How come English can't bat?

[Lillian Thomson]

Oh dear, how ignorant. Mead was the 4th highest scorer in FC cricket of all time, and to quote Wisden "Nobody has made more for one team than the 48,892 he piled up for Hampshire".

If scoring 55,000 runs isn't then god help me.

I love it when people who have no argument resort to insults. It's quite obvious that I've been referring to extra special England batsman and no matter how many stats anyone can look up the fact that he played only 17 Tests means he cannot be classed along side Richards/Tendulkar etc, his record was similar to Pietersen and Bell at the moment. What he would have achieved had he had the chance to play more Test Cricket is irrelevant.

 

[silentstriker]

As for Both's average, and Flintoff's, well I'm sure other teams wouldn't have minded having them *clogging* up their middle orders!

Purely as batsmen? I don't know how many middle orders they would make on batting ability.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I love it when people who have no argument resort to insults. It's quite obvious that I've been referring to extra special England batsman and no matter how many stats anyone can look up the fact that he played only 17 Tests means he cannot be classed along side Richards/Tendulkar etc, his record was similar to Pietersen and Bell at the moment. What he would have achieved had he had the chance to play more Test Cricket is irrelevant.

There are a fair few players that you could special that have very ordinary Test figures. Test matches might be 75% of how good a batsman is, but not everything.

 

[silentstriker]

There are a fair few players that you could special that have very ordinary Test figures. Test matches might be 75% of how good a batsman is, but not everything.

That only applies in extreme circumstances (i.e with pre-WWII subcontinental cricketers, or those who were unable to play in test matches for various reasons). For the most part, what you show is what you have.

I don't give a crap how many county cricket runs you have, international cricket is what matters. If you can't or don't perform there, then thats what I am going to judge you on.

There are lots of domestic cricket players in every country. There are players in Indian domestic cricket that take loads of wickets and score lots of runs every year, and do it for 15 years...but if they don't perform at the top...

 

[aussie tragic]

There are a fair few players that you could special that have very ordinary Test figures. Test matches might be 75% of how good a batsman is, but not everything.

Funny how it's generally the English saying that the batsmen were better than their test averages suggest (County cricket inflating reps perhaps?). The only Aussie player I can think of that may have been better than his average was Kim Hughes, however then I realised I just liked him because he was such an aggressive bat and he either played a brilliant innings or got out cheaply (average of 37 suggests the latter).

EDIT: I think I may have slandered Kim Hughes as I looked a little deeper and found that he averaged 41.19 after 61 tests (not great, but definitely respectful). Then he played back to back series against the mighty Windies at their peak in 1984 and during the 9 tests he averaged just 16.44 with his last 5 innings being 4, 0, 2, 0 & 0 (thoroughly destroyed). I bet he wished he retired 9 months earlier

 

[silentstriker]

I think Virender Sehwag is better than his average suggests. He averages 52, but he should 'really' be averaging 65.

What kind of BS reasoning is that? You are what you are.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Edit, not to SS's above post.

That's a very narrow-minded viewpoint. It is no fluke that AP Freeman was the 2nd highest FC wicket taker of all time.


Taking 3776 @ 18.42, striking @ 40.86, and various other remarkable stats, can't be purely down to crap county batting and sticky wickets and so on. He took 66 wickets in 12 Tests, and everything points towards taking many more, had he got the chance to play for Test Matches.

 

[silentstriker]

That's a very narrow-minded viewpoint. It is no fluke that AP Freeman was the 2nd highest FC wicket taker of all time.


Taking 3776 @ 18.42, striking @ 40.86, and various other remarkable stats, can't be purely down to crap county batting and sticky wickets and so on. He took 66 wickets in 12 Tests, and everything points towards taking many more, had he got the chance to play for Test Matches.

But he didn't. And if you compare him to someone who played more Test cricket, the fact he played so few has to work against him.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I know it works against him. The point I am trying to make is, is that being a good player, is being good at cricket, not having good stats.

 

[aussie tragic]

That's a very narrow-minded viewpoint. It is no fluke that AP Freeman was the 2nd highest FC wicket taker of all time.

Taking 3776 @ 18.42, striking @ 40.86, and various other remarkable stats, can't be purely down to crap county batting and sticky wickets and so on. He took 66 wickets in 12 Tests, and everything points towards taking many more, had he got the chance to play for Test Matches.

umm, not sure what a bowler who last played test cricket in 1929 has to do with English batsmen averaging in the 30's in Test cricket being labelled better than their average suggests. Most of the batsmen that averaged in the 30's for England (as per previous post a few back) all had over 50 tests to prove themselves as great batsmen. None did IMO.

btw, I'm still waiting for reasons why this is so as all I have so far is that "English are crap" and "young players being taught technique instead of being able to show their own style"

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Maybe the average of the top England players is lower because they play around half of their Test Cricket on more bowler friendly wickets in their own Country whereas players from the Sub-Continent play more of their cricket on flat wickets in their own Country.

That's not necessarily a considered opinion, just an idea to throw into the discussion.

 

[Jono]

Lol @ the title of this thread. Fairly blunt.

 

[silentstriker]

Maybe the average of the top England players is lower because they play around half of their Test Cricket on more bowler friendly wickets in their own Country whereas players from the Sub-Continent play more of their cricket on flat wickets in their own Country.

That's not necessarily a considered opinion, just an idea to throw into the discussion.

Um, English wickets have been very batting friendly since about 2000. And that still doesn't explain the 'How come English can't bowl?' because if the pitches were so bowling friendly, how much they've produced no sub-25 average bowlers in the period in question?

 

[marc71178]

Pardon?

I said any excuse.

You had a dig at Warne - yet again - when there's absolutely no need to bring him up.

 

[a massive zebra]

I said any excuse.

You had a dig at Warne - yet again - when there's absolutely no need to bring him up.

Well if it is so easy to average 23 in the county championship then why can a bowler with an unrivalled reputation and nearly 700 Test wickets not manage it.

 

[aussie tragic]

Well if it is so easy to average 23 in the county championship

Actually, Warne averaged 30.91 with a SR of 91.15 (with the bat ), see even a bowler can have a batting average of 30+ in England, so what's this talk of bowler friendly pitches

 

[a massive zebra]

Actually, Warne averaged 30.91 with a SR of 91.15 (with the bat ), see even a bowler can have a batting average of 30+ in England, so what's this talk of bowler friendly pitches

Quite.

 

[Kweek]

Warne is quiet capable with the bat....
very capable, if he doesnt go sloggy sloggy.

 

[aussie tragic]

Actually, I think I've just figured it out, if Warne can average 30 odd in county cricket and his test average is 16, then test cricket average = 1/2 county average, so as Ramprakash averaged 103.54 this year, he should be a 50+ average test player......oh wait, he only averaged 27 in tests

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Why do so many people start replies with "um" or "err". No one can help a speech impediment but there's no need to include it in the message.