England of 2005 or 2011?

Recently I have watched two of a select handful of the greatest English Ashes triumphs and by this I am referring to the 2005 all conquering heroes and the walloping England gave the Aussies down under in '10/11. There are stark contrasts between the two, firstly 2005 (commonly touted as the best ever) had everything in terms of drama, comebacks, minuscule victories as games were teetering on a knife edge whereas as stated above the margins of victory in the ashes just gone were vast. Both were huge achievements as in 05 Australia had been at the top of the rostrum for the best part of a decade and with stars such as warne, mcgrath, ponting, gilchrist and lee it was an incredible achievement.
The same could be said for '10/11 as England retained the ashes for the first time since 1986 and achieved victory in Aus to boot and the confidence and efficiency in toppling the aussies was very impressive, despite this aussie side being the shadow of the great aussie side of the past decade.
My question to you is whether or not the England of 2011 are better than the 2005 side. Would either side have been able to do what the other did if they swapped roles. Yes England are the top dogs now and back then were ranked 3rd and to be no1 you have to be so consistent and ruthless, but on their day which was better?
Personally i feel Test cricket isn't at its best right now in terms of the Indian's being mauled by a Good, but not great England side, SA are always a threat but like India will suffer when their great experienced players retire and the Aussies arent even near a top side any more. So what are you're thoughts?

Only Kallis and Prince are above 30 in the current South African side. Guys like Steyn, Morkel, AB etc are there for years to come

what about boucher, harris, smith and then in the other forms over 30 there is bosman, van wyk, langweldt, peterson and tahir.
Anyway what about the question in hand about england?

A composite side would look like

Cook
Trescothick
Trott
KP (either version)
Bell (2011 version)
Flintoff
Prior
Swann
Jones
Anderson
Hoggard/Broad/Harmison

so at least 6 players from today's side are certainties, and you could argur for a couple more.

For me though, the 2011 side is better simply because they have no weakness, something you couldn't say about the 2005 side. However, I also believe that the 05 team had more players who on a given day could swing a match around: Flintoff obviously (bat and ball) but also Vaughan (bat and captaincy), KP (still today obviously), Jones and Harmison.

LuvSports! wrote:Recently I have watched two of a select handful of the greatest English Ashes triumphs and by this I am referring to the 2005 all conquering heroes and the walloping England gave the Aussies down under in '10/11. There are stark contrasts between the two, firstly 2005 (commonly touted as the best ever) had everything in terms of drama, comebacks, minuscule victories as games were teetering on a knife edge whereas as stated above the margins of victory in the ashes just gone were vast. Both were huge achievements as in 05 Australia had been at the top of the rostrum for the best part of a decade and with stars such as warne, mcgrath, ponting, gilchrist and lee it was an incredible achievement.
The same could be said for '10/11 as England retained the ashes for the first time since 1986 and achieved victory in Aus to boot and the confidence and efficiency in toppling the aussies was very impressive, despite this aussie side being the shadow of the great aussie side of the past decade.
My question to you is whether or not the England of 2011 are better than the 2005 side. Would either side have been able to do what the other did if they swapped roles. Yes England are the top dogs now and back then were ranked 3rd and to be no1 you have to be so consistent and ruthless, but on their day which was better?
Personally i feel Test cricket isn't at its best right now in terms of the Indian's being mauled by a Good, but not great England side, SA are always a threat but like India will suffer when their great experienced players retire and the Aussies arent even near a top side any more. So what are you're thoughts?

2005
the quality of Eng's opponents was better...by a significant amount
the quality of cricket was much better.

Simon Jones's efforts in that series were of quality I haven't seen thereafter from english bowlers...inpsite of higher statitsical success by many since

agree with anu_d, think the quality of opponents was better then. As good as the current pace attack is Harmison, Hoggard, Jones & Flintoff were phenomenal, spinner obviously 2011 has the edge, batting-wise could only guess. What shades it to me is 2005 standing up to & pushing over possibly the greatest side in history & winning in SA more easily than the 2-1 suggests but we can only speculate & bicker.

Composite

Cook(2011)
Trezza(2005)
Trott(2011)
KP(either)
Bell(2011)
Prior(2011)
Freddie(2005)
Broad(2011)
Swann(2011)
Anderson(2011)
Jones(2005)

7-3 to 2011

As far as KP is concerned,if I had to pick one version then I'd go for the 2011 version.In 2005 he used to get satisfied after scoring fifties and hundreds.Nowadays he seems to going on and scoring big 150+ or double hundreds.

Composite side

Treschotick (2005)
Strauss (C) (2011)
Trott (2011)
KP (2005)
Bell (2011)
Flintoff (2005)
Prior (2011)
Swann (2011)
Hoggard (2005)
Anderson (2011)
Jones (2005)

Shanks' team looks a winner.

i think my side is pretty good as well

cricketfan90 wrote:i think my side is pretty good as well

No Cook?
Hoggard ahead of Broad,Bresnan,Harmison(he was good in 2005)?
From what I remember Hoggy bolwed well in 2005 but didnt get many wkts.But Broad and Bres have been taking wks regularly as well as keeping the runs down and they can bat.

ive gone for an all swing bowling attack, with freddie able to bowl the pace as can jones. obivously a world class spinner in there as well.

cricketfan90 wrote:ive gone for an all swing bowling attack, with freddie able to bowl the pace as can jones. obivously a world class spinner in there as well.

Fair enough but no way can you justify dropping Cook.

Treschothick in 2005 was class one of the best openers around in international cricket

strauss is in there because i needed a captain and couldnt squeeze vaughan in there

It looks as though the composite XI's are favouring the 11 lot, but this isn't the whole story. The 05 team beat one of the best teams of all time and also they won in SA which isn't easy to do. I would probably rank winning the Ashes in Aus against that Australian side only about level with winning in SA in 04/05,

The 11 team will probably have a better legacy in cricket folklore, but I think in a one off Test series the 05 side would win.

cricketfan90 wrote:Treschothick in 2005 was class one of the best openers around in international cricket

strauss is in there because i needed a captain and couldnt squeeze vaughan in there

Better than Cook in 2011?

That Saffa side that England beat were not that great from what I recall. Yes a good team but not as good as they are now.
There were selection issues with the keepers and although Steyn played, he was as raw as they come back then.
Still a fine win but it gets over played, IMO.

1) Tresco (05)
2) Cook (11)
3) Strauss (c) (05)
4) Bell (11)
5) Morgan (11)
6) Flintoff (05)
7) Prior (11)
8) Broad (11)
9) Swann (11)
10) Anderson (11)
11) Jones (05)

morgan didn't actually play in the ashes series

getting a bit desperate to avoid picking KP if you select someone who didn't even make the XI in front of him

If I had to pick KP then I would chose the 05 version, but he was like a lame duck in the field

The 2011 version was/is awful

Trott ot Pietersen must be ahead of Morgan.

yeah only averaging 60 with a high score of 227 was dreadful

I had to get Strauss in otherwise the team doesnt have a captain.

Bell at 4 is an obvious one.

I think JD may have a point, in that in a one-off series the 05 side would have every chance. Good as the current team is, I'm not sure they could beat the 05 Australians (would be a cracking series though). I still feel that at their absolute best, the 05 side was better, but for consistency over a long period I'd go with the current bunch.

gregers KP had an awful year in ODI cricket, but he had an exceptional time in test cricket. If he averages 60 thats an exceptional year

This English batting unit at the moment is receiving a lot of plaudits, and rightfully so, but there is the nagging doubt in my mind that Cook and Trott haven't faced anyone with the class of McGrath, Warne, Lee and then even a Simon Jones or an on form Steve Harmison. Like you say MFC for consistency the cureent bunch get it, but if they were playing a one of series I would back the 05 team 8 times out of 10.

Strauss(c)
Tresco
Cook
KP
Bell
Prior
Flintoff
Swann
Harmison
Jones
Anderson

The only worry for me would be the 3 number 11s at the bottom, although I'm never in favour of picking any bowler on batting ability.

KP has had a fantastic 12 months of Test cricket. You have to be blind or have an irrational hatred for the guy to not see that.

However I prefer the 2005 version - there was something special about him, the arrogance, the flair, the skunk hair cut (!), the flamingo, the way he played against Warne, Lee and McGrath.

The 2011 KP has been very effective, but he's not quite as exciting as the 2005 version.

The 2007-2008 version was even better though, that was when he was at his peak.