Simon Jones Over-rated?

[luckyeddie]

but you said England didnt decend into farce during the 90's..so if there were series worse than 1999 vs NZ, then England were farcical on a number of occasions ..I will still go with 1999 as being the true low point out of the many England have experienced since the early to mid 80s, completely outplayed by a really medicore team)

1999 was the lowest ebb I can remember - and I've watched avidly from 1965.

 

[wpdavid]

1999 was the lowest ebb I can remember - and I've watched avidly from 1965.

Other contenders for truly dreadful home series were the 4-0 thrashing by Aus in 1989 and 2-0 (out of 3) by India in 1986. Oh, and the 4-0 thrashing by WI in 1988, which was largely avoidable if Peter May wasn't so clueless as Cof S.

 

[Richard]

Is there such thing as a non-toothless NZ attack?

When they have the sense to leave something in the pitches for their bowlers, yes. Such as in 2001\02 and 2002\03.

 

[Richard]

many people may accuse him, I dont, I saw Gower play a number of great innings on dodgy wickets!!!!

Gower may be unique in personality, but he simply isnt unique in coming into test cricket and suceeding without any real success in domestic cricket.
Michael vaughan for one!!!!
Alec Stewart before he came into test cricket had only ever once averaged over 45 in a season (he played 9 seasons before then)
Graham Gooch had done nothing
Trescothick did not much in county cricket before test cricket
Botham did little in the county game(statistically) to suggest that he would become a player with 13 test hundreds in his first 6 years of international cricket.
Nasser Hussain: Only 4 first class hundreds before playing tests

darren Gough did little statisically before he played for England (he had one half decent season, and yet it was blatantly obvious he had what it took to be an international bowler of some standing even before then)

In fact the thing is in the last 20 years there have been few players for England who have succeeded for a longish period of time, and so the sample size is quite small, and obviously there are plenty of batsmen who have paid there dues in county cricket before going onto success in test cricket....but the list of those who have been spotted early on before major success is is certainly not limited to David Gower

The simple fact of the matter is that almost all players have had success in the domestic game when having success in Tests.
Many players are picked prematurely, of course - and usually when they are they don't do much, until they get a few decent domestic stuff.
Still - few players even play 2 or 3 full seasons before selection.

 

[Richard]

He probably was at his best in that period you said, but it wasnt an outstanding period of batting by any stretch of the imagination. I 'manipulated' those stats just to show that if you took the first test of that 38 test stretch and the last two away (leaving the middle 35) he was actually very very average (statisically) during that period.

Yes... an average of 36 is so poor considering the quality of the bowling he often faced...
I'd say it's pretty good given what came before and after.

you dont see it probably because you didnt really watch Hussain back then. He was nowhere near the player he had been, not matter what the averages tell you

Sorry, I saw Hussain in both 1996-1999 and 2001-2004.
The only difference was in impression, because of 2000...
Hussain actually recovered himself very well and did little wrong, playing many match-turning innings in both the former and the latter period.

yeah you are right..BIG DEAL, I dont really care in the slightest if you think of him as a 'fine' test batsman, like Butcher, if you define 'fine' as 'someone who can knock the ball around a bit for a few 50s here and there, but rarely go on to produce a big score' then ok...its not how I define a fine player.

So Butcher didn't produce many big scores in 2001-2003\04?
I could name you 4 very important innings he played in 1998 alone - and in 2001 he was clearly a class above all the other England batsmen, against some at-times magnificent bowling (and catching).
In 2002 he at times looked near enough immovable.
And in 2003 he played one incredibly important knock and a few others, then in 2004 he played 2 that made as big an impact on winning a series as anything.

The one period of play that you quote as being Hussains best actually only lasted 3 and a half years in a career spanning from 1990 to 1994....so statisically he was only average really (just admit it), and technically he had some big flaws, thats what stopped him from being a much better batsman, in all phases of his career

Hussain's career in 1990 to 1995 doesn't really matter - it is an insignificantly small part.
It's only 1996-2004 that's remotely important.
Saying "he did nothing 1990-1995" is totally illiterate - career length is defined in matches, not years. Because some people go years without playing.

you see Richard most people dont really care if a players stats are distorted because he played a couple of tests vs Australia in 1989 just after university.Most people can make judgements about a player by actually watching them play

Err, so?
Plenty of people, I can assure you, will care that Atherton's stats are distorted by 1989. Whether you watch him and realise he was good or not no-one wants a worse average than they deserves.

And if Atherton had no chance of success in those games, then no one did, because he had actually played really well in first class cricket that season and the previous season...and to be honest when he scored his 40 odd in his second innings,alot of cricket followers were extremley impressed (not just the Lancs fan, who knew he was of that standard already)

He'd played, yes - but he'd always been bit-partish because of the fact he was at Uni.
And if one 40-odd demonstrated his potential... so? That didn't need doing - had he debuted in 1990 he'd have just come in and set The World alight straight away.

Overburdened????? I cant think why Atherton would have been that early in his career
Atherton was quite clearly a more natural batsman than Boycott ever was, just a different type of character, probably one who couldnt absolutely dedicated himself to the process of run scoring like Boycott could.

I don't really know what you mean by "natural" but Boycott played cricket and batted (never did aught but) from about the age of 5 or 6. For me, that's about as much of a "natural batsman" as you can get.
Both were, to me, perfectly "natural" batsmen, just Boycott was rather better.

but you said England didnt decend into farce during the 90's..so if there were series worse than 1999 vs NZ, then England were farcical on a number of occasions ..I will still go with 1999 as being the true low point out of the many England have experienced since the early to mid 80s, completely outplayed by a really medicore team)

1, New Zealand CERTAINLY weren't a "really mediocre" team. Indeed, probably their best side apart from the Hadlee-Crowe-Wright ones. They were perceived as really mediocre, yes, but that was the fault of those doing the perceiving. They were erroneous.
2, England certainly played nowhere near as bad in 1999 as they did in 1990\91, 1993 or 1996 (Pakistan).
3, 1999 had actually been preceded by some really uplifting cricket. However, 1989 (the true black hour of English cricket) was the culmination of a whole FOUR YEARS of absolutely abysmal cricket. Between 1986 and 1989 England won just 3 Tests out of 40! 1 of those was against the newish Sri Lankans and the other 2 were against the even-worse Australia of 1986\87. Then you look at the fact that only on 1 occasion did they even look like winning (Fourth Test 1987) those 37 they didn't win.
I really fail to believe that anyone (except those concerned with an "instant" uplifting in 2000) could honestly believe 1999 was the worst time in English cricket history. The only thing that made it seem so was the presence of the Wisden World Championship.

 

[Goughy]

The simple fact of the matter is that almost all players have had success in the domestic game when having success in Tests.
Many players are picked prematurely, of course - and usually when they are they don't do much, until they get a few decent domestic stuff.
Still - few players even play 2 or 3 full seasons before selection.

Agree with you on this matter. It is easy to point at exceptions but it is neglegant (sp?) management not to notice that successful FC players have a far higher probability of being successful test players.

There has been a massive catalogue of players picked for England who never had a chance of succeeding. This was obvious before they ever walked onto the field.

 

[Richard]

many???? Trescothick and Thorpe I think who have played more than one series

Butcher averaged all but.
Hussain did when you get rid of Zimbabwe - and Hussain wasn't always the best on flat pitches either.
Flintoff averages 51 since 2003 (given that he was absolutely rubbish in 2002)
Vaughan actually still averages bang-on 50, even though he did little in 2003 or 2005.
So that's 6.
Then Strauss and Key average in the 40s.

 

[Richard]

Other contenders for truly dreadful home series were the 4-0 thrashing by Aus in 1989 and 2-0 (out of 3) by India in 1986. Oh, and the 4-0 thrashing by WI in 1988, which was largely avoidable if Peter May wasn't so clueless as Cof S.

David, I've hope for you...
You remember 1985\86-1989 when we won 3 Tests out of 40 (and never looked like winning more than 1 of the other 37)?
Surely you'd agree that that was far worse than anything in the 1990s?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

The key word is "several", not "once". Venky Prasad hit a six over covers ONCE, in an ODI. Doesn't mean I will EVER give him even 1% of chance of doing it again in an international game.

But he did it! How can you say you saw him do it and then say he's not capable of doing it?! You can say he's not capable of doing it consistently, but I struggle to see how you can justify the former.

It defies logic.

 

[Swervy]

David, I've hope for you...
You remember 1985\86-1989 when we won 3 Tests out of 40 (and never looked like winning more than 1 of the other 37)?
Surely you'd agree that that was far worse than anything in the 1990s?

of the late 80's were bad, but England were just generally outperformed by superior teams, the England team back then was just bad.

1999 was worse because NZ werent a very good team, and they completely outclassed England.It was a disgraceful display by England...that and the World Cup joke as well

 

[luckyeddie]

Other contenders for truly dreadful home series were the 4-0 thrashing by Aus in 1989 and 2-0 (out of 3) by India in 1986. Oh, and the 4-0 thrashing by WI in 1988, which was largely avoidable if Peter May wasn't so clueless as Cof S.

Oh, no doubt - but 1999 was utter tripe, the scraping of an almost empty barrel. Besides, there were mitigating circumstances during the second half of the 1980's - neither Hick nor Ramprakash had made it into the side yet.

 

[wpdavid]

of the late 80's were bad, but England were just generally outperformed by superior teams, the England team back then was just bad.

1999 was worse because NZ werent a very good team, and they completely outclassed England.It was a disgraceful display by England...that and the World Cup joke as well

In terms of losing at home to a bad team, I suppose the 2-0 loss to India in 1986 must rank as the worst, as India were truly awful then, especially away from the subcontinent, but we never looked remotely like winning any of the 3 tests despite being able to call on Gooch, Gower, Gatting, Lamb & others. At least we won one of the tests in 1999 and were in with a shout in the decider until Cairns had other ideas. I reckon NZ in 1999 were a better side than India in 1986 - playing in England, anyway.

Aus & WI in 1989 & 1988 were good sides, but not as good as they would become / had previously been. It was the extent of the defeats that was so galling - ahd we gone down by the odd test, then fair enough, but we just didn't show up. I still think that 1989 was the most disgusted I have been with an English performance, but I accept that is a subjective call. I can see why others would sview 1999 in the same way.

 

[honestbharani]

But he did it! How can you say you saw him do it and then say he's not capable of doing it?! You can say he's not capable of doing it consistently, but I struggle to see how you can justify the former.

It defies logic.

Because "one offs" do occur.

 

[Swervy]

In terms of losing at home to a bad team, I suppose the 2-0 loss to India in 1986 must rank as the worst, as India were truly awful then, especially away from the subcontinent, but we never looked remotely like winning any of the 3 tests despite being able to call on Gooch, Gower, Gatting, Lamb & others. At least we won one of the tests in 1999 and were in with a shout in the decider until Cairns had other ideas. I reckon NZ in 1999 were a better side than India in 1986 - playing in England, anyway.

Aus & WI in 1989 & 1988 were good sides, but not as good as they would become / had previously been. It was the extent of the defeats that was so galling - ahd we gone down by the odd test, then fair enough, but we just didn't show up. I still think that 1989 was the most disgusted I have been with an English performance, but I accept that is a subjective call. I can see why others would sview 1999 in the same way.

fair enough..1986 was pretty damned awful for England....pretty awful cricket played by England throughout from the WI tour up to but not including the 1st test of the Ashes series.I clearly remember England being completely flumoxed by Maninder Singh, and the bowling of Roger Binny ...yeah low times!!!!!!!

1999 was just terrible for a number of reasons....losing 2-1 to NZ after being 1-0 up (and no matter what Richard says, it was an average NZ team) ...but not only losing, it was the way they lost...and also any year you bring Ronnie Irani, darren maddy and Ed 'White Lines' Giddins into the team has got to be put down as an all time low...the World Cup...and drastic batting performnces throughout the year, culminating in 4 for 2 in SA....and being ranked last in the world, which was a fair reflection on Englands play.

Even in 1986, England werent the WORST in the world

 

[Richard]

of the late 80's were bad, but England were just generally outperformed by superior teams, the England team back then was just bad.

1999 was worse because NZ werent a very good team, and they completely outclassed England.It was a disgraceful display by England...that and the World Cup joke as well

New Zealand were a good side, certainly every bit as good as India in 1986, and probably Australia in 1989, too. Nor did they "completely outclass" England - but for a couple of tosses and Engand's inability to polish-off the tail they could've won 4-0.
The World Cup was a joke... but it wasn't a Test competition.
And I suppose the decision to undertake a Rebel South Africa tour (taken by many top players in 1989) wasn't a joke, either?
Yes, 1999 was a bad year, but it was also isolated... 1989 was the culmination of 4 years of wretchedness.

 

[Richard]

1999 was just terrible for a number of reasons....losing 2-1 to NZ after being 1-0 up (and no matter what Richard says, it was an average NZ team)

Yes it does matter what Richard says, because Richard has actually thought the situation through, rather than just blindly swallowed what he was told at the start of the summer...
Matthew Horne was a pretty reasonable Test opener... and Matthew Bell mightn't have been but he still had moments after that series.
Stephen Fleming was and is a good Test batsman.
Nathan Astle was and is a good Test batsman.
Craig McMillan had until the most recent series always had success against England in Test-cricket.
Chris Cairns was for some years one of if not the best all-rounder in Test cricket.
Adam Parore was a good wicketkeeper-batsman.
Dion Nash was a fine bowler when fit (which was not often).
Daniel Vettori is an OK left-arm fingerspinner.
Shayne O'Connor wasn't the worst left-arm seamer you'll ever see.
Geoff Allott bowled better that series than he ever did before.
And New Zealand's best bowler only got on the park once in the series.

...but not only losing, it was the way they lost...and also any year you bring Ronnie Irani, darren maddy and Ed 'White Lines' Giddins into the team has got to be put down as an all time low...the World Cup...and drastic batting performnces throughout the year, culminating in 4 for 2 in SA....

Irani had actually played Test-cricket before... and in 1996 he played in a much worse side.
Believe me, there've been selections every bit as stupid as Darren Maddy... there were probably about 15 in 1989.
Ed Giddins was a perfectly respectible bowler, just one who tended to blow hot-and-cold.

and being ranked last in the world, which was a fair reflection on Englands play.

Even in 1986, England werent the WORST in the world

No, they weren't - because Australia were even worse. And Sri Lanka were new, unlike Zimbabwe in 1999.
England were, though, in far more chaos in 1989 than they were in 1999.

 

[TT Boy]

New Zealand were a good side.

Disagree pal, New Zealand were pretty crappy in 1999, prior to the England series, South Africa toured their and if it was not for rain they would have comfortably won three nil. Two of the games possibly by an innings not a sign of a good team if you ask me.

 

[Swervy]

New Zealand were a good side, certainly every bit as good as India in 1986, and probably Australia in 1989, too. Nor did they "completely outclass" England - but for a couple of tosses and Engand's inability to polish-off the tail they could've won 4-0.
The World Cup was a joke... but it wasn't a Test competition.
And I suppose the decision to undertake a Rebel South Africa tour (taken by many top players in 1989) wasn't a joke, either?
Yes, 1999 was a bad year, but it was also isolated... 1989 was the culmination of 4 years of wretchedness.

no, NZ were an average side who had a terrible away record at the time, and yet they won 2 out of 4 tests in England. OK, they didnt completely outclass England, but they certainly were the far superior team for most of the series. The fact that they didnt 'completely outclass' England is further indication that they were in fact an average team....because that England team in 99 was poor
The fact that 1999 was (kind of) isolated makes it somehow even worse in my book..anyway..each to there own....its all opinion isnt it!!!!

England were embarressing in the late 80's, several times in the 90's , and most recently in 1999, lets leave it at that. (Remember it was you who originally said that England never decended into farce in the 90's, when they quite clearly did)

 

[Richard]

Disagree pal, New Zealand were pretty crappy in 1999, prior to the England series, South Africa toured their and if it was not for rain they would have comfortably won three nil. Two of the games possibly by an innings not a sign of a good team if you ask me.

South Africa would've beaten anyone 3-0 in that sort of form.
Not that a previous series is really what matters - an assessment of the calibre of the players is what counts.

 

[Richard]

no, NZ were an average side who had a terrible away record at the time, and yet they won 2 out of 4 tests in England. OK, they didnt completely outclass England, but they certainly were the far superior team for most of the series. The fact that they didnt 'completely outclass' England is further indication that they were in fact an average team....because that England team in 99 was poor
The fact that 1999 was (kind of) isolated makes it somehow even worse in my book..anyway..each to there own....its all opinion isnt it!!!!

It is... and that's really why it's interesting to debate it.
Can you actually provide some reasons why NZ were so "average", rather than simply saying over-and-over that they "were".
I've assessed their players and shown why they were actually quite good (then went to India and weren't outclassed and comfortably beat WI at home), closest you've come is saying "had a terrible away record"...
To that I say, they'd recently lost in Sri Lanka - almost everyone loses in Sri Lanka, it's an incredibly tough place to win. They still managed, remarkably, to take the lead before the Lankans came back.
Before that they'd been beaten again in Australia - as pretty much everyone has been of late.
They hadn't beaten Zimbabwe, which was a poor effort, yes.
They had drawn in Pakistan, which wasn't too bad an effort.
They'd been outplayed in West Indies... yes, they weren't as good as a still-perfectly-decent West Indies. So?
They'd lost in India... same as in Sri Lanka. Almost everyone loses in India.
They'd lost in South Africa... South Africa, like Australia, beat most teams at home (except Australia) and so that wasn't a disgrace. They also managed to win a Test in that series.
So I'd not say that's quite so bad as you paint it.

England were embarressing in the late 80's, several times in the 90's , and most recently in 1999, lets leave it at that. (Remember it was you who originally said that England never decended into farce in the 90's, when they quite clearly did)

Well, I don't know if I said they never did, because they certainly did in each of 1990\91, 1993 and the 2nd half of 1996.