I'm glad I lived to see it

[Milo]

I suppose it is now time to look back with awe and appreciation at the 18 month golden period in English cricket that seems as far away now as it did ten years ago. The continued success lasting over 20 test matches where the England team picked itself based on injury-free (with the odd broken finger) repeat selection, the leadership of a vibrant and innovative skipper, the enthusiasm of young players intent on winning and securing their place, the experience of Thorpe, the fitness and freshness of Harmison and Flintoff, the excitement of a wicket keeper trying to cement his place in a competitive environment (what happened there??) and the team spirit (expemplified in Giles' continued support) that really does not seem to exist anymore that culminated in regaining the Ashes after almost 20 years of trying.

Winning the Ashes was probably the worst thing that could have happened to this England team. Collective MBEs and as Steve Waugh notices, a complete lack of hunger. Back to mediocrity until we realise that the job is not done and that winning the World Cup is really not an important objective either.

At least I can say I lived to see it.

[Lemming]

Nice post Milo. I'm glad I lived to see it too.

If you look at what the England players did, starting from their tour of the WIndies in early 2004 through to the Ashes just over a year later, you will realise that they really did achieve something.

3-0 in the West Indies
3-0 against New Zealand (whitewash)
4-0 against West Indies (whitewash)
2-1 in South Africa
2-0 against Bangladesh
2-1 against Australia

There are too many individual performances, during this period, to list but some players really have come on during this period. Some of these guys are going to have their names viewed in records books for some time (Trescothick for weight of runs, Hoggard for wicket and Vaughan for captaincy success). It's been a great period of cricket for people who have had the chance to view it.

But we're (or at least I am) talking as if this period is coming to an end. Some player - like Vaughan - may not play again, but there is still a very bright future for these English players. If England can get through the Ashes with damage limited, get their players fit again, maybe they can rejoin their path towards being World number one. There's still exciting times ahead for England!

[greg]

Why didn't you post that at the start of the summer Milo it must have kickstarted the players as they look back to the form you were saying today.

[Seamer]

In my opinion, an era usually spans whole careers, not just a couple seasons i.e Border era, Mark Taylor era ext. And it usually encompasses a whole home and away cycle surely. An Australian decade of dominance ,narrowly losing a mere two series in that time is a golden era. The Windies incredable undefeated run of the 80's and early 90's was a golden era.

But let's face it, the teams England beat during that 20 match period were basically crap. The bottom half of the table except for Australia of course. Australia have duly beaten the above mentioned teams (S.A, Bang, W.I) in equal or heavier fashion since the ashes but we have put those victories into perspective:great to win but they were only the weak nations and nothing to get excited over.

Don't get me wrong, it is good to see England winning again and all that. But i think the end of this era will be when the likes of Flintoff, Strauss, Tresco, Petersen have retired. England had a good run for a while there but the era, how ever it end up being judged, is not over yet

[Collyisamackem]

Beating South Africa away wasn't exactly easy, mind. They were also certainly stronger than they are now, with Pollock and Smith in excellent form at the time, and Kallis performing miracles. It's a harsh viewpoint to take away credit for a run which took us to number two in the world and laid the platform for an Ashes victory, surely?! Added to that, the good run stretched back beyond WI away, including both SA and WI at home plus strong performances in drawn series against India and NZ.

I agree, the era is not over but has been disrupted somewhat. The management is the same and many of the players are, it's just that new ones have had to join the "era" along the way. If we manage to retain the Ashes this winter, whether or not one thinks that is optimistic or not, then the era will definitely be continuing. In my opinion, this era stretches back to the aftermath of the last tour down under, and is not over yet.

[Lemming]

Originally Posted by Collyisamackem

Beating South Africa away wasn't exactly easy, mind.

Not at the time. Now they're not looking too strong on their current scorecard.

I hear Mrs. Boycott's queuing up for a game after Sri Lanka have made 1,000-4 dec.. Ooooh! She's brought a blind-fold with her - she's such a show-off!

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Collyisamackem

Beating South Africa away wasn't exactly easy, mind. They were also certainly stronger than they are now, with Pollock and Smith in excellent form at the time, and Kallis performing miracles.

I disagree. Teams and players are only as good as their opposition allows them to be. England were damn lucky to win that series down there and had to fight damn hard to scrape through to win the series., Australia however pasted them. Same team, same players, Australia just played better against them that's all.

[Collyisamackem]

So you're saying Pollock - whom many said has been a shadow of himself in the last few months, Smith, Kallis and even Gibbs were in the same form last winter as they were in the one before that? Try telling that to Matthew Hoggard after Jo'burg, or Andrew Strauss - he of multiple centuries in SA and the Ashes. Just because SA had the same, or similar, personnel it doesn't mean that they were playing to the same standards. Also, winning a three-test series is a bit different to a five-test series when the side in question have barely been beaten at home in a long time previously.

So do you think there was some kind of conspiracy in the last 3/4 years that meant nearly every team in world cricket, including Australia, would just let England suddenly start walking all over them (one or two tight series excepted, including last summer)?

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Collyisamackem

So you're saying Pollock - whom many said has been a shadow of himself in the last few months, Smith, Kallis and even Gibbs were in the same form last winter as they were in the one before that?

The teams that England beat during those 20 tests were the four worst teams in world cricket. The ICC rankings said it then and the rankings hav'nt changed. My answer is yes, they are as woeful now as they were when England played them and still have the same poor ranking to confirm the fact.

Originally Posted by Collyisamackem

Try telling that to Matthew Hoggard after Jo'burg, or Andrew Strauss - he of multiple centuries in SA and the Ashes. Just because SA had the same, or similar, personnel it doesn't mean that they were playing to the same standards.

Teams are only as good as they are allowed to play. The common theory on this board (which i subscribe to) from the 2005 ashes for example is not so much that the Aussies played badly, rather, they were not allowed to play well. S.A might have given the illusion that they played better against England, but that is only because England allowed them to.

Originally Posted by Collyisamackem

Also, winning a three-test series is a bit different to a five-test series when the side in question have barely been beaten at home in a long time previously.

Australia played six consecutive tests against them in a two monthe period. Won all six. And S.A previous record means nothing. They were not cursed with such an awful captain as Smith in the past for example.

Originally Posted by Collyisamackem

So do you think there was some kind of conspiracy in the last 3/4 years that meant nearly every team in world cricket, including Australia, would just let England suddenly start walking all over them (one or two tight series excepted, including last summer)?

Never implied that at all. Beating Australia was an achievement and no-one would deny that. But W.I, S.A and Bangledesh? Poor teams and anything less than whitewashed series must be considered a poor performance.

[Paoli]

England fair had South Africa on the ropes a few times in that series- in Durban, I clearly remember the Saffers being gone for all money at 8-200 odd with 20 overs to go before light set in.

In Port Elizabeth and Jo'burg England dominated as well and the last test was even stevens. England had the majority of that series, and it was harder for them than it was for us.

Originally Posted by Seamer

Poor teams and anything less than whitewashed series must be considered a poor performance.

Not really. I wouldn't call Australia's performance against the Saffers at home 'poor' because we won 2-0- mind you it wasn't as good as our follow up in the Republic.

But the golden era as it is called, I agree with Seamer on this one, was overhyped due to an Ashes series victory.