That is a good tail, and arguably better than Australia (I did say arguably).
Yeah, have been thinking that for a year or so myself. Don't know why - not so long ago we had the likes of Cork, Croft, Giles, Caddick, Gough, Headley, etc. All of whom can certainly bat to a decent standard.
) and a few others around in the "something approaching genuine all-rounder" category too. Now there's just the near-perminantly-crocked Flintoff.Hughes got his 70 against the Windies, that's better than some batsmen ever managed
)
not shure pl chek cricinfozI think England tail is as bad as any tail nower days...
These English guys are mostly domestic fans if cricket...(
And the spelling is Habhajhan?
Harbhajan.
Are they really that bad, though? Anderson, Harmison, Hoggard and Panesar are clearly pretty horrible but they haven't just been introduced in the last year or so. Broad, Plunkett and Tremlett are all quite good. Sidebottom isn't the worst, either.Yeah, have been thinking that for a year or so myself. Don't know why - not so long ago we had the likes of Cork, Croft, Giles, Caddick, Gough, Headley, etc. All of whom can certainly bat to a decent standard.
Wasn't that long ago that there was White, Irani, Hollioake, Hollioake (
I've seen Plunkett bat, and I reckon he'd be a more useful #8 than Brett Lee. He's got a good eye, no doubt about that. Great potential.
Yeah I've liked what I've seen of Plunkett's batting at times as well. Unfortunately though, he's also looked absolutely clueless at times (ie. almost every time I've seen him bat with white clothes on). He's despicably bad against spin. He's certainly at least "good" in the tailend batting stakes, though.
Plunkett and Anderson are not the same player.Anderson is nowhere nearBret Lee mate
Lee has a good strike with a fair eye and Anderson makes me laugh
So I don't know how to compare the two in a way
Tremlett? Nah, he's barely above rabbit standard. Sidebottom likewise. Mystery to me how he played at almost bowling-all-rounder standard in SL, he never has before.
).
What I struggle to see is why you've come to this conclusion "in the last year or so" regarding players who England have brought into the same. As I said, Hoggard, Harmison, Anderson and Panesar are obviously pretty horrible, but they've all been in the setup for a while now anyway (the first three at least), so I'm wondering who these absolutely rabbits that England have introduced in the last year or so are.Tremlett? Nah, he's barely above rabbit standard. Sidebottom likewise. Mystery to me how he played at almost bowling-all-rounder standard in SL, he never has before.
Broad used to be a batsman before he took-up bowling, and they reckon he could have made a decent shot at being a specialist batsman at Second XI level at least, so he certainly can bat, and if he devotes time to it I think he might manage to become as good as Irfan Pathan has (something I thought about Pathan 5 years ago too that
Plunkett has some ability but I just don't see his bowling as anywhere close to Test standard (nor ever getting anywhere close) so he's barely worth a mention.
Numerous?! Thankfully, he's only played 1 in Pakistan, 1 in India, 3 against Sri Lanka and 1 against Pakistan. Then 3 against West Indies which I can barely remember other than his and Harmison's utterly woeful bowling show in the Third. TBH, I'd forgotten he played as many as 3 against SL and WI.
Caddick's career has mostly come at a time when pitches were far more ball-friendly, that's about the sum of it. I admit I've seen only the odd OD innings in Tremlett's career (which obviously tells you virtually nothing as they've all been either coming in at 90 for 7 or 200 for 7 with 4 overs left) and TBH have never even looked much at his First-Class record. The simple fact is, no-one has ever even mentioned him as a batsman in any guise at all. And I always thought a decent bit of Caddick's batting.
