Are England capable of being world no 1 in tests ?

[Richard]

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.

Not really. Not unless picking better players ahead of worse ones is unneccessary reshuffling.

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.

They haven't been blown out of proportion, and they are out of their depth. Mahmood and Plunkett should never have got anywhere near the Test team and Anderson's done little of note in a career now spanning 4 years. No-one's suggesting you need teams-full of all-time greats, but you're never going to get too far (except in games like the just-concluded) when most of your attack is so utterly woeful.

 

[Richard]

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.

Averages do matter, it's just a case of looking a bit beyond the obvious. Hoggard and Flintoff were both woeful Test bowlers for quite some time, but have been much better in the last 3 years or so. It's unlikely either will finish their careers as bowlers of Angus Fraser's class (and don't forget he could quite easily have been so much better but for being plagued by injury - the same applies to Darren Gough, too) but their overall career averages, as so often, don't tell much of a story.

There have beyond question been times when we've had a World-class attack - 2005, 2000 and 1998 being the best two in recent times. But such times are usually fleeting, often lasting barely a year.

 

[Richard]

I doubt if Hoggard is going to last too long... Flintoff is the only one really.

I'd be astonished if Flintoff lasted longer than Hoggard. Absolutely astonished.

I'm quietly crossing my fingers that Flintoff's career isn't over right now.

 

[Richard]

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.

We can pick him over Jones right now. And as you say - then just wait and see. He might have the goods, be the deal - or he might not.

 

[Pup Clarke]

I imagine Flintoff might have be burnt out by the time Ashes 2009 comes around which will come as a huge blow if he is still effective in 2 years time.

 

[Pup Clarke]

We can pick him over Jones right now. And as you say - then just wait and see. He might have the goods, be the deal - or he might not.

Certainly improved since 2001 hasn't he Rich?. Looks a fine bowler from what I've seen of him in the last 2 years and indeed this test match. Has to have a future as an England OD player imo. First bowler on the teamsheet tbh.

 

[Richard]

Don't really know where ODers come into it, TBH - let him play some of those before we start thinking about that.

Right now, he's done one thing, and one thing only - guranteed himself a run in the Test side (or, at least, we presume so - imagine if Hoggard's back for the next Test and they don't drop Harmison ) and getting ahead of ourselves would be decidedly unwise.

If for no reason other than that West Indies surely can't be this bad again for a little while.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Don't really know where ODers come into it, TBH - let him play some of those before we start thinking about that.

.

Because he has an excellent list-a record with an acceptable economy rate. The guy at least has accuracy and the ability to swing the ball back into the right handers and offers variety as a left armer. A top domestic list-a bowler and undoubtedly could do a job at ODI level. The sooner England changed their stereotypical viewpoint of a pace bowler the better.

 

[Richard]

He's a better bet than Onions or Amjad Khan, maybe, but I'd still prefer the Martin-Jenkins' and Mascarenhases (don't actually know what those two have been up to this season, though, TBH).

 

[Pup Clarke]

Sadly RMJ ain't the bowler he was 4-5 years ago.

 

[Richard]

No?

 

[Pup Clarke]

It doesn't take a genuis to work out that he has been very poor in list-a cricket in the last two seasons.

 

[Richard]

It takes someone reading his record, though, which I haven't done this season.

 

[chalky]

I think the debate regarding weather England can be the No 1 test team is to an extent dependant on how far Australia come back to the back. With Langer & especially Mcgrath & Warne retiring and Gilchrist (although still very good) & Gillespie declining and probably close to retirement it is obvious Australia are not going to be the force that they have been.

If you take the Glass is half empty approach to Australias attack, as a few posters have done with Englands, you could say:

Clark: A good start but has only played 9 tests still relatively unproven.
Watson: At this stage of his career absolute cannon fodder for international batsmen
Macgill: 36 year old so not exactly in his prime and the one series he played without Mcgrath & Warne he got smashed by the Indians.
lee: An average of over 30 after 59 test matches even during his so called good period since the 2005 ashes he only averages 29. An overall record which incidently is comparable to Hoggard, Flintoff & Harmison.
Tait: Umproven at test level.

Another thing England has in its favour is that it possibly has a very young team compared to Austrias' who have the oldest.

The one thing that holds England back though is that county cricket does not produce great English players (the last one being Botham) and to be the no 1 side you need a couple of great players.

Overall I would still see Australia as being the best but certainly not as all conquoring as they have been and I would fancy England to hold their own in England.

 

[Richard]

Another thing England has in its favour is that it possibly has a very young team compared to Austrias' who have the oldest.

Well... not really. Australia are likely to have a fair few younger players in their side in the immidiate future. Whether those young players end-up any good remains to be seen.

The one thing that holds England back though is that county cricket does not produce great English players (the last one being Botham) and to be the no 1 side you need a couple of great players.

Eh? Pietersen? Cook? Fraser, even?

The likes of Gooch and Gower were hardly poor, either.

 

[Matt79]

County cricket didn't produce Pietersen tbh. Rounded him out a bit yes, but not produced. Cook has had a great start and has clear potential, but labelling him "great" at this point is silly - let the kid play a bit more, and we'll see where we go. Fraser is not remotely near being classed as a "great" I'm afraid. I'd have said "honest", "international quality" and "quite good really" would be closer to the mark.

 

[Richard]

County cricket didn't produce Pietersen tbh. Rounded him out a bit yes, but not produced.

Why not? He was doing nothing of note in South African Provincial cricket - indeed, not getting the chance much of the time.

Cook has had a great start and has clear potential, but labelling him "great" at this point is silly - let the kid play a bit more, and we'll see where we go.

I'm not normally one for going OTT too early but I'll honestly be very surprised if Cook doesn't turn-out all-time great.

Fraser is not remotely near being classed as a "great" I'm afraid. I'd have said "honest", "international quality" and "quite good really" would be closer to the mark.

Fraser could easily have been had he not had such problems with injury IMO.

And I might just post in the GMCG about the term "honest". Few things that **** me so much as seeing a bowler described as that, it's such a patronising piece of faint-praise.

 

[Ikki]

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

Australia don't need to with the battling line-up they have. England need better and more consistent bowlers. World Class doesn't mean All-Time Class, and when they have 4 very good bowlers they'll trouble Australia. Australia is just a cut above at the moment. Barring a woeful performance by the Aussies and an inspired English one, I can't see us losing in the next few years. I think the recent Ashes are a good indication at where we're going, regardless of Warne and McGrath retiring. Clark is class and for the meantime Macgill will be fine. The 05 Ashes are the best indicator of where you need to be and you arguably had 4 World Class bowlers in that series.

 

[Matt79]

Hard question to answer - there are so many inponderables attached: - can England ever get what is currently considered their best bowling attack on the park at the one time again? - how much will the Aussie team decline? - and, can the English selectors find a happy middle path between the headless-chook chopping and changing of the not-so-distant past and the bloody-minded obstinacy that was displayed during the 06/07 Ashes?

IF it is to happen, a few pieces need to fall into place. First, England needs to find bowlers who can consistently take wickets away from home. That's why Paneser is exciting for them, and why I think some of the persistance with Harmison has been justified (although that's now been overdone). Hoggard has improved in this respect, but still sometimes looks decidedly tame when the balls not swinging. Second, at least some of England's quality players who are currently under serious injury clouds need to regain some consistent fitness: ie. Trescothick, Vaughan, and especially, inevitably, Flintoff. Three, somewhat contradicting my immediately preceding point, England have to accomodate themselves to the likely reality that Flintoff is going to be a bonus if and when he's able to produce. He's been battling different injuries for a long time, and it doesn't seem feasible to plan a team and a strategy around the idea that Freddie will provide the inspirational leadership for the team with his fast, aggressive and lengthy spells of quality pace, before knocking off a quick half-century with the bat. If they can find the players to be confident of being a top-notch team without Flintoff, then they'll be extremely well placed if and when he is about to produce his best.

They have a solid core of a batting line up, and at least one good long-term bowling prospect in Paneser. There also seem to be a few guys around the edge of the bowling attack like Broad who could be good, so they should be a decent team for a while. But I think the smart money is on Australia continuing as the number one team for a while, albeit maybe not as brutally dominant as they have been for much of the previous decade.

 

[Matt79]

And I might just post in the GMCG about the term "honest". Few things that **** me so much as seeing a bowler described as that, it's such a patronising piece of faint-praise.

But apt here, one senses.