Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23

Thread: England Now vs England in late 1990's

  1. #1
    First Class Debutant ozone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    805

    England Now vs England in late 1990's

    Just read this article on Cricinfo. Probably one of the most interesting ones I've read in a while. Although not fully convinced, I can see where he's coming from. England probably are better now than they were in the late 1990's, but not by as large a margin as expected. Any thoughts?
    There's only one Dimitri Mascarenhas!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby View Post
    It's surely a piss take that in the country who gave us Robert Nesta Marley, King Tubby & Jimmy Cliff that we're tortured with Chumba-fuggin'-Wamba between overs?

  2. #2
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    What Tim would have done well to have done is to offer the same comparison back another decade again; 2005\06-2007\08 to 1996-1999 and also 1986-1989.

    1986-1989 really was the blackest of all periods in English cricket history. There were a few awful performances in 1996-1999 (the home loss to Pakistan; the failure to win in Zimbabwe, though that would have been altered by a single run; the the loss at home to New Zealand, though that too could very easily have gone the other way) but between 1986 and 1989 England won 3 Tests out of 42, all against equally rubbish teams. And there were plenty of wholly credible performances 1996-1999, even if the cookie crumbled badly for England several times.

    This sentence, for mine, is the most important:
    Quote Originally Posted by Tim de Lisle
    The close catching is worse now than it was then. The outfielding is much the same; it does not help that the captain is ham-handed.
    The saying "catches win matches" would be better expressed as "dropped catches cost matches". Injuries haven't helped England in the last 2 years, but dropped catches will almost always be a killer-blow for ailing sides. If you can catch, you've a decent chance of keeping your head above water.

    But the doom-and-gloom that everyone talks about the 1990s with has long been wholly exaggerated, possibly because people liked to think England were so much better in 2001, 2002 and 2003 particularly, and also 2004 and 2005, than they had been. Trashing the bad times and trying to make them out to be worse than they were is a nice easy way to do that.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  3. #3
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    still scratching around in the same old hole
    Posts
    15,676
    Quote Originally Posted by ozone View Post
    Just read this article on Cricinfo. Probably one of the most interesting ones I've read in a while. Although not fully convinced, I can see where he's coming from. England probably are better now than they were in the late 1990's, but not by as large a margin as expected. Any thoughts?
    The article seems reasonable to me and pretty accurate.

    I dont get how Headley = Sidebottom though. Neither were/are special but Headley was clearly the better bowler than Sidebottom is.

    One thing he didnt mention, that worries me, is the lack of depth in the CC currently. Few people doing well that are on te outside of the England set-up.
    If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there will be edits

    West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma

  4. #4
    International Coach wpdavid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    12,601
    I think the late 1990's England side is overtarnished in many people's minds because of the 1999 loss to NZ which dumped them at the bottom of the league table. OK, they were horrible in that series, but before that, starting in 1996, we have:
    - a home win against India, which the current lot couldn't manage and a home loss to a Pakistan side whose attack was exponentially superior to the 2006 version
    - an admittedly unimpressive draw in Zim and a very good win in NZ
    - a defeat in WI, which was also poor tbh
    - two Ashes series when we were far more competitive than 12 months ago
    - a home win against SA when they were still very good indeed. Could you honestly see the current lot doing that?
    - a one-off loss to SL in conditions that were exactly what MM would have requested

    Of course injuries have played a part, and the point about catches is important. But if we're asking which England side was better, then'd have to conclude that the late 1990's vesion was mostly superior to what we've seen in the past two and a half years.

    Possible composite side:
    1. Atherton
    2. Too close to call
    3. Hussain
    4. Thorpe
    5. Pietersen
    6. Stewart (wk)
    7. Collingwood
    8. Flintoff (if fit). If not, Sidebottom.
    9. Gough
    10. Caddick/Headley
    11. Panesar

    I make that 6 places to 4 for the late 1990's side, with one place undecided.
    I'm not really happy with Collingwood at 7, but playing Stewart there would be ludicrously low. But then again I've probably forgotten somebody obvious.


  5. #5
    State Regular The_Bunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    971
    Quote Originally Posted by wpdavid View Post
    I think the late 1990's England side is overtarnished in many people's minds because of the 1999 loss to NZ which dumped them at the bottom of the league table. OK, they were horrible in that series, but before that, starting in 1996, we have:
    - a home win against India, which the current lot couldn't manage and a home loss to a Pakistan side whose attack was exponentially superior to the 2006 version
    - an admittedly unimpressive draw in Zim and a very good win in NZ
    - a defeat in WI, which was also poor tbh
    - two Ashes series when we were far more competitive than 12 months ago
    - a home win against SA when they were still very good indeed. Could you honestly see the current lot doing that?
    - a one-off loss to SL in conditions that were exactly what MM would have requested

    Of course injuries have played a part, and the point about catches is important. But if we're asking which England side was better, then'd have to conclude that the late 1990's vesion was mostly superior to what we've seen in the past two and a half years.

    Possible composite side:
    1. Atherton
    2. Too close to call
    3. Hussain
    4. Thorpe
    5. Pietersen
    6. Stewart (wk)
    7. Collingwood
    8. Flintoff (if fit). If not, Sidebottom.
    9. Gough
    10. Caddick/Headley
    11. Panesar

    I make that 6 places to 4 for the late 1990's side, with one place undecided.
    I'm not really happy with Collingwood at 7, but playing Stewart there would be ludicrously low. But then again I've probably forgotten somebody obvious.
    Vaughan has to be in the side for mine.

  6. #6
    International Coach wpdavid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    12,601
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Bunny View Post
    Vaughan has to be in the side for mine.
    That may well be the somebody obvious that I completely forgot.

    I would add that if Cook & Bell shift their games up a gear or two and go on to carve out great test careers, the my composite side would look rather different. At present though, their averages are largely inflated by cashing in against moderate attacks, whereas Hussain, Atherton & Thorpe did sometimes produce the goods against world class attacks.

  7. #7
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by wpdavid View Post
    I think the late 1990's England side is overtarnished in many people's minds because of the 1999 loss to NZ which dumped them at the bottom of the league table. OK, they were horrible in that series, but before that, starting in 1996, we have:
    - a home win against India, which the current lot couldn't manage and a home loss to a Pakistan side whose attack was exponentially superior to the 2006 version
    - an admittedly unimpressive draw in Zim and a very good win in NZ
    - a defeat in WI, which was also poor tbh
    - two Ashes series when we were far more competitive than 12 months ago
    - a home win against SA when they were still very good indeed. Could you honestly see the current lot doing that?
    - a one-off loss to SL in conditions that were exactly what MM would have requested

    Of course injuries have played a part, and the point about catches is important. But if we're asking which England side was better, then'd have to conclude that the late 1990's vesion was mostly superior to what we've seen in the past two and a half years.

    Possible composite side:
    1. Atherton
    2. Too close to call
    3. Hussain
    4. Thorpe
    5. Pietersen
    6. Stewart (wk)
    7. Collingwood
    8. Flintoff (if fit). If not, Sidebottom.
    9. Gough
    10. Caddick/Headley
    11. Panesar

    I make that 6 places to 4 for the late 1990's side, with one place undecided.
    I'm not really happy with Collingwood at 7, but playing Stewart there would be ludicrously low. But then again I've probably forgotten somebody obvious.
    Vaughan >>>> Collingwood. Would have him at four and Stewart five, then one of Thorpe or Pietersen seven, but seems mad go that far down for either of them.

    Regarding the defeat in WI in 1998, I disagree that it was poor. Discounting the abandoned game, we lost the First Test which we should have won, won the Second Test which we should have lost, the toss decided the Third, we were denied victory in the Fourth by the weather, and we had a draw in the bank in the Fifth until an utterly ridiculous collapse. That series could easily have been 2-2 at the worst, 1-3 victory to England at best.

  8. #8
    Soutie Langeveldt's Avatar
    Pinball Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Leeuwarden, Netherlands
    Posts
    29,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughy View Post
    One thing he didnt mention, that worries me, is the lack of depth in the CC currently. Few people doing well that are on te outside of the England set-up.
    total lack of players able to represent England playing county cricket at the moment.. They need to decide if County Cricket is going to be an entity (and a business) in it's own right (a la Premier league football), or a feeder for the national team.. At the moment it's just a mish mash of the two
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    Don't like using my iPod dock. Ruins battery life too much.
    Quote Originally Posted by benchmark00 View Post
    Thanks Dick Smith. Will remember to subscribe to your newsletter for more electronic fun facts.

    ****.

  9. #9
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Domestic cricket, in England or anywhere else, will never be a business in itself. Since the 1950s, it never has been in England, and elsewhere, it never has been - ever.

    The purpose of domestic cricket is to prepare players for the next level up, international. As the purpose of clubs and second XIs is to prepare players for the domestic level.

    Without cricket at international level, cricket as a professional entity is non-sustainable.

  10. #10
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    29,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    The saying "catches win matches" would be better expressed as "dropped catches cost matches".
    Haha, so English.

  11. #11
    Hall of Fame Member grecian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Right Side of History
    Posts
    19,476
    Quote Originally Posted by wpdavid View Post
    I think the late 1990's England side is overtarnished in many people's minds because of the 1999 loss to NZ which dumped them at the bottom of the league table. OK, they were horrible in that series, but before that, starting in 1996, we have:
    - a home win against India, which the current lot couldn't manage and a home loss to a Pakistan side whose attack was exponentially superior to the 2006 version
    - an admittedly unimpressive draw in Zim and a very good win in NZ
    - a defeat in WI, which was also poor tbh
    - two Ashes series when we were far more competitive than 12 months ago
    - a home win against SA when they were still very good indeed. Could you honestly see the current lot doing that?
    - a one-off loss to SL in conditions that were exactly what MM would have requested

    Of course injuries have played a part, and the point about catches is important. But if we're asking which England side was better, then'd have to conclude that the late 1990's vesion was mostly superior to what we've seen in the past two and a half years.

    Possible composite side:
    1. Atherton
    2. Too close to call
    3. Hussain
    4. Thorpe
    5. Pietersen
    6. Stewart (wk)
    7. Collingwood
    8. Flintoff (if fit). If not, Sidebottom.
    9. Gough
    10. Caddick/Headley
    11. Panesar

    I make that 6 places to 4 for the late 1990's side, with one place undecided.
    I'm not really happy with Collingwood at 7, but playing Stewart there would be ludicrously low. But then again I've probably forgotten somebody obvious.
    Why no Hoggard?
    Do I contradict myself?
    Very well then I contradict myself,
    (I am large, I contain multitudes.
    Walt Whitman

  12. #12
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Because Gough, Caddick and Headley, despite all having disappointing careers in one way or another, are still clearly superior bowlers.

  13. #13
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    Haha, so English.
    Eh? Why?

    The saying "catches win matches" expresses "take catches". The saying "dropped catches cost matches" expresses "don't drop catches". Crucial difference, IMO.

    What's more, you can only take a catch if it comes. Therefore, catches don't neccessarily win matches, because you can actually win 'em without. But dropping catches will almost invariably cost games, because they'll almost never keep coming.

  14. #14
    Hall of Fame Member grecian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Right Side of History
    Posts
    19,476
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Because Gough, Caddick and Headley, despite all having disappointing careers in one way or another, are still clearly superior bowlers.
    Well agree with Gough, but Caddicks poor first innings performances means he's the lesser bowler imo, would have been awful in this day and age, with the pitches not deteriorating as much as they did then.

    If you include Headley, you may as well put in Simon Jones, both similarly flawed injury-wise. Yet i know you'll talk up Headley over Jones too. Very odd your obsession with all things nineties.

  15. #15
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by grecian View Post
    Caddicks poor first innings performances means he's the lesser bowler imo, would have been awful in this day and age, with the pitches not deteriorating as much as they did then.
    Caddick's first\second innings discrepancy actually had little to do with pitches, it was mostly mere coincidence.
    If you include Headley, you may as well put in Simon Jones, both similarly flawed injury-wise. Yet i know you'll talk up Headley over Jones too.
    There's some element of comparison in the injury-prone stakes, but that's where it ends really. Both had plenty of potential, but Headley's performances were probably superior - Jones bowled well, essentially, in two first-innings', those at Old Trafford and Trent Bridge in 2005. Headley pretty much trumped those performances with his games at Adelaide, MCG and SCG in 1998\99. He also bowled better for most of the rest of his career, having no more than 2 out-and-out poor games from debut to penultimate Test.

    In potential there's little to divide them, in performance Headley was superior. There's no two ways about that.
    Very odd your obsession with all things nineties.
    Rubbish is it. Far more odd is the obsession of so many in saying how rubbish England were, rubbish full-stop without any perks-up.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. List of England Test Bowlers 1980's and 1990's
    By jazzie in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 26-02-2019, 05:26 AM
  2. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 17-11-2002, 11:07 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •