England's 2004/05 bowling attack vs their current attack

[Cricket Tragic]

Harmison, Jones, Flintoff, Hoggard and Giles vs Anderson, Tremlett, Finn/Onions/Broad and Swann Which attack do you rate higher? 5 bowlers then because Flintoff was the all rounder but they've got a better spinner now.

[Sachin=GOD]

04/05 was better IMO.

[Cricketics]

The attack of 04-05 only came good all together in one series that was the Ashes. They all never peformed well or played enough together. Harmission did some destruction of lara's x1 in windies which was really a very pathetic test side. The english attack has actually become better and little more consistent than what it used to be.

[Cricket Tragic]

Judging by online forums, the neutrals rate 04/05 higher but the England supporters believe that the current one is better. They've certainly got better depth in the fast bowling department now.

[CoverDrive]

except for swann who is miles better than giles or any other english spinner in a long time 04-05 attack is much better man for man.

[yoda]

No comparison. Flintoff of 04/05 was a difference maker.

[The Outsider]

The attack of 04-05 only came good all together in one series that was the Ashes. They all never peformed well or played enough together. Harmission did some destruction of lara's x1 in windies which was really a very pathetic test side. The english attack has actually become better and little more consistent than what it used to be.

'ticz, they also bowled really well in South Africa. I feel Simon Jones was the real X-factor in the attack which made it really potent. He along with Flintoff to an extent had the ability to provide wickets out of nowhere when the opposition seemed to be on top and change the momentum of the game. In the current attack, Swann has shown he can do it against the weaker teams but nothing of real substance against the top batting sides. And having a clown like Broad in the current attack makes it decidedly weaker for me. But yeah, once they lost Jones and Harmison went off the boil that attack disintegrated and could not last long enough to have an impact lasting a few years.

[daryl1985]

04/05 attack was much more potent when all bowlers were at their best but this attack is more consistent.

[Cricketics]

You are right on about there Shwetabh. But another reason why English team has become better is becaus of the terrific opening stand they have had these days with Cook and Strauss both scoring well. Back then Trescothick was good but the other English bats werent' consistent. So all in all, it's both batting and bowling department which have become consistent. Yes, Simon Jones was the real X-factor. His ability to swing the ball was bit unique from other English bowlers. It's pity injuries really messed up his career.

[Cricket Tragic]

Bump The BBC has gone a step further and compared the two teams.

Put those stubborn ICC rankings to one side. After England's stunning 319-run victory in the second Test followed the 196-run demolition at Lord's, only the most intransigent of Indian fans would rate their current XI as superior to England's. But just how good is Andrew Strauss's team? While we wait for the rankings to reflect reality, let's allow a little fantasy to fill the air. The current side is both more statistically successful and held in greater affection than any England XI since Michael Vaughan's glorious Ashes winners of 2005. So, if given the chance to choose a composite team formed from the best of those two line-ups, who would you select? The rules are straightforward: you are picking your players on their form at that time, not across their entire international careers. Your team will be playing at home. And, if the player starred in both 2005 and 2011, you must specify which version you'd prefer. I'll get us under way. Phil Tufnell is next. Then it's your turn. 1: MARCUS TRESCOTHICK Trescothick failed to score a single Test century against the Aussies in 2005. It's a statistical wrong 'un. Someone who scored 431 runs at an average of 43, at the rollicking pace and with the bowler-sapping style of Banger, simply has to open the account for this England side. Remember that first morning at Edgbaston? Of course you do. Factor in his rock-solid catching at first slip and the case is surely made. 2: ALASTAIR COOK The first tester. Andrew Strauss was the only player on either side to score more than one century in 2005. He is a better fielder than Cook, whether going Superman at second slip in 2005 or in at first today. Cook has also struggled in the current series, averaging just five, while in Strauss you have a skipper who has just masterminded a thrashing of Australia on their own patch. All of that is true. But then there is 766. There is 5,000 Test runs at a younger age than anyone except Sachin Tendulkar. There is the near-certainty of finishing a career with more Test centuries - and runs - than any other Englishman in history. Chef, you're on the top table. 3: JONATHAN TROTT Based on cold, hard stats, Trott has to get the nod ahead of Michael Vaughan at three. Over the past year he has averaged over 60 at Test level, hit four centuries (including the match-winner in Melbourne) and shown that he can bat - and bat, and bat - all day long, whatever the pressure or pitch. In the summer of 2005, Vaughan hit that beautiful 166 at Old Trafford. He was always more aesthetically pleasing than Trott. But he also only made 160 runs in his nine other innings that series. Which of the two is more likely to score runs? Who would you back to stick around longer? 4: MICHAEL VAUGHAN © All that is very well. But with no Strauss in the side, Cook's leadership skills unproven and other candidates either tried and failed or without any previous experience, who else is there to captain the side? Vaughan was his country's best skip since Mike Brearley. He squeezed the best from his charges, was innovative in the field and, in the main, made the right bowling changes at the right time. 5: KEVIN PIETERSEN KP will surely be in everyone's composite team - but which vintage will produce the best results? After rolling it round the mouth, I'm going for the Beaujolais freshness of 2005. There were the numbers - 473 runs at 52 - but there was also the style, the freedom, the obvious enjoyment. His technical weaknesses were yet to be worked out or his flaws exploited. The hair? Terrible, but we all make mistakes. 6. MATT PRIOR We're starting to get controversial. I was certain I wanted Ian Bell at six - not the weak-kneed innocent of 2005, the rosy-cheeked tyro who averaged a paltry 17, but the peachy timer of today, the most attractive England batsman of the moment and the scorer - at last! of big runs when it really matters. I'm almost convincing myself again. But with Vaughan needing to play as skipper, and with the all-round abilities of the chap I have at seven, I had to lose a batsman. As for Prior, well, I'll love Geraint Jones for ever more for getting his gloves round Kasper's nick at Edgbaston, but beyond that it's the easiest decision of all. 7. ANDREW FLINTOFF 402 runs at 40. 24 wickets at 27. The class and character to scare future generations of Australian cricketers for years to come. It would never be as good as 2005 again, but who cares? 8. GRAEME SWANN Swann has been out of sorts in this current series against India. Ashley Giles should drink for free for the rest of his life for that 59 at the Oval and the winning runs at Trent Bridge, while the ball that bowled Damien Martyn still shocks me in the very best way. But nine other wickets in the series is simply enough to see off Swann, England's most successful offie in decades and a sparky, fizzing essential in the current side's happy blend. 9: SIMON JONES Nostalgia can be a wonderful thing, even if it's not as good as it used to be. So let's pop off the rose-tinted shades and marvel again at Jones's 18 wickets in three and a half matches, against the best batting line-up in the world at that time, at a strike rate of 34 - a full 10 balls a wicket better than any of his team-mates that summer. To recall the sight of Michael Clarke shouldering arms to Jones's reverser and seeing his off-stump go somersaulting backwards is to truly experience contentment. I'm assuming he's fit, of course. 10 CHRIS TREMLETT Now the arguments really kick off. What, no Steve Harmison, the teetering, terrifying weapon that drew blood from Ricky Ponting and snatched 17 key wickets, including Clarke with the perfect slower ball and Kasper at the death in Birmingham? No Stuart Broad, the man who has just taken five wickets for no runs in 16 balls - including a hat-trick - after smashing more than 100 runs in the same match? Harmison first. By 2005 he was already on the decline. For all the menace, there was too much loose stuff - including the ball that Kasper gloved. Tremlett has 36 Test wickets at 24 from just seven matches since his Test recall. He is fitter, far more accurate and almost as fast, and as frightening on the charge as Harmison ever was. Broad? Hardest man to leave out. If he maintains his form from the last two Tests he's in, but the revival needs to be maintained. 11. JAMES ANDERSON Matthew Hoggard, close to his peak in 2005, took 16 wickets at 29 in 2005 and at times appeared to have the ball on the end of a long invisible wire. Those late in-swingers to the lefties... yet Anderson is quicker, fitter, has more weapons and is possibly the best bowling fielder England have had. Master manipulator of the swinging ball; can also now take wickets when the cherry is staying straight. And he's the superior nightwatchman. COACH: ANDY FLOWER Calm under pressure, brilliant on technique, careful compiler of the best backroom in world cricket. Duncan Fletcher: you saved the day and built a brighter one, but your young disciple gets the nod. FINAL SCORE: Five players from 2005, six from 2011 BONUS SECTION PT I: Phil Tufnell's Composite XI I did ask Michael Vaughan for his XI. Understandably, considering his close friendships with many of the players involved, he politely declined. Tuffers did not, although he got stuck at several points, went red in the face and had to go for a walk before coming back to complete his line-up: Trescothick, Strauss, Vaughan, Trott, Pietersen, Flintoff, Prior, Broad, Swann, S Jones, Anderson. Coach: Flower BONUS SECTION PT II: Composite Opposition XI Our England side will need a team to play against. Since we're comparing the class of 2005 with that of 2011, it seems to make sense to do the same with the opposition. Combining the best of Australia '05 with India '11 gives me this rather special line-up: Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Gilchrist, Warne, B Lee, Zaheer, McGrath Which side would win such a clash? Very hard to say. Would I pay through the nose to watch? Much easier to say. Yes.

[f.b.m]

And having a clown like Broad in the current attack makes it decidedly weaker for me.

Dont want to play Captain Hindsight but this made me lol. :giggle: On topic: I didn't follow the English team too much then but gotto say this bowling attack is amazing. The Ashes bowling performance was one of the best I have seen, not so much for flair or tailunt but for determination and for bowling with a sense of purpose and intent.

[Stan AF]

This attack is consistent. If i want to have these two sets of bowlers in my team I would take this one.

[Kumar]

04/05! new ball to hoggard with beautiful seam position, harmison with his pace and bounce, and the old ball with jones and flintoff for reverse swing, giles not the best spinner, mind you though they didnt need anyone particularly amazing with this lethal seam attack! Still maintain, this is probably the best seam attack I have seen in that particular decade, on par with the likes of RSA in their earlier days with Donald, Kallis, Pollock and Ntini

[Maundy Gregory]

04/05 attack was much more potent when all bowlers were at their best but this attack is more consistent.

I don't know about 'much more potent', but I tend to agree about the consistency. Harmy was a real hot 'n cold player, but Jones (especially), Hoggard and Flintoff were class acts. The current attack might lack a little in comparison (aside from Swann, certainly the better spinner), but it's impressive that Bresnan seamlessly replaced Tremlett.

[21cent]

04-05 one for sure. This attack looks much more potent due to the help of swinging tracks and *****y batting from Indians and their trouble with short balls.

[Arminder]

04-05 looks dangerous.... all talls guys harmison, hoggard,flitoff, jones... (giles :finger:) but i think current one is more effective.... broad,bresman, swann can bat also, aderson & tremlet r gud...

[Guest Gunner]

04-05 one for sure. This attack looks much more potent due to the help of swinging tracks and *****y batting from Indians and their trouble with short balls.

Mehhh, the Indian top order doesn't have a problem with short balls, the trouble starts from No.6. Atleast try to be precise even though your intention is to troll.

[daryl1985]

I don't know about 'much more potent', but I tend to agree about the consistency. Harmy was a real hot 'n cold player, but Jones (especially), Hoggard and Flintoff were class acts. The current attack might lack a little in comparison (aside from Swann, certainly the better spinner), but it's impressive that Bresnan seamlessly replaced Tremlett.

Yeah maybe i went over the top with the "much more potent>" But i think they were more potent when they were all firing. It's a shame that Simon Jones career was ruined by injuries. He was a superb bowler.

[CG]

04/05 attack was way better than this attack ,The current atatck struggled ot bowl srilankans out twice and if not for lankans the series should have been a draw ,they struggled gainst bangladesh tamim iqbal was hammering them,they strugled to beat west indies in westindies ,they have done well in australia but australia are now not even half the side they were and agianst indians . O4/05 atatck had 3 90 miles bowlers they could clock speeds up to 150 ,of the current attack nobody can clock those speeds.