• 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.

How come English can't bat?

Pothas

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
England have a number of good batsmen at the moment but one or more of them has to make the step up. There is a very good chance that one of Bell, Cook or Pietersen will finish with an average of 50 or higher. I dont see the dominance of the batsman over the bowler ending soon so atleast one of them should achieve this.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
aussie tragic said:
I think you're being a bit harsh on Hammond, Barrington, Hutton, Sutcliffe, Hobbs & Compton....
I didn't say there weren't any, that's why I used the word "few". Even in that list Barrington is not a Richards etc who would dominate an attack, he was a grafter in the Boycott mold - and like uncle Geoffrey he was onced dropped from the next match for scoring too slowly.
 

PhoenixFire

International Coach
Lillian Thomson said:
In our entire history England have had few genuinely great batsman which you would call really special like a Richards, Lara, Tendulkar, Chappell or Pollock.

Ever heard of Jack Hobbs, Wally Hammond, Denis Compton, Andrew Sandham, Graham Gooch, Geoff Boycott, Len Hutton, WG Grace, Eh Hendren, Frank Woolley, Phil Mead, and many nore who I can't be bothered to say. There are so many it's stupid. England have had more 'Great' batsmen thatn any other country, period.
 

aussie tragic

International Captain
PhoenixFire said:
England have had more 'Great' batsmen thatn any other country, period.
Just none in the last 40 years that can average 50+ over a career it seems :)
 
Last edited:

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
PhoenixFire said:
Ever heard of Jack Hobbs, Wally Hammond, Denis Compton, Andrew Sandham, Graham Gooch, Geoff Boycott, Len Hutton, WG Grace, Eh Hendren, Frank Woolley, Phil Mead, and many nore who I can't be bothered to say. There are so many it's stupid. England have had more 'Great' batsmen thatn any other country, period.

The fact that you have to go back to WG Grace just proves the opposite. And how many in the last fifty years? Gooch only averaged in the low 40's and Boycs didn't average 50, though he was probably the closest to doing so. A bit sad really as Boycs average doesn't do him justice IMO. He should have averaged 50.

But after Boycs, who else is there?
 

PhoenixFire

International Coach
My point was to the person who said that in the entire history of English cricket, there have been very few 'Great' players. I quite agree with your point about having few since Boycott.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Boycs is the one; if he'd have retired @ the end of the English summer in 1978 (when he was v nearly 38!) he'd have had career stats of 5675 runs @ 51.13.
 

TT Boy

Hall of Fame Member
If Paul Collingwood can average forty odd, then one of the good English batsman (i.e not him) should be averaging at least fifty five.
 

open365

International Vice-Captain
BoyBrumby said:
Boycs is the one; if he'd have retired @ the end of the English summer in 1978 (when he was v nearly 38!) he'd have had career stats of 5675 runs @ 51.13.
Fits you sig perfectly.
 

aussie tragic

International Captain
TT Boy said:
If Paul Collingwood can average forty odd, then one of the good English batsman (i.e not him) should be averaging at least fifty five.
Sure 40+ now, but he'll soon settle into 35 mediocrity (if he gets a game with Freddie back). IMO, Bell is the best chance of a consitant 50+ batsman (if the Aussies don't shatter his confidence again).
 

TT Boy

Hall of Fame Member
aussie tragic said:
Sure 40+ now, but he'll soon settle into 35 mediocrity (if he gets a game with Freddie back). IMO, Bell is the best chance of a consitant 50+ batsman (if the Aussies don't shatter his confidence again).
Thirty five is still pretty good for a cricketer who got out to Chris Gayle whilst playing for the spin. Gayle turns one ball ever millennium!
 

Kweek

Cricketer Of The Year
so how many does India have? bar Tendulkar
how many do the West indies have bar Lara
 

Kweek

Cricketer Of The Year
TT Boy said:
Thirty five is still pretty good for a cricketer who got out to Chris Gayle whilst playing for the spin. Gayle turns one ball ever millennium!
Collingwood did have a good go at Kanaria and came out on top
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Kweek said:
Collingwood did have a good go at Kanaria and came out on top
Wow, he went against a second rate bowler and came out on top. Impressive, that. Let's see how he handles Warne (Warne, Murali being 1st rate, Kumble being 1.5 rate, Kaneria, Harbhajan being 2nd rate).
 

Kweek

Cricketer Of The Year
silentstriker said:
Wow, he went against a second rate bowler and came out on top. Impressive, that. Let's see how he handles Warne (Warne, Murali being 1st rate, Kumble being 1.5 rate, Kaneria, Harbhajan being 2nd rate).
afaik he wasnt to hopeless against Warne.
Collingwood isn't a bad cricketer and is massivly underrated.
 

Kweek

Cricketer Of The Year
and how is not being able to bat, with a team full of guys avging 40s
i'd say that englands lack of good bowlers is a bigger problem then there batting.
 

PhoenixFire

International Coach
Collingwood isn't a very talented player to be honest, but if every player worked as bloody hard as he does, and used there given talent like him, then loads of bats could average more than 50. I really like Collingwood, and think that he should be in the Brisbane starting line up.
 

Top