Are England capable of being world no 1 in tests ?

[headhunter]

i cant see anyone getting on top of england.

 

[Richard]

i cant see anyone getting on top of england.

 

[gettingbetter]

To call Tendulkar, Waugh, Akram and Streak all-rounders is ridiculous in itself; the former two are batsmen who bowl a little bit, the latter two are bowlers where were also useful lower-order batsmen.

Yes indeed it is reidiculous, but on overall (emphasis placed on 1990), these players have done more all-round than Flintoff has. To put it simply, your criteria is too broad, if you said since 2000, I could agree with you, but I find it absurd that people think that Flintoff is some messiah who can rank alognside the greats of the last 17 years.

Again, only one of those is an all-rounder - McMillan. Gayle, Hooper, Cronje and Harris are all batsmen (Hooper the only remotely serious bowler of the four) and Warne, Lee and Gillespie are not even close to being all-rounders.

See above.

In regards to England's fringe players:

What really is the difference between the likes of Mahmood, Plunkett, Tait, numerous Windies and Pakistani fast bowlers who have been tried, but as of yet, have not failed, but have not made their mark. To say that they have failed is a bit of an exxageration in my opinion - do you only discuss the English bowlers because they are the only ones you have seen domestically? If so, fair enough, but they have, for me, done enough at international level so that they are not totally discarded as many English bowlers have been circa 1998-2003.

you have not given a reason as to why he has.

Young, fast (surely he's up there for being fastest in England isn't he?), can reverse swing the ball and is a could model of Simon ones who England are looking for. Other than the fact that he is not as accurate as other Test bowlers there really isn't much to discuss is tehre. We saw in Melbourne a ball he bowled which got a well set Hayden out (bare in mind he was on 150 odd) - so there is an example of what he is capable of.

Its just my belief that none of the other bowlers could persevere and deliver a ball like that, hence, why he should be included. Its just a matter of how often he can do it.

 

[Fiery]

i cant see anyone getting on top of england.

I can see quite a few

 

[Manee]

Personally, I cannot see England getting on top of other countries in terms of the Test or ODI game any time soon.

In the ODI game, they fail to make use of the powerplays and often do not score enough. Also, they seem to be a one man batting line up in Kevin Pietersen with others providing a supporting role. It seems that Kevin Pietersen is the only English batsman capable of scoring a brisk match winning hundred. Something that most of the batting line up in a good team (Australia) can do. One batsman, no matter how good, can bring a team to ODI dominance. But that is not the topic at hand.

In Test matches, the situation is often the same, relying on Kevin Pietersen to bail them out of a situation is often the case. In the Second Test against West Indies, England were in a spot at bother at 350 for 6, but in came Kevin Pietersen and as always bailed the team out. Although the extra two hundred runs were not required, I feel it is a good example. Their bowling attack is aimless too with a severe lack of consistancy from the pace bowlers. Liam Plunkett is not a test quality bowler, he relies (much like Saj Mahmood) on the odd delivery coming out of the hand correctly and producing a jaffa. Unfortunately for him, these deliveries don't come about too often and he's left watching the ball sail to the boundary as a pass time. Harmison is also evidence of the lack of depth England have in the county department of pace bowlers. Any other team would clearly put Harmison back to county cricket where he is comfortable for an extended run to regain form, but England don't have anyone good enough or near good enough to bowl pace for England.

As for the wicketkeeping department, England seem so desperate for a keeper than one hundred against West Indies have left England fans saying they've found their saviour and overshadow a possible extended run of bad form. England are so desperate for a wicket keeping batsman that they will risk any form of consistancy and take a sort of bi polar syndrome on performances. Either they are the savior or they should be discarded immediately, this is also the case with Vaughan but that is another subject. Are England so unreliant on their five batsman and all rounder that they must have a wicket keeping all rounder or are they just copying other countries. I don't know.

All these insecurities and inperfections mean that England cannot any time soon achieve number 1 status in Tests.

''I would have written a short post, but I didn't have the time.'': Great Quote.

 

[Richard]

Yes indeed it is reidiculous, but on overall (emphasis placed on 1990), these players have done more all-round than Flintoff has. To put it simply, your criteria is too broad, if you said since 2000, I could agree with you, but I find it absurd that people think that Flintoff is some messiah who can rank alognside the greats of the last 17 years.

No-one with any sanity does think he's a messiah. It was you, not me, who suggested the time-period of 1990. And no, none of the aforementioned players have done more as all-rounders than Flintoff - it's not possible, as none of them ever were all-rounders, they were just bowlers who batted a bit or vice-versa. There are only 3 proper all-rounders who've done more of note than Flintoff in the last 2 decades, which means that even if he's not all-time great material, he is still one of the best all-rounders of recent times.

In regards to England's fringe players:

What really is the difference between the likes of Mahmood, Plunkett, Tait, numerous Windies and Pakistani fast bowlers who have been tried, but as of yet, have not failed, but have not made their mark. To say that they have failed is a bit of an exxageration in my opinion - do you only discuss the English bowlers because they are the only ones you have seen domestically? If so, fair enough, but they have, for me, done enough at international level so that they are not totally discarded as many English bowlers have been circa 1998-2003.

It's not just about the international level - you could be fooled into thinking virtually anyone had potential if you just watched the international level over a handful of games. Mahmood and Plunkett are not newcomers, they've been playing for a good 4 or 5 seasons now, and unlike Tait, their domestic records are poor. Therefore, I'm of the opinion that neither should ever have got anywhere near international level.

Young, fast (surely he's up there for being fastest in England isn't he?), can reverse swing the ball and is a could model of Simon ones who England are looking for. Other than the fact that he is not as accurate as other Test bowlers there really isn't much to discuss is tehre. We saw in Melbourne a ball he bowled which got a well set Hayden out (bare in mind he was on 150 odd) - so there is an example of what he is capable of.

Its just my belief that none of the other bowlers could persevere and deliver a ball like that, hence, why he should be included. Its just a matter of how often he can do it.

I'm young, too - even younger than Mahmood. That doesn't mean a thing.

Yes, he's quick - but that really isn't too important. Andre van Troost was quick, too, and like Mahmood didn't really have a clue where the ball was going and wasn't even good enough to play at county level.

If your accuracy is as poor as Mahmood's, it's highly unlikely you're ever going to attain the sort of accuracy neccessary for Tests. And in that eventuality, it doesn't matter what else you've got in your favour.

 

[gettingbetter]

Firstly, I don't think there is much in you and I going back and forth over these issues, but allow me to have one more rebuttle please.

The term 'all-rounder' in my opinion is just a tag. Once again, in my opinion, those aforementioned players, whether or not they were batters who could bowl, or bowlers who could bat, they have done more than Flintoff with bat and ball since the 1990s.

As with the messiah comment, I've seen enough interviews with the English faithful to know that a large proportion of fans believe that he is, if anything, the second coming - although an educated individual like yourself would know otherwise.

In regards to Mahmood and Plunkett, I still believe that you are still being to harsh on them. It's quite obvious that England's bowling ranks are short and if these two blokes are the next in line, their is no point in slagging them off. They haven't been amzing at the international level, nor have they been poor (I guess 'poor' is up for interpretation), there positon on the 'fringes' is deserved as far as I'm concerned.

Add to the fact that they are young (as are a number of batters in the starting XI) you can hardly blame the slectors for looking forward as opposed to you who is looking for a quick fix (this is in reference to bowlers you have mentioned in previous posts).

I'll concede the accuracy point, but that does sort of contradict your advocacy of Tait doesn't it?

 

[Richard]

Tait isn't quite so badly wayward as either of those two IMO - and that'd explain his better domestic record. TBH, though, I'm certainly not entirely convinced of his prospects at international level and never yet have been. Plunkett and Mahmood, though, I'm near enough certain neither are ever going to amount to anything. I'll eat my computer if Mahmood does, and I would say the same about Plunkett but for a certain member who'd (almost literally) ram it down my throat in the impossibly unlikely event I was wrong.

I think it's very unfair of you to make posts even mentioning the think-Flintoff-is-the-messiah stuff on here, TBH. Most of the people who post on here are people with some amount of sense. You'll barely see so much as a single English CW regular who's ever made such a suggestion.

As regards all-rounders - for me, it's very simple - if someone is roughly equal in batting and bowling, they're an all-rounder. If they're slightly superior in one or the other, it's a bowling-all-rounder\batting-all-rounder. But people for whom it's just a secondary consideration - a bonus - are nothing but bowler\batsman-who-bat\bowl-a-bit.

 

[gettingbetter]

Tait isn't quite so badly wayward as either of those two IMO

You did watch the WC didn't you?

...I just checked their economy rates, and Tait is doing slightly better.

As regards all-rounders - for me, it's very simple - if someone is roughly equal in batting and bowling, they're an all-rounder. If they're slightly superior in one or the other, it's a bowling-all-rounder\batting-all-rounder. But people for whom it's just a secondary consideration - a bonus - are nothing but bowler\batsman-who-bat\bowl-a-bit.

Surely you must agree its just a tag. And even if it isn't as you procliam, would you agree that the players that are not 'all-rounders' have been better crickets since the time in question?

 

[Prince EWS]

As regards all-rounders - for me, it's very simple - if someone is roughly equal in batting and bowling, they're an all-rounder. If they're slightly superior in one or the other, it's a bowling-all-rounder\batting-all-rounder. But people for whom it's just a secondary consideration - a bonus - are nothing but bowler\batsman-who-bat\bowl-a-bit.

I don't think it's as intrinsic as you make it sound. It's very possible (nay, probable) that players would be classified differently depending on which level they played at or even which team they played for. For example, if Damien Martyn played for Bangladesh, he'd most probably have been a batting allrounder. And if Jimmy Anderson played for Castle Hill D Grade, he'd probably be an allrounder as well.

For mine, it depends on if you influence selection. If you have both your batting and your bowling influence the selection or balance of the team, you're an allrounder in the context of the team you're playing in, for mine. This obviously includes the likes of Shane Watson who are picked on neither of their skills alone and the likes of Heath Steak who are picked on both, but people have questioned this definition of mine as it would disclude someone like Kallis. Well, the way I see it, it doesn't. Kallis would make the team on his batting alone, obviously.. if he couldn't bowl, he'd still be playing. However, his bowling, while not influencing his selection, is I'm sure considered by the selectors when considering the balance of the team and hence the selection of other players. The fact that Kallis can bowl may nudge the South African selectors into picking an extra batsmen instead of another allrounder - or pick an allrounder like Hall instead of a genuine bowler as he and Kallis are good enough as a combination.

It's all about influencing selection options as far as I see it.

 

[Richard]

I don't think it's as intrinsic as you make it sound. It's very possible (nay, probable) that players would be classified differently depending on which level they played at or even which team they played for. For example, if Damien Martyn played for Bangladesh, he'd most probably have been a batting allrounder. And if Jimmy Anderson played for Castle Hill D Grade, he'd probably be an allrounder as well.

Oh, very much so. Being batsman, bowler or all-rounder is all about what level you play. People are different things at different levels. Stephen Harmison was a genuine batsman for Ashington Seconds when he was injured out of bowling for a season once.

 

[Richard]

You did watch the WC didn't you?

...I just checked their economy rates, and Tait is doing slightly better.

It's not just about that one tournament, though. I've seen all three bowl quite a bit, and Tait is undoubtedly more accurate, if only by a relatively small amount.

Surely you must agree its just a tag. And even if it isn't as you procliam, would you agree that the players that are not 'all-rounders' have been better crickets since the time in question?

Of course there have, loads. But it's only really fair to compare an all-rounder to an all-rounder. Just as it's not fair to compare a bowler to a wicketkeeper-batsman.

 

[Prince EWS]

Tait isn't quite so badly wayward as either of those two IMO

It depends which way you look at that, IMO. Tait is just extremely inconsistent with his accuracy - and I know that may sound sugar-coated as accuracy is all about consistency, so let me explain. Tait will have spells or even entire days where he is right on the money with his accuracy and doesn't look like missing a beat - and equally, he'll have spells or days where he is all over the place - and yes, even moreso than Mahmood/Plunkett.

Mahmood and Plunkett can be a bit the same of course - they've bowled accurate spells in international cricket and obviously in domestic cricket as well even though I haven't seen them do so, but most of the time, they're likely to be off in that regard. You always know that the next absolute pie is just around the corner, and that's not the case with Tait on a good day. However, they never as bad as Tait at his worst - and that must be recognised.

In the grand scheme of things with potential in mind, even though Tait is horribly bad when he's off, those "off days" have a lot more chance of being minimalised or even removed from his game than the continual not-quite-as-wayward-but-wayward-more-often faults of Plunkett and Mahmood.

 

[Richard]

That's more or less what I meant.