English cricket team sucks

[Stumped]

Just going back to the original point, I couldn't see any of the other Test playing nations play against this current Australia team, and not get white-washed.

if not a win at least at the very least there would be a draw amungst it

 

[silentstriker]

If england do loose 5-0 i think that grade should drop to at least a d-

I agree.

 

[silentstriker]

Just going back to the original point, I couldn't see any of the other Test playing nations play against this current Australia team, and not get white-washed.

Its like when you played WI, most of the time, the other countries didn't get whitewashed. Only you did. And it was a big myth that 5-0 was common for the WI. It was, but only against the English.

Most other sides would have registered a draw, especially after scoring 500+ in the second test.

 

[PhoenixFire]

For me, losing a series 3-0, is the same as 5-0, they shouldn't hold real significance (the last 2 tests), becase the team (rightly or wrongly), will just stop trying.

 

[silentstriker]

For me, losing a series 3-0, is the same as 5-0, they shouldn't hold real significance (the last 2 tests), becase the team (rightly or wrongly), will just stop trying.

But SA drew one, India likely would have drawn one. And I'd give most other a shot at a draw too. English just got demolished.

 

[Stumped]

For me, losing a series 3-0, is the same as 5-0, they shouldn't hold real significance (the last 2 tests), becase the team (rightly or wrongly), will just stop trying.

the last two test holds signifcance, the england team have commented on their pride is on the line in the mcg and the scg tests

 

[PhoenixFire]

I'm sure there are differences to the Australia side, that meant that. The average hundreds per match for Australia this series is just over 2, what is it for the other series?

 

[PhoenixFire]

the last two test holds signifcance, the england team have commented on their pride is on the line in the mcg and the scg tests

We lost all our pride at Brisbane.

 

[howardj]

I think wholesale sackings, mass upheaval and despair is the easy way out. England should do what Australia did - maintain largely the same personnel (most of the England guys have proven they can match it with Australia); make a couple of changes that are necessary (in this case, the captaincy and moving Flintoff down the order); and then resolve to work hard and show some ticker in order to extract revenge.

 

[Stumped]

I think wholesale sackings, mass upheaval and despair is the easy way out. England should do what Australia did - maintain largely the same personnel (most of the England guys have proven they can match it with Australia); make a couple of changes that are necessary (in this case, the captaincy and moving Flintoff down the order); and then resolve to work hard and show some ticker in order to extract revenge.

couldnt have said it better myself

 

[Prince EWS]

I think wholesale sackings, mass upheaval and despair is the easy way out. England should do what Australia did - maintain largely the same personnel (most of the England guys have proven they can match it with Australia); make a couple of changes that are necessary (in this case, the captaincy and moving Flintoff down the order); and then resolve to work hard and show some ticker in order to extract revenge.

How exactly would you manage to get Flintoff down the order at full strength though?

It's all well and good while Jones is out to just bring Vaughan in for Mahmood and drop everyone down one, but what to do when Jones comes back? Drop Harmison?

 

[Stumped]

im not for putting freddie down the order, but im for giving the captincy to some one else

 

[PhoenixFire]

Just try and get the team back to the 2005 one, that was the best. Incidentally, I think Englands best line up (with Flintoff injured) was this

1) Trescothick
2) Strauss
3) Cook
4) Pietersen
5) Collingwood
6) Bell
7) Read

 

[silentstriker]

Flintoff is not a #6 batsman, not on form at least. If Gilchrist can bat at 7, Flintoff should as well.

 

[Goughy]

I think wholesale sackings, mass upheaval and despair is the easy way out. England should do what Australia did - maintain largely the same personnel (most of the England guys have proven they can match it with Australia); make a couple of changes that are necessary (in this case, the captaincy and moving Flintoff down the order); and then resolve to work hard and show some ticker in order to extract revenge.

The thing is is that it is not knee jerk changes that are needed as the problems were predicted by people like myself a long time ago. Changes need to be made as they were wrong to start with.

- Playing 5 batsmen is wrong. It was and still is suicide. Whats the point of having 5 bowlers if you are defending 200?

- Playing 5 bowlers makes no sense at all. 5th bowlers make little impact and take overs away from your best bowlers and if you bowl a team out cheaply (as needed to win) they will hardly bowl

- Flintoff must bat at 7. He is not good enough to be a top 6 player (especially with the long England tail). I have said it before and been shouted down during all the Freddie hysteria, but he is only a decent bat, nothing more.

- I wanted Read and Jones dropped a long time ago. The only reason there is controversy is that neither are good enough. They never will be so England should have been looking elsewhere.

- Guys like Saj are not good enough to be playing Test cricket. He is selected due to a check list (tall, decent pace, can move the ball away) ignoring the fact he has struggled to take wickets at all levels and is not a good bowler.

- England need a top order bowler that can bowl. ie take pressure off the 3 main bowlers selected + Flintoff. Whether KP, Collingwood or Bell can do it is a different story but they need a guy who can do a job with the ball like Gayle, Jayasuria, Hansie, Astle, Bevan, Waughs etc

Quite simply, the core of the players must stay the same but some longstanding problems need to be addressed. A wicketkeeper/bat not called Read or Jones must be added, along with a top order bat that can bowl.

Those 2 changes and a change in team composition would make a dramatic difference.

 

[Jono]

But like I said, England are still #2, but that SL draw 1-1 at home really put you guys down a notch in my opiniopn, though the 3-0 whitewash of Pakistan helped a bit.

Its not a whitewash if you win 3 out of 4 tests, with the other being a draw.

Its especially not a whitewash when one of them was forfeited.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Flintoff was good enough when he was smacking the Aussies around last year......... Don't talk about knee-jerks Goughy......................

 

[Goughy]

Flintoff was good enough when he was smacking the Aussies around last year......... Don't talk about knee-jerks Goughy......................

Ah the arguement of the faithfull. You must take a body of work to analyse rather than a few games. Just 'cause he did it in a few games does not mean he is good enough or consistent enough to hold the place usually occupied by a Test standard specialist bat.

Flintoff did well in the last Ashes. but that does not mean he is a #6. Especially when it makes the team far stronger with him lower down. Batting depth is essential in Test cricket. The deeper the the batting the better. One more batman for England could be the difference between 4-0 and 2-0-2 in this series.

 

[GIMH]

3-0 against Pak wasn't a whitewash, SS.

I'll do what you did anyway

V Pakistan, away (0-2) - played well at Multan until a final day wobble (sound familiar?) and from there, we were never really in the series, though at Faisalbad (sp?) we had a decent day 4, with Flintoff bowling exceptionally, and were still in that match at that point, but ended up hanging on for the draw. All in all, we weren't awful in those first two Tests, but in the third, we were, we made 288 on the M53, and got beat by an innings and 100 runs (1 more run than today lol), I wouldn't blame the bowlers for this, as Flintoff and Harmison both gave a lot of heart to the cause, but the batting, Collingwood and Bell excluded, was toothless. Overall - 4/10

V India, away (1-1) - we were, for my money, the better team at Nagpur, and but for Jones dropping Pathan (I think) when India were 7 down and likely to concede a huge deficit, I reckon we would have won. Second Test we were pretty average, admittedly, but the third Test is one of my favourite England Tests. Considering the side we had out, we absolutely destroyed them. Udal, Anderson and Shah all played very well, Strauss hit a fine ton, and this was undoubtedly our best post-Ashes performance, all things considered. Overall - 8/10

V Sri Lanka, home (1-1) - brilliant for 2 days of the 1st Test, and then SL really fought back, helped along by some sloppy fielding. Batted poorly, KP aside, in the 2nd Test, but SL were worse, and then had a stinker in the third. Overall, we had some good moments, and some bad ones, but SL didn't get enough credit, we weren't as bad as some have made out. Overall - 5.5/10

V Pakistan, home (3-0) - average first Test performance in the field, then two fine performances in the OT and Headingley Tests, Won by an innings at OT, with great bowling from Harmison and Monty, and great batting from Cook and Bell, and then an exciting final day at Headingley ended up with us winning a match that seemed a nailed on draw. I mean, whoever heard of a side scoring over 500 in the 1st dig, and losing? We were playing pretty badly in the 4th test, then we batted well in the second dig, but we'll never know what the result would have been. For my money, we would have saved it, but we'll never know. Overall - 7.5/10

V Australia, away (0-4*) - good in patches, but never in three out of the four innings in a match. Brisbane we had a stinker of a first innings, and really, despite scoring the highest ever 4th innings score, the term "fightback" was a bit hyperbolic; we restored some pride, that's all. Adelaide, I don't want to discuss too much, as it still hurts, but we were fantastic batting the 1st time round, couldn't get them all out, quick enough, and then, well, we all know what happened next. Perth, we bowled reasonably well first time round, then wasted a great chance to get back in the series. Australia's second innings was marvellous, tbh I wouldn't be critical of our own performance here, as there is nothing anyone could have done, especially when Gilchrist was in. We stuck around fairly well in the 4th innings, and even though we ended up hammered, you could probably say that Perth was our best performance of the series (which shows how poor we've been I guess). Melbourne, we were outclassed by their bowling. You shouldn't lose by an innings if the opposition have scored anything less than 500 IMO. Piss-poor. So, overall, 3/10.

28/50 = 56% = C . Disappointing, hopefully we can turn things round when West Indies & India visit this summer. I'm looking forwards to watching Lara on what I believe will be his final tour of England, and hopefully Panesar will be firmly established as the nation's premier spin bowler.

We worked hard to get to number 2, post-Ashes we've actually fluctuated between 2 and 3, for me we need to start again if you will, and prove we're number 2 once again, beat all-comers for the next two and a half years, and maybe things will look brighter in 2009.

 

[silentstriker]

Where do you get four points for losing 0-2 against Pakistan? And 5.5 against SL? SL didn't have a chance at the start. And 3/10 is way too lenient this series.