and Plunkett who have performed before and the likes of Shahzad and Dernbach (notorious for his slower balls) have shown potential.
This England team is good and has the potential to dominate but there is a long way to go yet starting with the ultimate tests of South Africa and India away.