Which English Test side was stronger? Michael Vaughan's led side? Or Strauss and Cook's led side?

[Caesar]

I’m just saying that Steyn and Jones were very different kinds of bowlers, and Steyn never relied primarily on swing to take wickets.

Jones was not slow, but he wasn’t Steyn’s pace and relied a lot more on movement through the air to deceive the batsman - something I think he did better than any other pace bowler I’ve seen.

 

[Heisenberg111]

Steyn is a much superior bowler to Jones overall of course, but Jones was a magnificent swing bowler. What he did in 05 Ashes was a stuff of the legends. Shame that his career didn't last long enough.

 

[MisterMarcus]

Strauss/Cook without question.

Everything went wrong for Australia in 2005, and England only managed to eke it out by the barest of possible margins.

They were 1 wicket away from winning 3-1.

And KP's heroics meant they would have made an excellent fist of the final Test if weather hadn't intervened.

 

[Heisenberg111]

They were 1 wicket away from winning 3-1.

And KP's heroics meant they would have made an excellent fist of the final Test if weather hadn't intervened.

Yup, 3-2 to England would have been a fair result for that series.

 

[010203]

For me, it's England's 2009-13 team. That side won 3 Ashes series on the spin including a truly dominant series win here just over a decade ago and won a series in India which is no mean feat.

 

[Ok Boomer]

Probably the 2010/11 side, though I think the 05 side gets marked down too much based on what happened 15 months later where 2/3 of the side fell off a cliff due to injury or form. They were building very nicely before the 2005 ashes and were clearly the number 2 in the world by then after beating South Africa away.

 

[Heisenberg111]

Probably the 2010/11 side, though I think the 05 side gets marked down too much based on what happened 15 months later where 2/3 of the side fell off a cliff due to injury or form. They were building very nicely before the 2005 ashes and were clearly the number 2 in the world by then after beating South Africa away.

Yes by 2006/07, England had lost their inspirational skipper Vaughan, plus Trescothick and Simon Jones. Also Harmison wasn't the same bowler anymore. They were led poorly by Flintoff who was unsuited to captaincy and started drinking heavily.

 

[Santana]

Strauss and Cook's team was better and for longer than Vaughan's team.

 

[The Passenger]

09-13 team had Swann spinning which was a huge improvement on Giles.
03-05 team had Flintoff in all-time peak all round form, whilst the 09-13 team didn't have one.

Harmison-Flintoff-Hoggard-Giles v Anderson-Broad-Swann

The final bowling position both teams struggled to fill consistently for a variety of reasons. Finn, Bresnan, Tremlett and Onions peformed well and covered pretty much every test as the fourth bowling for the 09-13 team. Jones likewise performed well (better than the 09-13 #4 bowlers) but he was only around for half the tests the 03-05 team played and if he was unavailable they never had any cover for that role. Anderson (who wasn't doing anything at test level), Kirtley amongst a handful of others tried to cover that role with minimal success - in hindsight they might have been better to bat deeper and just go with their four main bowlers when Jones wasn't fit.

Moving to the batting.

09-13 much more settled. They had six guys who played the majority of tests in this period - Cook, Strauss, Trott, Bell, Pieterson, Prior. Only Strauss averaged under 40 (38). Bell lead the way with 50.43. The last batsmen was generally taken up by the likes of Root, Collingwood, Morgan, Bairstow who combined averaged in the mid 30's. Pretty solid and settled batting line up.

03-05 the batting was actually in quite a transitional phase. Vaughan, Trescothick and Flintoff were the only top 7 batsmen who played more than 25 (of 39) tests in this period. A lot were either finishing up their career or just starting - despite this they all performed well through this period... Strauss, Butcher, Thorpe, Hussain, Bell and Pietersen all averaged above 40 playing alongside the first three guys mentioned. Interestingly, the skipper Vaughan's 38 was the worst average of any batsmen mentioned here for the 03-05 period. So I don't think you can hold being unsettled against this team if everyone was performing. It just makes it harder to pick the top seven of this era as three of those have to miss out (need to pick Geraint Jones as none of aforementioned players keep). On the keeping topic, Jones was a better keeper than Prior, but Prior's batting is better so that's pretty even.

03-05 major series results: beat South Africa (away) 2-1, Australia (home) 2-1 and drew with South Africa (home) 2-2 amongst some minor series wins. Lost to both Sri Lanka (1-0) and Pakistan (2-0) away. 23 wins, 7 losses, 9 draws in tests. 8 series wins, 1 draw, 2 losses.

09-13 major series results: Beat Australia both home and away (09 and 10/11), South Africa (away) 1-0, India (home) 4-0 whitewash, India again (away) 2-1. Lost to South Africa (home) 2-0, lost to Pakistan (away) 3-0 whitewash, lost to West Indies (away) 1-0, era ended with an infamous loss to Australia (away) 5-0. 30 wins, 16 losses, 19 draws in tests. 12 series wins, 2 draws, 5 losses.

When you look at the results, You have to give it to the 03-05 team. Only two series losses through that time, both in the subcontinent. The 09-13 lost some series they shouldn't have lost and got embarrassed by Australia. If you extend the 03-05 era out to 02-06 (so both incorporating five years) then the results actually come out pretty close to even. I'd still give it to The Vaughan team because the standard of opposition I believe was strong in the mid 2000's, then it was at the start of the next decade, when Australia was weak and India was transitioning from the Tendulkar, Dravid, VVS era to the Pujara, Kohli, Rahan era. It also goes with a lot of what has already been said. The peak of Vaughan's team was stronger, but the Strauss/Cook era last longer.

Honestly, Flintoff was the difference between the two teams. Yeah his career had some troughs but when he was on for those few years, he was just an absolute animal. Thank * he was only on for a few years. If he had a 10 year career like that, the Poms would have won a lot more than they did and it would have been unbearable.

 

[Heisenberg111]

09-13 team had Swann spinning which was a huge improvement on Giles.
03-05 team had Flintoff in all-time peak all round form, whilst the 09-13 team didn't have one.

Harmison-Flintoff-Hoggard-Giles v Anderson-Broad-Swann

The final bowling position both teams struggled to fill consistently for a variety of reasons. Finn, Bresnan, Tremlett and Onions peformed well and covered pretty much every test as the fourth bowling for the 09-13 team. Jones likewise performed well (better than the 09-13 #4 bowlers) but he was only around for half the tests the 03-05 team played and if he was unavailable they never had any cover for that role. Anderson (who wasn't doing anything at test level), Kirtley amongst a handful of others tried to cover that role with minimal success - in hindsight they might have been better to bat deeper and just go with their four main bowlers when Jones wasn't fit.

Moving to the batting.

09-13 much more settled. They had six guys who played the majority of tests in this period - Cook, Strauss, Trott, Bell, Pieterson, Prior. Only Strauss averaged under 40 (38). Bell lead the way with 50.43. The last batsmen was generally taken up by the likes of Root, Collingwood, Morgan, Bairstow who combined averaged in the mid 30's. Pretty solid and settled batting line up.

03-05 the batting was actually in quite a transitional phase. Vaughan, Trescothick and Flintoff were the only top 7 batsmen who played more than 25 (of 39) tests in this period. A lot were either finishing up their career or just starting - despite this they all performed well through this period... Strauss, Butcher, Thorpe, Hussain, Bell and Pietersen all averaged above 40 playing alongside the first three guys mentioned. Interestingly, the skipper Vaughan's 38 was the worst average of any batsmen mentioned here for the 03-05 period. So I don't think you can hold being unsettled against this team if everyone was performing. It just makes it harder to pick the top seven of this era as three of those have to miss out (need to pick Geraint Jones as none of aforementioned players keep). On the keeping topic, Jones was a better keeper than Prior, but Prior's batting is better so that's pretty even.

03-05 major series results: beat South Africa (away) 2-1, Australia (home) 2-1 and drew with South Africa (home) 2-2 amongst some minor series wins. Lost to both Sri Lanka (1-0) and Pakistan (2-0) away. 23 wins, 7 losses, 9 draws in tests. 8 series wins, 1 draw, 2 losses.

09-13 major series results: Beat Australia both home and away (09 and 10/11), South Africa (away) 1-0, India (home) 4-0 whitewash, India again (away) 2-1. Lost to South Africa (home) 2-0, lost to Pakistan (away) 3-0 whitewash, lost to West Indies (away) 1-0, era ended with an infamous loss to Australia (away) 5-0. 30 wins, 16 losses, 19 draws in tests. 12 series wins, 2 draws, 5 losses.

When you look at the results, You have to give it to the 03-05 team. Only two series losses through that time, both in the subcontinent. The 09-13 lost some series they shouldn't have lost and got embarrassed by Australia. If you extend the 03-05 era out to 02-06 (so both incorporating five years) then the results actually come out pretty close to even. I'd still give it to The Vaughan team because the standard of opposition I believe was strong in the mid 2000's, then it was at the start of the next decade, when Australia was weak and India was transitioning from the Tendulkar, Dravid, VVS era to the Pujara, Kohli, Rahan era. It also goes with a lot of what has already been said. The peak of Vaughan's team was stronger, but the Strauss/Cook era last longer.

Honestly, Flintoff was the difference between the two teams. Yeah his career had some troughs but when he was on for those few years, he was just an absolute animal. Thank fu** he was only on for a few years. If he had a 10 year career like that, the Poms would have won a lot more than they did and it would have been unbearable.

I agree with the main points of your post, but just some minor corrections here. The English team from 2009-2013 didn't beat South Africa away 1-0, they drew against SA 1-1. Also England's series record in the 2009-2013 period is 12 series wins, 3 drawn series and 4 series losses, not 2 drawn series and 5 series losses as you posted.

 

[The Passenger]

I agree with the main points of your post, but just some minor corrections here. The English team from 2009-2013 didn't beat South Africa away 1-0, they drew against SA 1-1. Also England's series record in the 2009-2013 period is 12 series wins, 3 drawn series and 4 series losses, not 2 drawn series and 5 series losses as you posted.

Good pick up. Couple of misreads on Statsguru.

 

[The Passenger]

We all know it, but it's mad when you look at how extremely polarised Flintoff's career was.

2003 - 2005 : 35 tests, 2173 runs @ 40.24, 130 wkts @ 27.54
Before and after: 44 tests, 1672 @ 24.95, 96 wkts @ 39.88

 

[PhatBoy]

We all know it, but it's mad when you look at how extremely polarised Flintoff's career was.

2003 - 2005 : 35 tests, 2173 runs @ 40.24, 130 wkts @ 27.54
Before and after: 44 tests, 1672 @ 24.95, 96 wkts @ 39.88

Why he should be remembered as easily the second best all rounder of the millennium where England is concerned.

His batting has never really been at the level Stokes has basically been at his whole career - even Flintoff’s two year zenith as a batsman saw him average 40. Stokes has averaged that for the last 4 years and he’s got more gears both up and down than Flintoff.

I guess you could argue that his bowling is not as good at its peak but he’s still averaged 29 in those last four years and he’s done that without being nearly as called upon as a spearhead.

 

[The Passenger]

Why he should be remembered as easily the second best all rounder of the millennium where England is concerned.

His batting has never really been at the level Stokes has basically been at his whole career - even Flintoff’s two year zenith as a batsman saw him average 40. Stokes has averaged that for the last 4 years and he’s got more gears both up and down than Flintoff.

I guess you could argue that his bowling is not as good at its peak but he’s still averaged 29 in those last four years and he’s done that without being nearly as called upon as a spearhead.

Stokes has got Flintoff covered quite comfortably at the moment, and he'd have to have a pretty bad latter career decline for that to change and as it currently stands Stokes performances are getting better. Flintoff has a small edge as a bowler just because he could do things with the ball that Stokes can't, but gee Freddy's off days were absolute gash whereas Stokes is generally pretty reliable with the ball, even though he won't get the pace, swing or bounce that Flintoff was able to. It's a bit hard to compare their bowling because Stokes has never played (or very rarely) as one of the front three quicks, whereas Flintoff was one for the vast majority of his career, with a pretty decent stint as an opener. They are vastly different roles.

But their batting roles are very comparable as lower-middle order stroke makers and Stokes has Flintoff covered here and quite comfortably. In the field Flintoff had a good pair of mitts whereas Stokes is the complete package in the field - great hands close to the bat, athletic in the outfield, great arm.

 

[royboy2]

They played an interview with Craddock in his Cricket Legends series at lunch in the most recent test vs India and Vaughn himself said that our 2005 side wasn't the greatest, it was just his sheer stubbornness and the belief that the side had in themselves that got them over the line.

 

[Heisenberg111]

Why he should be remembered as easily the second best all rounder of the millennium where England is concerned.

His batting has never really been at the level Stokes has basically been at his whole career - even Flintoff’s two year zenith as a batsman saw him average 40. Stokes has averaged that for the last 4 years and he’s got more gears both up and down than Flintoff.

I guess you could argue that his bowling is not as good at its peak but he’s still averaged 29 in those last four years and he’s done that without being nearly as called upon as a spearhead.

Stokes as a batsman is superior to Freddie but Freddie was the much superior bowler. Says a great deal about Freddie's bowling that a champion opener like Langer rated him the toughest bowler he had faced. While Stokes is usually the 3rd or 4th best seamer in his team.

 

[footyfan1978]

Simon Jones is probably the best swing bowler in my lifetime

Not in mine but he in the top ten.
Terry Alderman, Dennis Lillee, Richard Hadlee, Imran Khan, Mike Proctor and Wasim Akram far superior just to name a few. His bowling in 2005 series was his best he ever bowled.

 

[Heisenberg111]

They played an interview with Craddock in his Cricket Legends series at lunch in the most recent test vs India and Vaughn himself said that our 2005 side wasn't the greatest, it was just his sheer stubbornness and the belief that the side had in themselves that got them over the line.

Yeah, Vaughan's inspirational captaincy had alot to do with England's success in the 2003-2006 period. The English team from 2009-2013 was probably stronger on paper. Freddie Flintoff gives 2003-2006 team the edge, but at the same time the 2009-2013 team had Graeme Swann and Matt Prior, who were much better than Ashley Giles and Geraint Jones.

 

[PhatBoy]

Stokes as a batsman is superior to Freddie but Freddie was the much superior bowler. Says a great deal about Freddie's bowling that a champion opener like Langer rated him the toughest bowler he had faced. While Stokes is usually the 3rd or 4th best seamer in his team.

Yeah for one series.

I would be willing to say that there are batsmen from South Africa who thought Devon Malcolm was the toughest bowler they faced but it doesn’t mean he’s the best of his era.

Comparing them both, stokes can regularly get it into the 140s, as could flintoff. Flintoff probably got more bounce, they can both swing, seam and reverse it.

Flintoff was used as a strike bowler when necessary and that was fair, but stokes is also used as the ‘none of these other blokes are getting anything out of the ball or wicket but stokes will.’

I think Flintoff was the more capable of the two at bowling the unplayable ball but if he wasn’t perpetually behind Broad and Anderson for his entire career I’m certain stokes could play a far more prominent role as a bowler

 

[Heisenberg111]

Yeah for one series.

I would be willing to say that there are batsmen from South Africa who thought Devon Malcolm was the toughest bowler they faced but it doesn’t mean he’s the best of his era.

Comparing them both, stokes can regularly get it into the 140s, as could flintoff. Flintoff probably got more bounce, they can both swing, seam and reverse it.

Flintoff was used as a strike bowler when necessary and that was fair, but stokes is also used as the ‘none of these other blokes are getting anything out of the ball or wicket but stokes will.’

I think Flintoff was the more capable of the two at bowling the unplayable ball but if he wasn’t perpetually behind Broad and Anderson for his entire career I’m certain stokes could play a far more prominent role as a bowler

What Freddie's bowling stats don't show is his presence, and the uplifting effect that his finest had on his team-mates, and crowds. Freddie took wickets at the opposite end to him by being nasty and painful. Opposition batsmen were so keen to get out of the firing line that they took risks against bowlers at the other end and got out. There are few things in Cricket more exciting than an all action all-rounder and Freddie was certainly one of them. A true iconic figure of English Cricket in this century.



.

 

[PhatBoy]

What Freddie's bowling stats don't show is his presence, and the uplifting effect that his finest had on his team-mates, and crowds. Freddie took wickets at the opposite end to him by being nasty and painful. Opposition batsmen were so keen to get out of the firing line that they took risks against bowlers at the other end and got out. There are few things in Cricket more exciting than an all action all-rounder and Freddie was certainly one of them. A true iconic figure of English Cricket in this century.



.

I agree but I also don’t think they show Stokes’ equivalent either - particularly on his teammates. I’ve lost count of the times they’ve been away from home and things aren’t happening for the two superstars or the spinners and a two wicket burst from stokes just blows the innings open again.

Not doubting for a second how good Flintoff was at doing the same but I think a guy of an extremely similar ilk is doing extremely similar things and we aren’t noticing as much as the nostalgia factor hasn’t applied itself to him yet

 

[KiwiRoo]

I'd have Flintoff as a superior bowler and Stokes a better batsmen

Not much in it though

 

[KiwiRoo]

Simon Jones is probably the best swing bowler in my lifetime

Jimmy Anderson is in IMO a better swing bowler for a much longer period of time. Hes got 600 test wickets to show for it too

 

[Gethelred]

They played an interview with Craddock in his Cricket Legends series at lunch in the most recent test vs India and Vaughn himself said that our 2005 side wasn't the greatest, it was just his sheer stubbornness and the belief that the side had in themselves that got them over the line.

When he says 'sheer stubbornness and the belief the side had in themselves', does he mean Murray's Mints?

 

[Gethelred]

Yeah for one series.

I would be willing to say that there are batsmen from South Africa who thought Devon Malcolm was the toughest bowler they faced but it doesn’t mean he’s the best of his era.

Comparing them both, stokes can regularly get it into the 140s, as could flintoff. Flintoff probably got more bounce, they can both swing, seam and reverse it.

Flintoff was used as a strike bowler when necessary and that was fair, but stokes is also used as the ‘none of these other blokes are getting anything out of the ball or wicket but stokes will.’

I think Flintoff was the more capable of the two at bowling the unplayable ball but if he wasn’t perpetually behind Broad and Anderson for his entire career I’m certain stokes could play a far more prominent role as a bowler

Don't know if it's really being fair to Flintoff to have to compare him to the spectre cast by this hypothetical superhuman Ben Stokes you're conjuring here.