The role of the Ashes Test series in defining the legacy of England and Australia players

[Buffet]

Discussion in other thread had me looking which players have stepped up in Ashes. This include home and away Ashes. Players get lots of tests, way more than any other set of players from any two teams playing against each other. Smaple size is huge for any decent player because they will play plenly of tests.

For any Eng and Aus players, they need to step up in away Ashes to be rated as ATG, but I wanted to see just over all for level below that.


The top bowlers in Ashes - last 25 years:





The top batsmen in Ashes - last 25 years:




We see usual suspects in both list. McGrath, Warne, Cummins in bowling list. Hussey, Smith, Ponting in batting list.

But,

Anderson: 39 tests with avg of 35 with 5 5-fers

Root : 34 tests with avearge of 40 with 4 tons


Anderson and Root are hailed as the the greatest bowler and the greatest batsman from Eng in the last 25 years, but these are ordinary numbers given both got to play lots of innings in their peak in Ashes due to regularlity of Ashes.

I intentioanlly ended the list with Anderson and Root to focus on them. Both have played 35-40 tests in Ashes. That's around half test career of good test players from other countries. Tons of oppurtunities to show the caliber.

In other thread , we were discussing that to be rated as great Eng/Aus players need to have great series in away Ashes, but I wanted to see if Root and Anderson actually have good record combining home and away.
Just wanted to see how PPers think about Eng/Aus players being rated based on performnance in Ashes. It's home and away combined so let's not get into discussion of ATG. For ATG tag, players from Eng/Aus have to step up in Away Ashes and have a good over all record in Ashes. McGrath/Warne/Smith makes the cut and all of us know that. Some other criterion comes in play, but great Ashes record is a pretty basic requirment for Eng/Aus players to be rated. At least that's how I see it.

Discussion is about how much weight do you give for over all performance, including home, in Ashes. Given performance of the best batsman(Root)/best bowler(Anderson) from Eng in the last 25 years, where do you rate them in world history? Do they even belong in discussion of greats?

Not talking about justifying how they are ATG or not ATG. That comes later. Simply do they even make the cut to get into that discussion? I am aware of volume for Root/Anderson. Volume has never made anyone ATG. I am looking for quality and Ashes is basic requirement for Aus/Eng players.

After looking at this, I personally think that both of them don't even make the cut for discussion. You can't be an English players with these records and make the cut for ATG discussion.

• Not great away record in Ahses
• Not great overall record in Ashes
• Very few away Tons/5-fers against top teams
• Not a single away ATG series against top teams

Yet, both of them have volume and good career avearge. I personally think that it's fantastic to have volume, but playing for Eng gives you a crack at volume a lot more than playing for other coutries specially if you are one format specialist. I think quality is the first requirment for making a cut for ATG discussion, if you lack that then no amount of volume can ever make up for that. You can have a fantastic 60 tests career with a huge quality and you are in cut for discussion.

Discussion is not about comparing Root/Anderson with anyone else or proving that they are ATG. They are 14th/15th best performers in Ashes over all in 25 years with a very very large sample size. I am not even talking about away Ashes exclusively.

Does being so ordinary in Ashes makes them ineligible for even being in the list for ATG discussion? Do volume and good career avearge alone put Root and Anderson in the list for discussion for ATG?

Discuss!

 

[Buffet]

To break the data for Home and away separately,

Batsmen : Away Ashes last 25 years



Batsmen : Home Ashes last 25 years

 

[Buffet]

Bowlers : Away Ashes last 25 years



Bowlers : Home Ashes last 25 years

 

[Buffet]

Low sample size than many others, but Archer and Vaughan are the only two Eng players who appear in top 3 of any of this home and away Ashes performance.

Hope to see Archer in the next series in Aus. That will make it esier for Eng to win series there or at least draw the series.

 

[Buffet]

I some how had the impression that Anderson and Root failed to make a big mark when playing away Ashes, but both of them have made no big mark even in home Ashes.

 

[Buffet]

Looks like this thread was made to discredit Root and take attention away from Root potentially breaking Tendulkar's record.

Nah, entire attention will be on Root and it will be great fun if and when he breaks the total run's record of SRT. All records are meant to be broken.

But,

Thread is about Root, Anderson and Ashes.

Thread is not about ATG, SRT etc.

Please stick to the topic of thread and not derail it. Mods can probably delete off topic comments.

 

[jnaveen1980]

This is current ICC ranking. In all likelihood Root will land in Australia as world no.1 batsman as his rating of 900 plus is far and above every other batsman. So there is no form issue. Australian attack is overly familiar attack. And an aging attack. So he has one shot at fixing that hole

 

[Ab Fan]

This list is full of all Australian players and dominated mostly by them. So, this should not be the lone criteria, also longevity often make it hard for certain players to keep on playing in Ashes and keep on doing well.

There maybe better players than Root and Anderson in Ashes but if we consider entire career, these two alongwith Botham are England’s best players in last 50 years.

 

[Kianig89]

Simon Jones nobody knows him yet Eng fans adore him for the role in 2005 Ashes

 

[Buffet]

This is current ICC ranking. In all likelihood Root will land in Australia as world no.1 batsman as his rating of 900 plus is far and above every other batsman. So there is no form issue. Australian attack is overly familiar attack. And an aging attack. So he has one shot at fixing that hole

Root has been in a great form in the last 5 years and played series in India and Aus, the two best teams of his era.

He didn't do much. This will be his best and last chance to make a mark with aging Aus attack with wrong side of 30s.

But forget about doing well in away Ashes. What do you think about Root/Anderson not making mark even at home Ashes. Shouldn't it be considered a big flaw in their career?

 

[Buffet]

Simon Jones nobody knows him yet Eng fans adore him for the role in 2005 Ashes

Nah, remember him for that Ashes.

 

[Buffet]

This list is full of all Australian players and dominated mostly by them. So, this should not be the lone criteria,

Not a lone criterion, but surely a very important criterion for legacy of Eng/Aus players.

 

[Cover Drive Six]

Good thread.
Steve Smith is GOAT test player.

 

[Buffet]

Simon Jones nobody knows him yet Eng fans adore him for the role in 2005 Ashes

Michael Clarke shoulders arms and loses his off stump, that's my memory of Simon Jones.

I think he took 5-6 wickets at 50 odd run - Ponting, Gilly and Clarke

An ATG spell.

 

[Kianig89]

Michael Clarke shoulders arms and loses his off stump, that's my memory of Simon Jones.

I think he took 5-6 wickets at 50 odd run - Ponting, Gilly and Clarke

An ATG spell.

Exactly he is an Ashes legend and that has a special place among Barmy Army fans

 

[jnaveen1980]

Good thread.
Steve Smith is GOAT test player.

At his peak Smith could adapt to any kind of pitches. This is one of the oft-discussed topic in commentary box. He is probably one player who can change technique from innings to innigns on the fly. He was originally not a batsman. A bowler who could bat. So not a well coached batsman. He just used his hand eye coordination to the full effect. SO there is no basic technique ingrained in him like you see with guys who adopt a technique from the childhood days. So it helps him change technique in the middle of a series or test or even innigns.

 

[Buffet]

At his peak Smith could adapt to any kind of pitches. This is one of the oft-discussed topic in commentary box. He is probably one player who can change technique from innings to innigns on the fly. He was originally not a batsman. A bowler who could bat. So not a well coached batsman. He just used his hand eye coordination to the full effect. SO there is no basic technique ingrained in him like you see with guys who adopt a technique from the childhood days. So it helps him change technique in the middle of a series or test or even innigns.

Yah, he was trying to adjust in the last test as well.

Absolute top tier batsman. I don't care what his career average ends up due to going lower in his decline, he did some brilliant stuff and had many ATG series in tough tours, including Ashes. If he had gone missing in Ashes, he would be rated lower for abvious reasons. The best 3 test batsman in the last 30 years, SRT, Lara and Smith.

Having great Ashes played a part in elevating his status in world cricket. For Aus/Eng players performing well in Ashes is extremely important. It happens regularlly as well so plenty of chance for good players to get games and make a case for greatness. Smith was top class even outside of Ashes so goes in top tier for me.

Let's get back to Root, Anderson and Ashes. Where it places them?

 

[Buffet]

Eng must learn to play bouncers to do well in Aus. i still remember Johnson bullying entire Eng batting line up. Batsmen were literally backing away.

Kohli is a very good player of bounce. He took on hot Johnson in the next series and scored heavily. Clearly, you need to have good game against bounce to do well in Aus.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Eng must learn to play bouncers to do well in Aus. i still remember Johnson bullying entire Eng batting line up. Batsmen were literally backing away.

Kohli is a very good player of bounce. He took on hot Johnson in the next series and scored heavily. Clearly, you need to have good game against bounce to do well in Aus.

People don't do qualitive analysis on why some teams do well against some teams and in some places. One reason was India started producing outstanding short ball players in the last 15 years or so. When i say handling short ball i am talking about imperious pull shots. It is not like they made it easy for them. Very first ball Kohli faced, he was hit by Johnson's bouncer. He did not step back. Went on to make a 100

 

[SportsWarrior]

Discussion in other thread had me looking which players have stepped up in Ashes. This include home and away Ashes. Players get lots of tests, way more than any other set of players from any two teams playing against each other. Smaple size is huge for any decent player because they will play plenly of tests.

For any Eng and Aus players, they need to step up in away Ashes to be rated as ATG, but I wanted to see just over all for level below that.


The top bowlers in Ashes - last 25 years:

View attachment 148104



The top batsmen in Ashes - last 25 years:

View attachment 148105


We see usual suspects in both list. McGrath, Warne, Cummins in bowling list. Hussey, Smith, Ponting in batting list.

But,

Anderson: 39 tests with avg of 35 with 5 5-fers

Root : 34 tests with avearge of 40 with 4 tons


Anderson and Root are hailed as the the greatest bowler and the greatest batsman from Eng in the last 25 years, but these are ordinary numbers given both got to play lots of innings in their peak in Ashes due to regularlity of Ashes.

I intentioanlly ended the list with Anderson and Root to focus on them. Both have played 35-40 tests in Ashes. That's around half test career of good test players from other countries. Tons of oppurtunities to show the caliber.

In other thread , we were discussing that to be rated as great Eng/Aus players need to have great series in away Ashes, but I wanted to see if Root and Anderson actually have good record combining home and away.
Just wanted to see how PPers think about Eng/Aus players being rated based on performnance in Ashes. It's home and away combined so let's not get into discussion of ATG. For ATG tag, players from Eng/Aus have to step up in Away Ashes and have a good over all record in Ashes. McGrath/Warne/Smith makes the cut and all of us know that. Some other criterion comes in play, but great Ashes record is a pretty basic requirment for Eng/Aus players to be rated. At least that's how I see it.

Discussion is about how much weight do you give for over all performance, including home, in Ashes. Given performance of the best batsman(Root)/best bowler(Anderson) from Eng in the last 25 years, where do you rate them in world history? Do they even belong in discussion of greats?

Not talking about justifying how they are ATG or not ATG. That comes later. Simply do they even make the cut to get into that discussion? I am aware of volume for Root/Anderson. Volume has never made anyone ATG. I am looking for quality and Ashes is basic requirement for Aus/Eng players.

After looking at this, I personally think that both of them don't even make the cut for discussion. You can't be an English players with these records and make the cut for ATG discussion.

• Not great away record in Ahses
• Not great overall record in Ashes
• Very few away Tons/5-fers against top teams
• Not a single away ATG series against top teams

Yet, both of them have volume and good career avearge. I personally think that it's fantastic to have volume, but playing for Eng gives you a crack at volume a lot more than playing for other coutries specially if you are one format specialist. I think quality is the first requirment for making a cut for ATG discussion, if you lack that then no amount of volume can ever make up for that. You can have a fantastic 60 tests career with a huge quality and you are in cut for discussion.

Discussion is not about comparing Root/Anderson with anyone else or proving that they are ATG. They are 14th/15th best performers in Ashes over all in 25 years with a very very large sample size. I am not even talking about away Ashes exclusively.

Does being so ordinary in Ashes makes them ineligible for even being in the list for ATG discussion? Do volume and good career avearge alone put Root and Anderson in the list for discussion for ATG?

Discuss!

Yes, this is well known among both Australian and England commentators and critics. This is the major reason why Anderson is never mentioned in the same tier as McGrath or Cummins and root is never mentioned as good as pitersen. Both Root and Anderson have been pretty ordinary against a rival for which prepare throughout their cricketing career.

 

[SportsWarrior]

Discussion in other thread had me looking which players have stepped up in Ashes. This include home and away Ashes. Players get lots of tests, way more than any other set of players from any two teams playing against each other. Smaple size is huge for any decent player because they will play plenly of tests.

For any Eng and Aus players, they need to step up in away Ashes to be rated as ATG, but I wanted to see just over all for level below that.


The top bowlers in Ashes - last 25 years:

View attachment 148104



The top batsmen in Ashes - last 25 years:

View attachment 148105


We see usual suspects in both list. McGrath, Warne, Cummins in bowling list. Hussey, Smith, Ponting in batting list.

But,

Anderson: 39 tests with avg of 35 with 5 5-fers

Root : 34 tests with avearge of 40 with 4 tons


Anderson and Root are hailed as the the greatest bowler and the greatest batsman from Eng in the last 25 years, but these are ordinary numbers given both got to play lots of innings in their peak in Ashes due to regularlity of Ashes.

I intentioanlly ended the list with Anderson and Root to focus on them. Both have played 35-40 tests in Ashes. That's around half test career of good test players from other countries. Tons of oppurtunities to show the caliber.

In other thread , we were discussing that to be rated as great Eng/Aus players need to have great series in away Ashes, but I wanted to see if Root and Anderson actually have good record combining home and away.
Just wanted to see how PPers think about Eng/Aus players being rated based on performnance in Ashes. It's home and away combined so let's not get into discussion of ATG. For ATG tag, players from Eng/Aus have to step up in Away Ashes and have a good over all record in Ashes. McGrath/Warne/Smith makes the cut and all of us know that. Some other criterion comes in play, but great Ashes record is a pretty basic requirment for Eng/Aus players to be rated. At least that's how I see it.

Discussion is about how much weight do you give for over all performance, including home, in Ashes. Given performance of the best batsman(Root)/best bowler(Anderson) from Eng in the last 25 years, where do you rate them in world history? Do they even belong in discussion of greats?

Not talking about justifying how they are ATG or not ATG. That comes later. Simply do they even make the cut to get into that discussion? I am aware of volume for Root/Anderson. Volume has never made anyone ATG. I am looking for quality and Ashes is basic requirement for Aus/Eng players.

After looking at this, I personally think that both of them don't even make the cut for discussion. You can't be an English players with these records and make the cut for ATG discussion.

• Not great away record in Ahses
• Not great overall record in Ashes
• Very few away Tons/5-fers against top teams
• Not a single away ATG series against top teams

Yet, both of them have volume and good career avearge. I personally think that it's fantastic to have volume, but playing for Eng gives you a crack at volume a lot more than playing for other coutries specially if you are one format specialist. I think quality is the first requirment for making a cut for ATG discussion, if you lack that then no amount of volume can ever make up for that. You can have a fantastic 60 tests career with a huge quality and you are in cut for discussion.

Discussion is not about comparing Root/Anderson with anyone else or proving that they are ATG. They are 14th/15th best performers in Ashes over all in 25 years with a very very large sample size. I am not even talking about away Ashes exclusively.

Does being so ordinary in Ashes makes them ineligible for even being in the list for ATG discussion? Do volume and good career avearge alone put Root and Anderson in the list for discussion for ATG?

Discuss!

Grear post wirh the data. Deserves an award @mods

 

[Buffet]

Yes, this is well known among both Australian and England commentators and critics. This is the major reason why Anderson is never mentioned in the same tier as McGrath or Cummins and root is never mentioned as good as pitersen. Both Root and Anderson have been pretty ordinary against a rival for which prepare throughout their cricketing career.

Honestly, I always followed most series in Aus and I was aware of Anderson/Root not leaving a mark in Ashes there, but I was not aware of Anderson/Root not leaving a mark in home Ashes.

Both of them have not done much in tough tours, but they are great in home conditions. I didn't watch all Ashes in Eng that closely. I was under impression that Root/Anderson did well in home Ashes. I was surpised to see that Both have done very little even in home Ashes.

Look at Root's Entire Ashes record ( Run's per inning) ,

0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
4
5
5
6
6
8
9
10
11
11
11
13
14
14
15
15
15
16
17
18
19
19
20
21
21
24
24
24
26
28
28
30
34
38
46
50
51
57
57
58
60
61
62
63
67
68
71
77
83
84
87
89
91
118
130
134
180



Look at Anderson's entire Ashes record( wicket's per inning),

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10 times 2 wickets
10-12 times 3 or 4 wickets
4-5 times 5/6 wickets

I was just surpised that both of them have not left the mark even in home Ashes. Root averages lower 40s and Anderson avearages mid 30s in home Ashes. Both are wonderful players, but not leaving a mark in Ashes after playing 35-40 tests home and away means, it's a blackmark in their good career.