• 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.

Something interesting about Englands (relative) test sucess over the past 4 years.

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
i think this is actually a pretty good thread, although i think a lot of people already mentioned before the last Ashes that we had no idea how a lot of the players would go against Warne because they havent played any spinner of note during that successful run from 04-05/06. As it turned out, despite what Swervy and a few others might say, England were distinctly average against Warne in the Ashes of 05 and im confident had Australia been intelligent enough to throw Macgill in the frame that Australia would have had a lot more success in that series.
Because MacGill had such phenominal success in his last series against England (and most others lately)?

Just because someone plays Warne poorly (which England did - indeed they played him better in 2006\07) doesn't mean MacGill will be successful.
As far as why England is poor against spin is concerned, well it all starts with the now ex-coach, Duncan Fletcher who by and large kept advocating the sweep and reverse sweep despite most players not being good enough to play it. A lot of credit is given to Duncan Fletcher and the way he got his team to deal with spin in their subcontinental victories of 00/01, but the fact is that most of the players who played a part in those series- Atherton, Hussain, Trescothick, Thorpe and Craig White were already extremely good players of spin and had nothing to do with Fletcher's methods. Only Butcher IMO can be said to be have improved his technique against spin during the Fletcher era. Most of the players now- Strauss, Flintoff, Geraint, Cook and a few others are almost useless against quality spin bowlers which shows up as a minus in Fletcher's end of term portfolio.
Cook is far from useless. Not outstanding certainly, but definately not useless.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
But when was the last time England struggeld against a pace attack.
Ummm on both of their last 2 winter tours?
Make that the last 3.

Pollock, Ntini and Nel - quality bowlers all - were more than adaquetely successful against most of the English batsmen. So was Langeveldt - who undoubtedly bowled well in the game he played. The only batsman who played with any real conviction throughout that series was Strauss.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
WI 04 - Best, Edwards, Washington etc.
Washington didn't play in that series, it was Collymore, Collins, Edwards and Best. And Collins and Edwards, at the very least, bowled extremely well and caused plenty of problems for most of the series.
NZ 04 - pre-Bond average attack
Sans-Bond more like. NZ's attack was abysmal on that tour, but that doesn't mean Bond's their only decent seamer. Injuries to others also played a part.
Pak 05 - Shoaib in great form, Shabbir and Naved excellent back up
Rana Naved-Ul-Hasan is excellent at nothing where Tests are concerned. It was appalling batting from England to let him get 5 wickets in a Test. Shabbir, too, played just 1 game.
RP Singh and Patel come to the fore for India
Rutra Pratap didn't play in that series, and if he had he'd probably have gone round the park, 'cos 'e ain't that good. Presumably you mean Sreesanth.
SL 06 - Vaas and Malinga and Fernando
Vaas who was awful (with the ball) all series? And Fernando who (rightly, being utterly rubbish) didn't play?
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Because MacGill had such phenominal success in his last series against England (and most others lately)?

Just because someone plays Warne poorly (which England did - indeed they played him better in 2006\07) doesn't mean MacGill will be successful..
because of course the likes of flintoff, pietersen, bell, strauss, and jones all played in the ashes of 2002?
believe it or not, the ashes side of 2002 had plenty of competent players against spin like Hussain, Butcher, Crawley and Craig White and it was always likely that they would dominate Macgill. The same cannot be said about the 2005 side.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I'm more than confident Pietersen and Bell could have dealt with him, and quite possibly Flintoff the way he batted that series too.

And I don't think Jones and Strauss could have done any worse than Stewart and Key.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
I'm more than confident Pietersen and Bell could have dealt with him, and quite possibly Flintoff the way he batted that series too.

And I don't think Jones and Strauss could have done any worse than Stewart and Key.
Err Bell is hardly relevant to this conversation, because he couldnt even make it past the pace bowlers and Warne, he was hardly going to be much of a bother for Macgill in that series.

And if you honestly think that Geraint Jones is a patch on Stewart, you have to get your head examined, especially when you consider that Stewart averaged 45 in the Ashes of 02/03 against both Warne and Macgill.

From what i can see, only Pietersen(amongst players that actually scored runs) can be favored to have scored runs against Macgill. And as has already been said, Butcher, Hussain, White, Stewart, Crawley >>>>>>>>> Bell, Jones, Strauss, Flintoff.
Crawley in fact is widely considered to be England's 2nd best player of leg spin last decade, after Thorpe

And surely even someone as hardnosed as you would have to admit that Macgill would have been a considerable improvement from the tripe that we got from Gillespie, Kasparowicz and Tait in that series.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Of course he would. But it's still perfectly conceivable to me that he'd not have done much of note.

Did you seriously think I was saying Jones was a patch on Stewart? Of course I wasn't. Nonetheless, Stewart was hardly an outstanding player of spin - at any point in his career. Yes, he did indeed play Warne OK in the 3 Tests Warne played that series (1 of which was at The WACA where even Warne has struggled), but as far as I'm concerned if you give Stewart no problems as a wristspinner you've done something wrong.

Bell survived the seamers, incidentally, long enough to get out to Warne 3 times.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Of course he would. But it's still perfectly conceivable to me that he'd not have done much of note.

Did you seriously think I was saying Jones was a patch on Stewart? Of course I wasn't. Nonetheless, Stewart was hardly an outstanding player of spin - at any point in his career. Yes, he did indeed play Warne OK in the 3 Tests Warne played that series (1 of which was at The WACA where even Warne has struggled), but as far as I'm concerned if you give Stewart no problems as a wristspinner you've done something wrong.

Stewart is not comparable to Jones period. whether it be against spin, in the nets or in an intelligence test. Fact is you cant say geraint did as well as stewart when stewart averaged 45 against a far better attack while jones averaged 25. Nor is Geraint at any point as good a player as Stewart was against spin at any point of their careers as you seem to be suggesting.

Bell survived the seamers, incidentally, long enough to get out to Warne 3 times.

your point is? Bell would not have succeeded in that series whether Macgill had played or not. Hence to claim that Bell would ruined Macgills figures is ridiculous.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Stewart is not comparable to Jones period. whether it be against spin, in the nets or in an intelligence test. Fact is you cant say geraint did as well as stewart when stewart averaged 45 against a far better attack while jones averaged 25. Nor is Geraint at any point as good a player as Stewart was against spin at any point of their careers as you seem to be suggesting.
All I'm saying is that Geraint is as likely as Stewart to succeed against MacGill. In no way on Earth am I suggesting he is even remotely close in terms of class of batsmanship. Nor as a wicketkeeper, for that matter.
your point is? Bell would not have succeeded in that series whether Macgill had played or not. Hence to claim that Bell would ruined Macgills figures is ridiculous.
And I claimed nothing of the sort - just that if he'd played him he'd probably not have had much trouble.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
All I'm saying is that Geraint is as likely as Stewart to succeed against MacGill. In no way on Earth am I suggesting he is even remotely close in terms of class of batsmanship. Nor as a wicketkeeper, for that matter.
If Geraint isnt as good as stewart then theres no way he would have played macgill as well as stewart did.

And I claimed nothing of the sort - just that if he'd played him he'd probably not have had much trouble.
theres absolutely no sense in that argument, because given the way he played in that series you could argue that he would have been cannon-fodder against macgill. ditto strauss, flintoff and geraint jones.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
If Geraint isnt as good as stewart then theres no way he would have played macgill as well as stewart did.
Why not? Stewart was generally a poor player of the turning ball, but he had few problems with MacGill. Jones is too - therefore he too could have played MacGill well.
theres absolutely no sense in that argument, because given the way he played in that series you could argue that he would have been cannon-fodder against macgill.
You can, and you can also argue that he wouldn't. And I do, because of the fact MacGill has posed few problems to even fairly inept batsmen in most of his Tests.
ditto strauss, flintoff and geraint jones.
Flintoff certainly not - Strauss and Jones I've mentioned elsewhere.
 

Top