I agree with the drift of what you are saying. But there are couple of factors of modern/postmodern to take into account.
1. Sport plays a disproportionate part in lives ( my life as well). So everthing is examined about the game. The media have to go on about something so they look for every angle of praise and critcism. Every opinion is sought and so we get a an overload of all this and when a side does badly everyone jumps on that bandwagon and when they have great they jump on another bandwagon.
2. England did so well in 2005 anything less than closely fought series is unacceptable. They have set their standards high.

At the moment with SA nobody expects too much.

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

The series where Gough, Caddick and White all fired is, from memory, the 2000 West Indies home series. All of a sudden, White discovered how to bowl ferocious reverse swing and Caddick was frequently at his best. There are some parallels betwen this attack and the one of 2005, but England in 2000 were playing a West Indies team that, despite their amazing talent, were simply dreadful away from home. In 2005, England were playing an Australia that had swept all before them for years, and responded magnificently, with scratchy support from the batsmen.

Two problems, as I see it, with England's attack now. First is consistentcy, which Harmison, Mahmood and Anderson lack in spades. This means that Flintoff frequently has to play as a stock bowler. He did this very well on a tour of India, but, IMHO, this was an aberation. He's an agressive cricketer who is at his best when he is making things happen (quickly) with bat, ball and in the field. Second massive problem is the injury to Simon Jones. From my point of view, Simon Jones pre 2002/3, was an exciting prospect. The Simon Jones on return to injury became a world-class performer who mixed movement (both ways and conventional and reverse) with generally excellent accuracy and an ability to bowl occassional thunderbolts. Jones, I am sure, is the reason why we have struggled to compete. Yes, the batting has been patchy, but there have been times in all three Tests where England didn't look as if they could buy a wicket. Jones, on the other hand, is such an agressive bowler that you always feel something could be around the corner. For England's sake, I desperately hope he returns - he could be a great bowler.

PS:I can't vote in this poll because the periods Rachael has chosen represents 2005 when England were at full strength, and at their best.
2005-07 includes a side worse than the 1990's in many respects.

For example 2004-05 England were at their best, sinse then Vaughan - Simon Jones - Giles - Flintoff - Trescothick - Harmison have either been injured or had personal problems.

So this England side as it is now is IMO at a par with Athertons sides, but not as good as Nassa's sides, a lot can happen in 12 months.

So I would have put "side has been far superior" 2004-2005 - but "side hasn't been as strong as some other post 1990 sides" for 2005-06 because of the 2006 form, but being 2005 has been lumped with 2006, one year negates the other.

__________________
Ern

This present England are a good side. I think in 2005 it was all rather close, England hardly stormed to victory McGrath stepped on a ball etc etc. Australia fought them all the way they didn't give up the Ashes easily.
So although the England side was better in 2005 it hasn't completely plummented they have lost a couple of players and Flintoff's not right but they have got the basis of a good side.
England supporters may have to accept they won't get back to the side of 2005. A number of things have permanently changed. ie Its unlikely the bowling of Simon Jones/ Flintoff will return to the form 2005.

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

The England side always used to reserve their worst cricket for the Ashes. Look at the likes of Stweart and Atherton. Always able to score off the likes of West Indies and South Africa but failed dismally against Australia. The same can be said for the team that Gooch lead. Almost won in the West Indies (when they were the best) in 90, drew with a full strength West Indies in 91 when they had just beaten Australia (England subsequently lost comprehensively in Australia under Gooch, unable to score runs against Reid, Alderman and McDermott). Gower's ashes team were an embarrassment six months before that in 89 unable to play Alderman and Lawson. The one main difference is that Vaughan's side beat the Aussies and for that one reason, they will always be hailed as the greatest team England has provided. the truth is they were probably not better (as Rachael says) than many other teams that included gooch, Gower, Gatting, Atherton, Smith, Thorpe, Hussain etc.

Hussain's side in 2000 beat the West Indies, won in Pakistan and Sri Lanka but then (without some players) got hammered in the 2001 Ashes. Another example of England always disappointing against the Aussies (when Gough and Caddick suddenly forgot how to bowl). Their performance in the subcontinent was something I will always cherish. But then again, I'm a Thorpe fan.

Interesting thread this, and i think the 2005-07 side MARGINALLY shades it...

Batting-wise i dont think there is a whole lot between them, although strauss, cook, KP, bell and colly have averages ranging from 45-50. whereas in the 90s the top english batsmen were mostly between 38-45.

Whilst caddick, gough and white worked well as a unit, i think that form was patchy sometimes with them, caddick suffered confidence-wise, and white was mostly effective on the subcontinent.

Fred is a better bowler and batsman than white, but stewart was a far more useful keeper/batsman than either of the chaps duking it out now.

the main thing that set england apart for me in 2005 was intent and body-language, especially the much-missed Jones.

Immediately prior to his injury problems this was emphatically NOT true: White was bowling at 90-95 mph, pitching the ball up, getting it in the right areas, demonstrating complete mastery of reverse swing and generally looking the part... and his batting hit a high: he racked up 178 runs at nearly 60 in Pakistan, 358 at nearly 60 in back to back (home and away) series against India... and he's since re-invented himself as a specialist (opening) batsman and has scored an awesome 1732 runs at 43.3 for Yorshire over the past two seasons!

Flintoff at his peak did (note past tense) match everything White did at his peak.. but the choice between the two (at peak) would not be clearcut.. especially as they both excelled as fielders: the most obvious difference is that Flintoff still has the chance to prove that his peak of 2004/05 was not just a flash in the pan.. whilst we now know for sure that White's glory spell was merely 2000/02.

Neither player will go down as a great batsman OR bowler: both have relied on muscular hitting and playing through the line and neither have demonstrated much in the way of subtlety, touch and guile.. and neither have been natural frontline bowlers in the way the likes of Caddick, Harmison and even Mahmood have been - they've triumphed through learning their own limitations, working hard and maximising their limited strengths.

If you had to pick a combined XI for 1990-2007 I suspect both would scrape in... but let's not overlook the fact that both played far more Tests as passengers who did not pull their weight than as lynchpins who did.

ps. I suppse the combined Xi of the last 10-15 years (based on peak reached rather than consistency, and overlooking the earlier generation of Gooch) might read as follows: Atherton, Stewart, Vaughan, Thorpe, Smith, White, Flintoff, Russell, Jones, Fraser, Tufnell.. though one suspects the more interesting Xi would be the second XI of those who narrowly miss out.

Sorry Rachael, as much as I respect your opinion, and while I would agree that White did a very good (and under-rated) job for England, even at his peak he was simply not as inspirational a figure as fred was. Look at the respect opposition players hold flintoff in, while white was a solid pro and useful test match player (especially on subcontinent pitches) he was not a world-class match-winner which fred was during 2004-2005. Flintoff managed to transform himself from a stock bowler into a grenade launching strike bowler, and, when injury-free, is englands best and most consistent bowler.

Also, Fred in 2005 performed wonders against the world champs. White did not do so during 2001.

I also would suggest that, whilst still a whole-hearted trier and dangerous bowler in helpful conditions, Gus Fraser was never the same bowler after his dreadful hip injury. In Gooch's era he was outstanding, under atherton, whilst always tight and occasionally turning in match-winning performances (WI 97-98 for example) he didnt have the nip he had beforehand, and could not be selected before Caddick, Gough and Hoggard.

If you are picking Stewart, you should do so as keeper/batsman all-rounder, as tresco is a better opener and russell a better gloveman.

Smith is an excellent choice, his innings in 95 against the West indies on the edgbaston death-track were the bravest innings i have ever seen.

Another question....bearing in mind Vaughan's form with the bat as captain was poor, who captains the side? For my money Hussain was the best recent captain...do you pick the ebst players then name a captain? Or have a "brearley" type?

Final question....who is the BEST england player from the last 10-15 years? If you had to put a first name on the teamsheet who would it be? For me it boils down to Simon Brown or Graham Thorpe... i think Thorpe just shades it...

A lot of solid points in this post... and I'd agree on Stewart.. I only included him in the hope of avoiding controversy as I never actually rated the guy... but I thought I'd court too many tangential comments had I ommitted him!

Let us push Vaughan up to open: that makes for an interesting discussion over who takes the vacant middle order spot. Obvious contenders (an initial list not an exhastive list) include Hick (though I was never sure of him), Ramps (excelled against the supposedly great Aussies, let down by his struggles against the rest), Bell (my top tip as England's representative on a World XI for the next decade), Cook (my second tip for that role) and Pietersen (phenomenal talent in some respects, but not as accomplished as Bell nor as mentally tough as Cook).

On other fronts... I'm not going to sit here and lauch a case for White over Flintoff: my argument was merely that there was a lot less to choose between the pair of them than is commonly assumed by the plebs who rave about Botham and Flintoff and who dismiss all those who came in between that pair.

On the bowler front.. Fraser remains an all-time personal hero for his endless one-man effortts to carry a lousy attack... but I concede that others are credible rivals for his spot: my argument would be that no other bowler of recent vintage (excepting overseas stars like McGrath) has made better use of the new ball - Fraser made people play.... and ensured they didn't want to. He then struggled as the ball aged.... but you don't pick new ball bowlers on the basis of how they did with the older ball... and with Jones, White and Flintoff to bowl with the old ball... the 'problem' should not figure!

Ok this talk about the English super side compared to the side that has apparently lost England the Ashes.

• Trescothick has been replaced by a who looks to be a better player in Cook who has so far had just as good a series as Trescothicks 2005 and did what Tresco could not do in 2005 he made a century.
• Simon Jones most likely would have not had anywhere near the same impact without the reverse swing like he did in 2005. He would have been treated like Anderson who is a very similar pace and also a swing bowler but in Australia he did not get any swing and neither would have Jones.
• Vaughan made 326 runs last time around and 166 of them came in one innings, he averaged only 32.60 in 2005. Collingwood has taken his place and made a double ton and should easily make more runs this series than Vaughan did in the last.
• Flintoff has been batting poorly, not just in the ashes and since he has been injured. If he is sooo injured it doesn’t seem to affect his bowling, because he has been bowling pretty well.
• Bell is twice the player he was in the last series. In 2005 he averaged around 17, and in this series he is averaging 37 so far and batted well in the 2nd innings at the WACA with 87.
• Pietersen has once again be brilliant.
• Giles did play in the first two tests but Panesar is in the side now and bowl wonderfully in the first innings but it still has not won England this match (crossing my fingers).
• Hoggard has been bowling really well.
• Harmison was very, very, very poor in the first two innings but that’s got nothing to do with his talent. Could be the Gillespie of 2006/07
• They have just been outplayed by a better side.

With Vaughan, Trescothick and Jones in the side nothing would have changed. Cook would be out, Collingwood would be out both making centuries. Jones would have done better than Anderson and Mahmood but not by much.

__________________
Bill Ponsford - The only one who could play in Bradman’s company and make it a duet.