As it’s approaching my third wedding anniversary my thoughts have turned to English cricket once more. It’s not that I got married at Lords (although believe me I tried), neither did I marry Beth Morgan (the England women’s cricketer), the reason is that our wedding breakfast table plan was based around a classic cricketing concept – one I’m sure we’ve all considered from time to time.
As we had eleven tables, I picked what I considered to be the best eleven England cricketers since I’ve been watching cricket – which was sometime in the late 1980s. The idea was that each table would bear the name of a particular player.
For example, as the 2005 Ashes was still fresh in my memory, I decided that the top table, which I called the captain’s table, would be named after Michael Vaughan.
The team I chose was as follows: Gooch, Vaughan (capt), Gower, Thorpe, Pietersen, Stewart (wkt), Botham, Flintoff, Gough, Fraser, Panesar.
In my considered opinion, these were the best cricketers that England had produced in the last two decades. The only caveat was that they were all picked on their merits at their peak – before injuries or advancing years diminished their effectiveness.
For example, when I selected Angus Fraser I had in mind the lean young seamer who was such as class act before he injured his hip, lost his nip, and became a mere workhorse.
Similarly, Vaughan got the nod over Trescothick because I will always remember his imperious ‘Year in the Sun’, when he scored hundred after hundred at the top of the order and creamed Warne and McGrath to all corners of the Adelaide Oval, MCG and SCG.
I should also mention that at the time of selection, Monty was bowling sides out for fun, and Graeme Swann was opening the batting for Notts and getting more runs than wickets. Panesar’s only real rival was Phil Tuffnell. I decided that ‘The Cat’ was slightly more of a liability in the field.
However, I’m digressing somewhat. Instead of justifying selections that might now look a little daft, what I really want to discuss is whether I’d change my team three years on … and what changes you, our faithful readers, might make.
After careful consideration, I honestly don’t think I’d make many. Graeme Swann would obviously come into the side, but other than that has anyone really staked a claim for inclusion? It seems strange that England have won the Ashes twice since 2005, yet I still prefer many of the guys that played during some of our darkest hours. Remember losing at home to New Zealand?
The only possible change I’d make to the batting line-up is dropping Kevin Pietersen – who has lost his golden touch and often looks a forlorn figure these days. KP has failed to change his technique now that bowlers have worked him out a bit and he still plays everything (even bouncers) off the front foot. Sometimes I doubt whether he will ever return to his best.
Is there a case, perhaps, for someone like Jonathan Trott to take his place? Or perhaps a forgotten hero from a bygone era? Now that Warne and Muralitharan have retired, maybe Robin Smith should be an automatic pick?
The other alternative would be to move Vaughan into the middle-order to accommodate Andrew Strauss or, dare I say it after slagging him off for years, Alastair Cook? And what about Trescothick? I suppose it depends whether this is a touring team or not.
Of course, the question these dilemmas raise is whether England have actually improved in the last few years. Yes, we’ve finally secured the Holy Grail of English Cricket – that elusive series victory down under – but we’re still rubbish at ODIs, and nobody can tell me that the current Test team is better than the 2005 version.
Although I’d happily trade a hundred Ashley Giles for a single Graeme Swann, a pace attack of Flintoff, Jones, Hoggard and Harmison is streets ahead of Anderson, Broad and Bresnan. And is our batting line-up any better these days? I’d argue not – although Matt Prior is surely an upgrade on poor old Geraint Jones
If you agree with me, the obvious conclusion is this: England haven’t got any better over the last few years, but the rest of the world has got much, much worse. Am I right, or am I as wrong as KP’s vintage 2005 skunk hair-do? We’d love to hear your views.
James Morgan
MHA here. Without taking anything away from our current side, there are few great bowlers around at the moment, and no genuinely intimidating test nation. Life is generally easier now than in the 1990s, a decade in which England players were unflattered by their statistics. At his peak, Atherton would have got in any side in the world, but because his own team were constantly under such pressure, his record looks very modest nowadays.
People forget what a quality player Atherton was at his peak. He carried the team as captain, scored hundreds against the likes of Ambrose and Walsh, and was generally as tough as old boots. It’s just a shame that he kept playing with a crippling back problem for so long. He lost mobility at the crease, and became cannon fodder for guys like McGrath. It’s a shame that people remember his dismissals more than his triumphs. I think he was a better player than both Strauss and Cook, but maybe not Vaughan.
In comparison, the 2005 team looks more talent but I believe the current team is a more complete unit and has the potential to compete in a range of conditions. Ignoring Colly, most of the existing group of 15 odd players could easily still be around for the next couple of Ashes series.
Goose old friend, please elaborate. When you say ‘compete in all conditions’ do you mean the bowling attack i.e. Swann makes a huge difference & enables us to compete in Asian conditions? On reflection I think the batting looks a bit stronger now, as Bell/Prior are better batsmen at 6/7 than Flintoff and G.Jones, but the seam bowling attack of 2005 was a lot better. Faster, more variation, ability to reverse swing the ball at high pace, plus …. there were 5 of them, not four! But maybe that’s another can of worms. What we really need is Alec Stewart & Botham/Flintoff to ‘do a Cocoon’ an re-emerge as talented 24 year olds. The thing I like most about my ‘Greatest XI’ is the presence of 5 bowlers PLUS a very strong batting lineup. It’s a very balanced side.
Not just Swann. From this winter, players like Bresnan showed their ability to bowl with discipline and stamina on flat wickets in hot conditions. Broad and Anderson have demonstrated their skills in test cricket across a range of conditions. In comparison, by 2005 Hoggard was being used as a new ball bowler in English conditions, Harmison struggled overseas and Jones played little cricket overseas. Therefore, I think the current is a more rounded attack to play home and away whereas the 2005 team did well in English conditions only. Also, I would argue that there a greater strength in depth in the current squad where as the 2005 vintage fell apart with a few injuries.
I would argue that the failure of the 2005 attack to take wickets abroad was down to injuries (with the exception of Harmison’s homesickness). Hoggard proved his ability to take wickets away from home with a 7-for (or was it a 6-for) against Australia down under in the 5-0 whitewash. Simon Jones would have been suited to Asian conditions because of his ability to reverse swing the ball, and Flintoff was the best bowler we’ve had since Gough in all conditions. It’s possible to argue the case either way, but I’d suggest that the 2005 attack was better based on our results against South Africa away from home. In 2004/05 we beat them quite convincingly away, but in 2009/10 we only just scraped a draw (we were outplayed in 3 of 4 tests).
Also, look at the comparative results in the West Indies. When Broad/Anderson led the attack in Flower’s first series we ended up losing. When we had Harmy, Hoggy, Fred & Jones in 2003 we totally destroyed them. Food for thought maybe?