Why do England struggle to produce undisputedly great players?

[FBU]

Well I guess we need to nail down what the definition of "great" is. As I said I'm 100% in agreement with what Red Hill said........how do you see it?

Even in the last 3 years with his ave down to 23.79 it's the strike rate of 53.4, career 56.9. I would say a great would have a s/r of about 49/50

 

[Adders]

Even in the last 3 years with his ave down to 23.79 it's the strike rate of 53.4, career 56.9. I would say a great would have a s/r of about 49/50

So Glenn Mcgrath or Joel Garner level then???

Your setting the bar way too high mate. Again there needs to be a difference between Great and ATG..........otherwise you just have Macca, Imran, Mcgrath et al and then everybody else.

 

[vcs]

I think Anderson just about qualifies as a great. Been brilliant for England over the years.

 

[Howe_zat]

What's the criteria for "great" here though?

Jimmy Anderson is never gonna make an English ATG XI ahead of Trueman, Barnes, Larwood, Snow, Willis, Tyson, Bedser.

But imo he's a great cricketer. He'd play in any country's test XI (perhaps bar the WIs in the late 70s or 80s) anytime in history. To me that's what makes a great player.

True man and Barnes are the only two comfortably ahead. Of your list, Tyson who made his name on one Test series is rather out of place and Willis was a good bowler very much in Andersons league.

 

[Howe_zat]

Well I guess we need to nail down what the definition of "great" is.

I had what was agreed at the time to be a 'great' saag aloo last night, so I believe a player is a great player if they are as good as that.

 

[Red]

True man and Barnes are the only two comfortably ahead. Of your list, Tyson who made his name on one Test series is rather out of place and Willis was a good bowler very much in Andersons league.

That's all fine and I don't necessarily disagree with you, but my point was that Anderson isn't an ATG in the sense that anyone ever picks him for their ATG England team. IMO Snow and Bedser are ahead of him in the pecking order, and I'd prefer Larwood or Willis, just. My point however, was, that Anderson is a great cricketer, who'd probably make (almost) any test side in history.

On the topic, some years ago someone made a tier system for cricketers which I thought was pretty interesting. I'll re-hash a version of it with quicks:

Platinum (in their nation's ATG XI, potentially in a world ATG XI)
Dennis Lillee, Glenn McGrath, Richard Hadlee, Dale Steyn, Wasim Akram, Curtly Ambrose, Malcolm Marshall, Imran Khan

Gold (probably/possibly in their nation's ATG XI)
Ray Lindwall, Shaun Pollock, James Anderson, Ian Botham, Waqar Younis*, Allan Donald*, Fred Trueman*, Joel Garner*, Michael Holding*, Alec Bedser, Andy Roberts, John Snow, Wes Hall, Kapil Dev

Silver (excellent bowlers but not elite in an ATG sense)
Courtney Walsh*, Makhaya Ntini, Stuart Broad*, Chaminda Vaas*, Jason Gillespie, Brian Statham, Javagal Srinath*, Merv Hughes, Heath Streak*, Jeff Thomson, Terry Alderman,

Bronze (serviceable test bowlers)
Brett Lee, Craig McDermott, Matthew Hoggard, Graham McKenzie, Andy Caddick, Darren Gough, Steve Harmison, Peter Siddle, Ishant Sharma, Danny Morrison



Asterix means that I wasn't 100% sure where to place them, and they might go up a rung. The Indians would probably make their nation's AT XI but drop a rung because of the weaknesses there in pace.

 

[Red]

Plenty of room for argument in the list above

 

[OverratedSanity]

Don't insult Courtney Walsh like that, come on.

 

[Red]

Don't insult Courtney Walsh like that, come on.

Plenty of room for argument in the list above

>

 

[Red]

Don't insult Courtney Walsh like that, come on.

Might've marked him harsher cos he's a WI. Probably should go up a rung.

Issue is you never see him in a WI ATG XI (unless someone looks at statguru leading wicket takers to decide).

 

[Teja.]

**** me, what did Waqar ever do to you? Waqar has near 400 wickets @ 23, 5 wpm @ 21 over the decade of the 90s and if Anderson's case is his late career since 2010, Waqar's peak from 90-95 is for about the same period and is the greatest peak of any fast bowler ever.

Complete joke to say they're in the same galaxy let alone the same level.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Issue is you never see him in a WI ATG XI (unless someone looks at statguru leading wicket takers to decide).

Yes but your entire premise of defining ATG as someone who makes an ATG Xi isn't sensible imo.

 

[Howe_zat]

. My point however, was, that Anderson is a great cricketer, who'd probably make (almost) any test side in history.

That's a workable definition of great player, probably the first useful one I've heard. Doesn't quite work for wicketkeepers as there's only one per side but for most players, sure.

 

[Red]

Yes but your entire premise of defining ATG as someone who makes an ATG Xi isn't sensible imo.

as I said, plenty of room for argument

Perhaps Anderson belongs a rung below. Probably right

 

[Red]

**** me, what did Waqar ever do to you? Waqar has near 400 wickets @ 23, 5 wpm @ 21 over the decade of the 90s and if Anderson's case is his late career since 2010, Waqar's peak from 90-95 is for about the same period and is the greatest peak of any fast bowler ever.

Complete joke to say they're in the same galaxy let alone the same level.

Settle. It's just a (quickly punched out) working list...

 

[Daemon]

The fact that there's a not insignificant amount of dispute over Anderson being a great answers the thread title surely?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Indeed

 

[Adders]

I rest my case your honour.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The fact that there's a not insignificant amount of dispute over Anderson being a great answers the thread title surely?

It's a pointless argument in the end, unless you have a mathematical definition of "great", there'll never be a definitive answer.

 

[Coronis]

Well the title asks for undisputedly great. England hasn't had an undisputed great since Botham. I don't know why though. I doubt there's a particular reason, Root could be the next.