• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

England - Unachievers?

roseboy64

Cricket Web Content Updater
England - Underachievers?

It just seems strange to me that a team such as England as failed to produce a bowler capable of taking 400+ Test wickets or a batsman able to get into the top 5 highest run scorers of all time. A country who helped found Test cricket and having such great resources. Also, no WCs either. Your thoughts?
 
Last edited:

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
It's also interesting to see how many more players they've used than Australia (it's about 620 to 390) even though they've been around for the same period of time. Maybe the fact that (I'm guessing) they've played more matches influences that, but I doubt it wholly explains the large discrepancy.
 
Last edited:

Slats4ever

International Vice-Captain
yeah i've noticed that to. I dunno why they have had so many more players than australia... anyone know why?
 

Burpey

Cricketer Of The Year
They have played more Test than Australia, but not enough to have 230 more Test cricketers. I think it may have to do with the fact they have 20 counties and Australia has 6 states in the respective domestic competitions. Therefore, they have more to choose from and have used the pool of players available
 

King_Ponting

International Regular
The simple explanation is that Australia have had better players than england, who have performed on a more consistent basis.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
roseboy64 said:
It just seems strange to me that a team such as England as failed to produce a bowler capable of taking 400+ Test wickets or a batsman able to get into the top 5 highest run scorers of all time. A country who helped found Test cricket and having such great resources. Also, no WCs either. Your thoughts?
Boycott would have scored far more runs than did.

Hutton had the highest individual score for a long time.

Laker has 19 wickets in a test match.

From 1991, when I started watching cricket, England have been ordinary. But they have been on the up curve for some time now.

I would not call England unachievers.
 

biased indian

International Coach
Pratyush said:
Boycott would have scored far more runs than did.

and the reason he didn't get many more was ???

Pratyush said:
Hutton had the highest individual score for a long time.
Laker has 19 wickets in a test match.
i think he was not refering to an individual inngs :cool:

They will continue to be under achivers in ODI unless they play more games i think
england still plays a lot less odi games compared to others
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
biased indian said:
and the reason he didn't get many more was ???
He played far less tests due to controversies, injury.


i think he was not refering to an individual inngs :cool:
He was referring to England as a team and individual milestones too which is why he mentioned 400 wickets etc.
 

biased indian

International Coach
Pratyush said:
He was referring to England as a team and individual milestones too which is why he mentioned 400 wickets etc.
thats the same thing that i am also saying
he was reffering to career records not individual inngs records :D
 

Choora

State Regular
roseboy64 said:
It just seems strange to me that a team such as England as failed to produce a bowler capable of taking 400+ Test wickets or a batsman able to get into the top 5 highest run scorers of all time. A country who helped found Test cricket and having such great resources. Also, no WCs either. Your thoughts?
Very true.... sigh!

Though that make them underachiever and not unachiever.


A couple of years back i wanted to post a thread like this, but didn't do it.I knew very well that posting such a thread would land me into big trouble :cool:
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
roseboy64 said:
It just seems strange to me that a team such as England as failed to produce a bowler capable of taking 400+ Test wickets or a batsman able to get into the top 5 highest run scorers of all time. A country who helped found Test cricket and having such great resources. Also, no WCs either. Your thoughts?
Well, as recently as the 1960's Fred was leading wicket-taker, as recently as the 80's Botham was up there.

You're just young, that's all.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
biased indian said:
thats the same thing that i am also saying
he was reffering to career records not individual inngs records :D
Career records means individual player performance judgements as do individual innings. :blink:
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Slats4ever said:
yeah i've noticed that to. I dunno why they have had so many more players than australia... anyone know why?
A long series of incompetent selectors who chopped and changed a lot.

Remember 1989 (29 players used in an Ashes series)
 

greg

International Debutant
It's just an inevitable byproduct of the fact that england haven't been very good for a number of years until recently - when career runs and wicket tallies have inevitably been increased by the volume of cricket played.
 

Top