Are England capable of being world no 1 in tests ?

[haroon510]

If everyone was fit, then I reckon a side of this could challenge the Aussies for the title.

1) Trescothick
2) Cook
3) Vaughan
4) Pietersen
5) Collingwood
6) Bell
7) Prior
8) Flintoff
9) Hoggard
10) Panesar
11) S Jones

agree very strong team.

 

[Richard]

You from Westmead in Ireland or NSW, Kaiser? I'd normally assume the latter, but we've had quite a few Irish posters joining of late. Welcome onboard, anyway.

I wondered that myself. In fact, my first thought was a ... but looking at the posts... not a chance, unless there's been some serious reformation which I don't really think likely.

 

[Richard]

Test average under 30 in the last year and a half (last time I checked) and seems to have finally discovered the ability to swing the ball.

I think he's going to emerge as one of the better Test bowlers in the world in the next couple of years.

At the age of 30 that's extremely unlikely.

 

[Richard]

1. Tresco and Jones should not be in the Test team ever again

That's a ridiculous comment, and it was only days ago that more than a few Australians were saying the same about Vaughan.

Bolwers like Plunkett, Mahmood, Anderson and I guess now Sidebottom have shown that they are all capable at Test level

Erm... no, they haven't.

 

[Richard]

Personally speaking, I'd have to say no. There's something about the English mentality (& I don't know what, if anyone could identify it & recitify it they'd be a rich man) in all sports that makes us better at building towards one particular event than being able to maintain success over a long period. We got up to beat the Aussies in 2005, but I think anyone would have to say we've gone backwards since then. We might be able to get up there again, but to be able to sustain the performance needed to be no.1 over a period of time may just be beyond us.

I don't agree in the instance of this particular example - as we've discussed before, IMO it's only injuries that have stopped us demolishing most of what we've come up against in the time since 2005 (not 2006\07, obviously) but very much do on the single-event thing. Never since the First World War have England been undisputed number-one in Test cricket for more than a year or two. And that was 50 years ago, too.

 

[gettingbetter]

That's a ridiculous comment, and it was only days ago that more than a few Australians were saying the same about Vaughan.

Different strokes for different folks.

I just said this in the context that their will be major unnecessary re-shuffling go about if these to do make way into the team.

Erm... no, they haven't.

I don't exactly see what you are looking for in the peripheral English bowlers. How many McGraths, Pollocks, Hoggards and Ntinis do you expect in a team? From what I have gathered from your posts in regards to the aforementioned players, it seems that is what you are looking for.

Its been well documented about 4-5months ago, that the opportunity for this to occur is very rare - Warne and McGrath, hence, England have to settle with what they have. Anderson, Mahmood and Plunkett have shown that they are quite capable of taking wickets although certain obvious flaws can be pointed out - in your case, these flaws have been blown out of proportion.

As for them proving themselves, I probably used the wrong phrase, but they certainly aren't out of their depth.

 

[Burgey]

Is their test batting really that strong? The majority of their batting line up capitulated here less than 6 months ago. They still have a hell of a lot to prove, imo.

Cook - looks good, but that off stump technique remains a concern - you can't tell if he's made big gains when the opposition isn't consistently putting the ball in the area of weakness.
Strauss - god knows where he'll be in a few years, his form seems to have wholly deserted him after a woeful Ashes.
Trescothick - will we see him again? If we do, will his technique hold up has he ages a little and the hands don't move as quickly through the ball?
Vaughan - fine player, longevity an issue with injuries
Bell - often looks good, but I still don't know - finds ways to get out against quality bowling - hope he doesn't become a player who flatters to deceive
Pietersen - easily their best player at the moment and a class act.
Collingwood - gutsy player, but will there be a spot for him if the others are all fit?
Flintoff - not a test match number 6 imo, better at 7 and will always be an explosive enigma with the bat, rather than a consistent performer (and is much better to watch for it, btw)
Prior - looks good, but too early to say if he's the real deal.

Their bowling:
Harmison - my kingdom for a radar!!
Hoggard - gutsy bowler, performed well in Australia even when the ball didn't swing much - quality
Fred - quality
Sidebottom - like Nathan Bracken - what is it with left arm seamers and dodgy hair cuts?
S Jones - will he ever get back?
Monty - looks the goods
Plunkett - raw - who knows?
Saj - who knows? But probably not.
Anderson - ability but yet to harness it.

A lot of question marks there, but in fairness a number of their players are on the young side so we will just have to see if they come up to the mark.

 

[SJS]

Yes if they suddenly discover four world class bowlers. At present they have none.

 

[Swervy]

Yes if they suddenly discover four world class bowlers. At present they have none.

depends on what you class as world class!

And do you literally mean 'present' as in right at this moment, or do you mean it in a less precise way, because really, I would be considering Flintoff as one of the best fast bowlers in the world (ankle permitting) as well as Hoggard

 

[cover drive man]

Yes if they suddenly discover four world class bowlers. At present they have none.

There is Hoggard Flintoff and Monty I'm not sure about the fourth.

 

[SJS]

depends on what you class as world class!

And do you literally mean 'present' as in right at this moment, or do you mean it in a less precise way, because really, I would be considering Flintoff as one of the best fast bowlers in the world (ankle permitting) as well as Hoggard

I think I should have clarified.

I was talking of England BECOMING the #1 side. Clearly thats not happening tomorrow. For it to happen in 3-4 years time they need to have some really good young bowlers coming in. I doubt if Hoggard is going to last too long. Monty is young and should improve though I do think he is not a thinking bowler.

Flintoff is the only one really.

 

[SJS]

And how good is Hoggard anyway. He averages over 30 per wicket in test matches.

Flintoff at 32.02 hasnt been remarkable himself.

The top bowlers of the world average in the lower 20's. Mid 20's is about the limit for a really good test bowler. Bowlers averaging in the 30's are hardly good enough as 'pure' bowlers except is teams totally devoid of good bowling or as second string bowlers.

England have not had a bowler averaging under 25 (with a 100 test wickets) since Trueman and he made his debut in 1952 !!!

They havent had a bowler averaging under 27 since Bob Willis and he debuted in 1972 !!!

Since Willis, Angus Fraser has been England's best bowler (bowling averages for 100 test wickets or more) with 177 wickets at 27.2. All others averaged between 28 and 40 !!

Thats hardly the stuff world class bowlers are made of.

There was much debate on CC about Sobers not being good enough as a bowler because he averaged 34.0 with the ball. Well here is an interesting statistics.

Since Bob Willis made his debut for England 36 years ago, 17 other England bowlers have gone on to take 100 test wickets or more. Of them ten averaged above 30 with a combined total of 1569 wickets at 34.2.

Four of these bowlers made their debut in the last ten years, Harmison, Hoggard, Flintoff and Giles. They are the four leading wicket takers for England in the last decade. They have a combined average of 32.9 !!

No I do not think England has a world class attack and havent had one for quite some time now.

 

[simmy]

And how good is Hoggard anyway. He averages over 30 per wicket in test matches.

Flintoff at 32.02 hasnt been remarkable himself.

The top bowlers of the world average in the lower 20's. Mid 20's is about the limit for a really good test bowler. Bowlers averaging in the 30's are hardly good enough as 'pure' bowlers except is teams totally devoid of good bowling or as second string bowlers.

England have not had a bowler averaging under 25 (with a 100 test wickets) since Trueman and he made his debut in 1952 !!!

They havent had a bowler averaging under 27 since Bob Willis and he debuted in 1972 !!!

Since Willis, Angus Fraser has been England's best bowler (bowling averages for 100 test wickets or more) with 177 wickets at 27.2. All others averaged between 28 and 40 !!

Thats hardly the stuff world class bowlers are made of.

There was much debate on CC about Sobers not being good enough as a bowler because he averaged 34.0 with the ball. Well here is an interesting statistics.

Since Bob Willis made his debut for England 36 years ago, 17 other England bowlers have gone on to take 100 test wickets or more. Of them ten averaged above 30 with a combined total of 1569 wickets at 34.2.

Four of these bowlers made their debut in the last ten years, Harmison, Hoggard, Flintoff and Giles. They are the four leading wicket takers for England in the last decade. They have a combined average of 32.9 !!

No I do not think England has a world class attack and havent had one for quite some time now.

They had a world class attack in 2005.

The averages don't really seem to matter. The fact is, is that someone seems to put their hands up every game or so and get the job done.

They are second in the world for a reason. Whether they can take the top spot is yet to be seen, but I expect them to remain in the top 2 for some time now. They also have the advantage of being VERY strong at home.

 

[Ikki]

Yes if they suddenly discover four world class bowlers. At present they have none.

Couldn't have said it better.

 

[Swervy]

And how good is Hoggard anyway. He averages over 30 per wicket in test matches.

Flintoff at 32.02 hasnt been remarkable himself.

The top bowlers of the world average in the lower 20's. Mid 20's is about the limit for a really good test bowler. Bowlers averaging in the 30's are hardly good enough as 'pure' bowlers except is teams totally devoid of good bowling or as second string bowlers.

England have not had a bowler averaging under 25 (with a 100 test wickets) since Trueman and he made his debut in 1952 !!!

They havent had a bowler averaging under 27 since Bob Willis and he debuted in 1972 !!!

Since Willis, Angus Fraser has been England's best bowler (bowling averages for 100 test wickets or more) with 177 wickets at 27.2. All others averaged between 28 and 40 !!

Thats hardly the stuff world class bowlers are made of.

There was much debate on CC about Sobers not being good enough as a bowler because he averaged 34.0 with the ball. Well here is an interesting statistics.

Since Bob Willis made his debut for England 36 years ago, 17 other England bowlers have gone on to take 100 test wickets or more. Of them ten averaged above 30 with a combined total of 1569 wickets at 34.2.

Four of these bowlers made their debut in the last ten years, Harmison, Hoggard, Flintoff and Giles. They are the four leading wicket takers for England in the last decade. They have a combined average of 32.9 !!

No I do not think England has a world class attack and havent had one for quite some time now.

It isn't quite that straight forward though is it.

Take Flintoff as an example. His bowling in the last few years has been so much better than what it was like say pre-2002, (ish). In his last 40 tests he is averaging around 27, which these days is pretty good. You wouldnt be far of the mark by saying that would be the equivalent of an average of about 24 maybe 10 years ago.

Hoggard is about 28.9 in that time.

What England have done well in the last 3 or 4 years is have at least one bowler clicking at any one moment (give or take the odd test). Its why England actually take wickets at a good average consistantly, someone always takes up the slack. England have been probably number 2 or 3 in the world behind Australia in that way over that period of time (My gut feel is South Africa is probably close to England in that regard as well).

It really wasnt that long ago when it was quite easy to say that England were right up with Australia in the bowling stakes (well the pace bowling stakes at least). England have had injuries to deal with which has exposed some raw and unfinished talent to test cricket. Australia now have to deal with losing McGrath and Warne, so the field levels up a bit because of that.

England are best placed to take over number 1 from Australia (with SA not far behind), but really that is because in all likelyhood, Australia will fall back into the pack at some point.

 

[marc71178]

Couldn't have said it better.

No side has 4 world class bowlers and I dare say that if you're going to say England have none, neither do Australia.

 

[Tom Halsey]

And how good is Hoggard anyway. He averages over 30 per wicket in test matches.

Flintoff at 32.02 hasnt been remarkable himself.

The top bowlers of the world average in the lower 20's. Mid 20's is about the limit for a really good test bowler. Bowlers averaging in the 30's are hardly good enough as 'pure' bowlers except is teams totally devoid of good bowling or as second string bowlers.

England have not had a bowler averaging under 25 (with a 100 test wickets) since Trueman and he made his debut in 1952 !!!

They havent had a bowler averaging under 27 since Bob Willis and he debuted in 1972 !!!

Since Willis, Angus Fraser has been England's best bowler (bowling averages for 100 test wickets or more) with 177 wickets at 27.2. All others averaged between 28 and 40 !!

Thats hardly the stuff world class bowlers are made of.

There was much debate on CC about Sobers not being good enough as a bowler because he averaged 34.0 with the ball. Well here is an interesting statistics.

Since Bob Willis made his debut for England 36 years ago, 17 other England bowlers have gone on to take 100 test wickets or more. Of them ten averaged above 30 with a combined total of 1569 wickets at 34.2.

Four of these bowlers made their debut in the last ten years, Harmison, Hoggard, Flintoff and Giles. They are the four leading wicket takers for England in the last decade. They have a combined average of 32.9 !!

No I do not think England has a world class attack and havent had one for quite some time now.

Those stats alone are way too slimple considering the average starts to their careers, and it is actually testament to Flintoff's performances in the last few years that his average is 32 given what it was. In the last few years both Flintoff and Hoggard have been very very good bowlers.

 

[silentstriker]

If everyone was fit, then I reckon a side of this could challenge the Aussies for the title.

1) Trescothick
2) Cook
3) Vaughan
4) Pietersen
5) Collingwood
6) Bell
7) Prior
8) Flintoff
9) Hoggard
10) Panesar
11) S Jones

IMO, no way they could. Well we'll have to see what their Test bowling attack looks like right now, but I don't see it.

 

[Nishant]

If everyone was fit, then I reckon a side of this could challenge the Aussies for the title.

1) Trescothick
2) Cook
3) Vaughan
4) Pietersen
5) Collingwood
6) Bell
7) Prior
8) Flintoff
9) Hoggard
10) Panesar
11) S Jones

No sidebottom? Probably not yet...but i think with his form, it would be quite hard to drop him ATM. Apart frm that, that side looks quite good TBH...good to see no Harmy.

 

[PhoenixFire]

No sidebottom? Probably not yet...but i think with his form, it would be quite hard to drop him ATM. Apart frm that, that side looks quite good TBH...good to see no Harmy.

I don't think we should jump to conclusions about Sidebottom just yet. He sure did bowl well in this Test, but I don't think we can pick him over players like Hoggard and Jones just yet.