Why have England won only 2 out 8 test series since the Ashes win in 2005 ?

[Salamuddin]

Why have England not been succesful after it looked like they had a very strong team in September 2005 ?

Luck ? Complacency ? Injuries ? Loss of Troy Cooley ?

Why have they failed to kick on from their successes in 2004/2005 ?

 

[silentstriker]

Injuries.

 

[Days of Grace]

The other teams were just better sides, simple as that.

However, I will say that the absence of Flintoff has hurt them. How many of those 8 series has he actually played in?

 

[wpdavid]

Why have England not been succesful after it looked like they had a very strong team in September 2005 ?

Luck ? Complacency ? Injuries ? Loss of Troy Cooley ?

Why have they failed to kick on from their successes in 2004/2005 ?

Mainly because it isn't the same side. Injuries to key players have decimated the team from 2004/2005, so you'd have to start there. You'd have to think that at full strength they'd have seen off SL in 2006 and possibly India in 2007. Maybe even won at Multan in 2005, which would have at least ensured a share of the series.

Beyond that, not many sides win in Aus, India or SL anyway.

Not sure how much difference Cooley would have amde tbh.

 

[Richard]

Injuries.

Yuppers. Main factor, at least.

One of the most hopelessly overplayed factors is the loss of Cooley. Sure, the man's a fantastic bowling-coach, but there's no way on Earth he'd have made Liam Plunkett, Sajid Mahmood, Stephen Harmison et al into Test-class bowlers!

The luck and mistakes made by opposition (in many capacities - selections in South Africa and dropped catches and no-balls with Australia FOR INSTANCE) involved in the triumphs in 2004\05 and 2005 shouldn't be completely undestimated, of course. Full-strength South Africa in 2004\05 vs full-strength England would have been a very different game, as I've always said.

But nor should the fact a few players (Flintoff more than anyone; Strauss; Hoggard and Trescothick in bit-part roles; Simon Jones sensationally for a very short time; Thorpe and Pietersen on occasions) played some fantastic cricket in that time.

 

[Richard]

You'd have to think that at full strength they'd have seen off SL in 2006

Never mind being at full-strength, all it'd have taken would've been some half-decent catching.

and possibly India in 2007. Maybe even won at Multan in 2005, which would have at least ensured a share of the series.

And also drawn at Lahore, hence winning it...

 

[Chubb]

If England could put their full bowling attack out there might have been a difference but in all honesty I don't think they are anywhere near as good as a lot of people think, or as good as the players themselves think.

 

[Richard]

Think it's the journalist-entourage who're guilty far more than the players of overrating said players TBH.

 

[wpdavid]

The other teams were just better sides, simple as that.

However, I will say that the absence of Flintoff has hurt them. How many of those 8 series has he actually played in?

He missed the two series that we won, as well as the home loss to India & the current SL series. His bowling was certainly missed against India, but I doubt whether he'd have done a lot in this series.

 

[Goughy]

Injuries, bad luck and reverting to the old policy of throwing enough **** players into Test cricket and hoping some will stick.

I havent checked but Id wager money that since the end of that Ashes summer in 2005 England have used more Test players than any other nation.

There has been little continuity and some average cricketers selected.

EDIT- By my count 26 players in just over 2 years

 

[Richard]

Don't forget, though, that you can only pick who's available. What would you prefer: keep selecting Liam Plunkett for Test after Test having made the initial mistake, or having found him woefully below par try James Anderson again?

BTW, from what I can tell, this is a list of those who've played for England since November 2005: Trescothick, Strauss, Vaughan, Bell, Collingwood, Pietersen, Flintoff, Geraint Jones, Giles, Udal, Harmison, Hoggard, Plunkett, Cook, Blackwell, Panesar, Shah, Anderson, Mahmood, Lewis, Read, Prior, Sidebottom, Tremlett, Bopara, Broad.

Now how many of these players can we really say shouldn't have been picked when they were?

 

[wpdavid]

Don't forget, though, that you can only pick who's available. What would you prefer: keep selecting Liam Plunkett for Test after Test having made the initial mistake, or having found him woefully below par try James Anderson again?

BTW, from what I can tell, this is a list of those who've played for England since November 2005: Trescothick, Strauss, Vaughan, Bell, Collingwood, Pietersen, Flintoff, Geraint Jones, Giles, Udal, Harmison, Hoggard, Plunkett, Cook, Blackwell, Panesar, Shah, Anderson, Mahmood, Lewis, Read, Prior, Sidebottom, Bopara, Broad.

Now how many of these players can we really say shouldn't have been picked when they were?

Plus Tremlett gives us Goughy's figure of 26.

The bowling's the thing, isn't it. Obviously most of them wouldn't have played if Jones, Hoggard & Harmison had stayed fit, but there hasn't been an obvious 'Plan B'. Most of the selections seemed to at least have some sort of justification at the time, but that was true in the horror days of the 80's too. Bottom line is we've seen too many. If Broad deserves to be in the squad now, why did Tremlett play instead of him against India? If Lewis wasn't deemed worthy of selection at Lord's, why did he play at Trent bridge? If Blackwell was going to play at all, why for only one test.

Maybe part of the problem is the lack of quality reserves in the CC. In 2003 when we had similar injury problems, Fletcher was able to call up established pros like Kirtley & Bicknell to do a job. In the absence of those, we've seen Plunkett & Mahmood play years before they're ready.

 

[Goughy]

Yeah there is clearly a lack of a plan.

Mahmood, Plunkett and Bopara had done nothing to earn selection.

Udal and Blackwell were clearly situational selections but neither offered any mid-term options

One of Tremett or Broad must be given the nod as favourite and both asked to produce in CC.

The Lewis experiment was an embarassment. Either give the guy a run as you think he is a good bowler or dont pick him. Instead it appears he was given a nod just to appease people.

Sidebottom offers offers nothing but mediocrity over a mid range future

By the end of the 2005 Ashes series the Read years were over it was pointless briefly recalling him. Especially as you know many in the camp didnt want him there.

Anderson is a way short of Test class. He may get there but has to take a bag load in CC to earn a shot.

Basically too many marginal guys are getting chances. How many of the players mentioned above would be in the top 6 or so batsmen or bowlers in the country? Not many

 

[wpdavid]

Yeah there is clearly a lack of a plan.

Mahmood, Plunkett and Bopara had done nothing to earn selection.

Udal and Blackwell were clearly situational selections but neither offered any mid-term options

One of Tremett or Broad must be given the nod as favourite and both asked to produce in CC.

The Lewis experiment was an embarassment. Either give the guy a run as you think he is a good bowler or dont pick him. Instead it appears he was given a nod just to appease people.

Sidebottom offers offers nothing but mediocrity over a mid range future

By the end of the 2005 Ashes series the Read years were over it was pointless briefly recalling him. Wspecially as you know many in the camp didnt want him there.

Anderson is a long way short of Test class. He may get there but has to take a bag load in CC to earn a shot.

Basically to many marginal guys are getting chances. How many of the players mentioned bove would be in the top 6 or so batsmen or bowlers in the country? Not many

There's some truth in most of that, but it leaves one unanswered question. If we shouldn't have seen any of Mahmood, Plunkett, Anderson & Sidebottom then who else was there?

 

[TheEpic]

Injuries etc to our best players. Most importantly, Flintoff and Trescothick. If both were fully fit and available for selection, we'd be a different side.

Loss of form, particularly for Strauss and Harmison.

No coherent bowling attack. Without that 5 we had who worked perfectly in unison, our attack always seems unbalanced or a man short. Bowlers are forced to bowl longer and more spells to handle the workload, which makes them tired and unthreatening. This can only be down to the lack of a proper allrounder though, can't help but think if a fully fit Flintoff was in the current side the attack would look a lot more potent. Flintoff, Harmison, Sidebottom, Hoggard and Panesar looks a lot better to me.

Its worrying though. Flintoff and Jones are never gonna be the force they were, and Trescothick maybe won't be back. Bell, Collingwood et al are capable players, but they consistently fail to make big scores at important times.

There's just a worrying lack of world class players in the team, whereas in 2005 most of them were on top of their game.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

There's some truth in most of that, but it leaves one unanswered question. If we shouldn't have seen any of Mahmood, Plunkett, Anderson & Sidebottom then who else was there?

The bowlers who were actually taking wickets domestically. Couldn't have done much worse. Not considering Sidebottom here though, as he's not proved himself a failure by any means as yet.

 

[Flem274*]

Geez the way you lot are talking if we play a half decent team NZ will sweep the floor with you guys.

When you have Iain O'Brien or James Marshall playing for you then you can complain, though if I were English I wouldn't want Mahmood or Plunkett to play for them either. Hell, they wouldn't make an injury depleted NZ side. Unless Braces fell in love with them of course.

 

[wpdavid]

Well yes, I'd figured what Goughy was alluding to. The problem is finding some who were actually doing enough in the CC to demand selection. That might sound odd - you'd have thought that someone English from the 18 counties was consistently doing enough, but most of us struggled to name them at the time, especially if you exclude those like Gough/Caddick/Cork who are obviously too close to the end of their career, and those like the lad at Glamorgan whose name escapes me who's barely started his.

It's all very well saying that virtually every quick bowler selected since 2005 should never have been picked, but the reality is that alternatives have not been screamingly obvious. Hence the lack of specific answers to my original question. Hence, also, the temptation for selectors to throw in kids who might make the grade rather than older players who have shown that they almost certainly won't. Granted it hasn't been a raging success, but I suppose Fletcher would point out that it wasn't an unmitigated disaster with Harmison (albeit briefly) and Jones, whose own FC records were anything but special when they first played five years ago.

tbh I can cope with some duff selections so long as there is evidence of long term thinking. Hence my earlier comment that I am more worried about the Tremlett/Broad situation than Mahmood & Plunkett being selcted at all. OK, I thought that Lewis should have played ahead of one of them against SL at Lord's last year, but I could understand the thinking. Looking back 4 years, our attack looked equally horrible on our last tour of SL. What only became apparent subsequently was that Fletcher actually knew what he was looking for. Whilst it would probably be stretching things to suggest that after the 2003 ashes he had decided on an attack of Hoggard, Harmison, Jones, Flintoff & Giles for the forseeable future, it is undeniable that those 5 were virtually always picked when fit. From the start of our 2003 summer, you can count on the fingers of one hand the combined times when any of them were available but not picked - namely Hoggard for a couple of tests in SL at the end of 2003, Jones for one test in SA and, depending on which version of events you believe, maybe Harmison for the Leeds test in 2003. Oh yes, & Giles missed that test as well because spinners & Leeds were deemed not to mix. Other than that, from May 2003 to September 2005 all 5 played whenever they were available for selection.

Admitedly that wasn't obvious four years ago. And it did depend on Harmison, Jones & Flintoff moving up several gears from what we had previously seen from them, even if not all of them managed that for very long. The tough job for Moores now, if enough of the current crop stay fit, is picking & sticking with the lads most likely to provide a cutting edge in 2008 and beyond. Looking at the juggling with Broad, Tremlett & Anderson I'm not sure that he has much of a clue right now.

 

[Matteh]

Because they're not French? Isn't that what you want to hear?

 

[Pup Clarke]

like the lad at Glamorgan whose name escapes me who's barely started his.

James Harris