Or is it just a perception thing because England have beaten the Australians twice in 2005 and 2009, and are 1-0 up down under even though the Australians thrashed England 5-0 in 06/07 and are now without key players such as Langer, Gilchrist, Warne and McGrath so not the force they once were? Is it also because England play New Zealand, West Indies and Bangladesh so often that the results all merge into one so even though the positive results predominantly come against those weaker sides, because overall England win more then more = better? (even though 'more' in this case is like playing PES on level one half the time)
New Zealand 1990-South Africa 99/00
Series : P27 W8 D4 L15 (Won 29.63%)
Tests : P104 W26 D36 L42 (Won 25.00%)
Australia 2009-Bangladesh 09/10
Series : P38 W20 D7 L11 (Won 52.63%)
Tests : P130 W55 D38 L37 (Won 42.31%)
On face value you'd say the stats prove England are better, but what they don't show is that West Indies have been in decline since 2000 and are now a weak side, Pakistan have come over here with two weak sides and been beaten easily, and New Zealand are not much of a side. Toss in regular beatings of Bangladesh and the split of those stats into good/bad sides is not a bad idea.
AUS/IND/SAF/SRI/PAK*
Series : P22 W6 D6 L10 (Won 27.27%)
Tests : P81 W21 D27 L33 (Won 25.93%)
*Pakistan pre-2006
ZIM/NZE/WIN/BAN/PAK**
Series : P16 W14 D1 L1 (Won 87.50%)
Tests : P49 W34 D11 L4 (Won 69.39%)
**Pakistan 2006
West Indies were a much weaker side even in 2000 so it would be pointless and prove little to include the 2000 series with the stronger opponents. If you consider England did play Zimbabwe a couple of times in the 90s, and New Zealand were of mixed strength then I'd say that is good evidence to suggest England aren't much different to back in the 1990s, they just play the weaker sides more often and are able to beat Australia - the 2005 series being the most convincing and even that was won 2-1 which were two run and three wicket margins.
Between 2000 and 2009/10 we've played West Indies six times, New Zealand four times, Bangladesh three times and Zimbabwe twice, losing just ONE series. In that same period we've not beaten India in FIVE series, have won twice against Australia but lost three times, and are on a relative par with South Africa, Sri Lanka and Pakistan (pre-2006) In 12 away series against those better sides we've lost seven times, in 10 home series we've lost three times.
So the conclusion I have to draw is England have not been that much better in the 2000s than in the 1990s, we play more weak sides BUT are able to win the occaisional series perhaps we might not have in the 1990s. Then again Flintoff featured strongly in England's outastanding two series wins of the 2000s and England didn't have a Flintoff in the 1990s. All subsequent impressive results against Australia have come through their decline.
New Zealand 1990-South Africa 99/00
Series : P27 W8 D4 L15 (Won 29.63%)
Tests : P104 W26 D36 L42 (Won 25.00%)
Australia 2009-Bangladesh 09/10
Series : P38 W20 D7 L11 (Won 52.63%)
Tests : P130 W55 D38 L37 (Won 42.31%)
On face value you'd say the stats prove England are better, but what they don't show is that West Indies have been in decline since 2000 and are now a weak side, Pakistan have come over here with two weak sides and been beaten easily, and New Zealand are not much of a side. Toss in regular beatings of Bangladesh and the split of those stats into good/bad sides is not a bad idea.
AUS/IND/SAF/SRI/PAK*
Series : P22 W6 D6 L10 (Won 27.27%)
Tests : P81 W21 D27 L33 (Won 25.93%)
*Pakistan pre-2006
ZIM/NZE/WIN/BAN/PAK**
Series : P16 W14 D1 L1 (Won 87.50%)
Tests : P49 W34 D11 L4 (Won 69.39%)
**Pakistan 2006
West Indies were a much weaker side even in 2000 so it would be pointless and prove little to include the 2000 series with the stronger opponents. If you consider England did play Zimbabwe a couple of times in the 90s, and New Zealand were of mixed strength then I'd say that is good evidence to suggest England aren't much different to back in the 1990s, they just play the weaker sides more often and are able to beat Australia - the 2005 series being the most convincing and even that was won 2-1 which were two run and three wicket margins.
Between 2000 and 2009/10 we've played West Indies six times, New Zealand four times, Bangladesh three times and Zimbabwe twice, losing just ONE series. In that same period we've not beaten India in FIVE series, have won twice against Australia but lost three times, and are on a relative par with South Africa, Sri Lanka and Pakistan (pre-2006) In 12 away series against those better sides we've lost seven times, in 10 home series we've lost three times.
So the conclusion I have to draw is England have not been that much better in the 2000s than in the 1990s, we play more weak sides BUT are able to win the occaisional series perhaps we might not have in the 1990s. Then again Flintoff featured strongly in England's outastanding two series wins of the 2000s and England didn't have a Flintoff in the 1990s. All subsequent impressive results against Australia have come through their decline.
