Why do England struggle to produce undisputedly great players?

[91Jmay]

For South Africa: Steyn,Pollock,Donald,Smith,Amla, ABDV ,Ntini,Gary Kirsten and Brian McMillian.

Gary Kirsten not a great and neither is Brian McMillian.

 

[akilana]

Gary Kirsten not a great and neither is Brian McMillian.

Kirsten is if Cook is a borderline great. Opening the batting in SA and averaging 45 with the bat with 21 hundreds in the 90s when there were plenty of great bowlers.

 

[Shri]

Gary Kirsten not a great and neither is Brian McMillian.

Kirsten is and I would add Fanie de Villiers to the list.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah if Cook is a great, you can't say Kirsten isn't.

 

[akilana]

Morkel could take 800 wickets at 3.5 WPM averaging around 29, nipping out a couple of tailenders every match with Steyn and Philander or whoever doing the bulk of the damage, and he still wouldn't be fit to lace Anderson's boots. He's shown over the last year or so that he's no good when asked to lead the attack. Rather have Rabada.

what? Morkel takes same percentage of top order wickets and lower order wickets as Anderson despite not getting the new ball. He has also performed better on tours than Anderson.

Anderson has 175 wickets at 33 with 4 fifers
Morkel 124 wickets at 29 with four fifers in fewer matches.

Anderson has been very good at home compared to Morkel and overall marginally better but let's not pretend Anderson was on different level.

Don't think he is a great of the game. He is in the Harbajan, M Johnson category. Players that had very good career but not great of the game.

 

[91Jmay]

Cook averages more and has more runs + hundreds. Entirely fair to call him a great and not Kirsten. Kirsten averaging 33 against Aus and the Windies. A very good, not great.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Cook's record against Australia is nothing special either. And if Cook gets bonus points for having to open in England, Kirsten should get a bunch for opening in SA in a tougher period for batsmen.

 

[Daemon]

Morkel could take 800 wickets at 3.5 WPM averaging around 29, nipping out a couple of tailenders every match with Steyn and Philander or whoever doing the bulk of the damage, and he still wouldn't be fit to lace Anderson's boots. He's shown over the last year or so that he's no good when asked to lead the attack. Rather have Rabada.

The last time he lead the attack was in India and he was the best quick on display. Put in a far, far better performance than Rabada.

Morkel is seriously underrated, though I wouldn't put him up there with Anderson.

 

[91Jmay]

The last time he lead the attack was in India and he was the best quick on display. Put in a far, far better performance than Rabada.

Morkel is seriously underrated, though I wouldn't put him up there with Anderson.

He 'lead' the attack against England at home and was pathetic.

 

[Tec15]

He 'lead' the attack against England at home and was pathetic.

"Pathetic" Morkel in that series: 15 wickets @29. ATG Jimmy in that same series: 7 wickets @43.

Good to know which "Greats" are being perennially graded on a curve.

 

[ImpatientLime]

interesting you fail to note anderson was coming back from injury in that series.

 

[Tec15]

interesting you fail to note anderson was coming back from injury in that series.

So? Isn't he a "Great" whose boots Morkel isn't fit to lace? And we know that Morkel was "Pathetic" in that series. Shouldn't be too hard.

 

[ImpatientLime]

anderson in the last 6 and a half years, since he has fully matured has taken 315 @ 25.

clearly a guy who's career average suffers due to the fact that he was picked far too young and then mis managed during the harmison/flintoff/hoggard/jones years.

he is comfortably a level above morkel to any non biased eye.

 

[Contra]

anderson in the last 6 and a half years, since he has fully matured has taken 315 @ 25.

clearly a guy who's career average suffers due to the fact that he was picked far too young and then mis managed during the harmison/flintoff/hoggard/jones years.

he is comfortably a level above morkel to any non biased eye.

Cricket doesn't work like that. If Anderson wasn't picked at the time he was he wouldn't be the bowler he is today. He got picked and smashed around, realized he needed to do a lot better than simply being able to swing the ball and made adjustments to his bowling action, among other things and obviously had the desire to make a comeback. You can't just assume that if Anderson was picked a few years later he would be in prime form and take 315 wickets @ 25 from the outset.

 

[91Jmay]

"Pathetic" Morkel in that series: 15 wickets @29. ATG Jimmy in that same series: 7 wickets @43.

Good to know which "Greats" are being perennially graded on a curve.

As cute as you following me around for attention is, if you watched that series you'll know how bad Morkel was until the dead rubber.

 

[Shri]

Cricket doesn't work like that. If Anderson wasn't picked at the time he was he wouldn't be the bowler he is today. He got picked and smashed around, realized he needed to do a lot better than simply being able to swing the ball and made adjustments to his bowling action, among other things and obviously had the desire to make a comeback. You can't just assume that if Anderson was picked a few years later he would be in prime form and take 315 wickets @ 25 from the outset.

Yeah his problems would have been exposed when he was in his prime and would have suffered even more. He also probably would have been discarded and forgotten fam.

 

[91Jmay]

Anderson wasn't as much of a swing bowler when he was first picked he was quick.

 

[ImpatientLime]

Cricket doesn't work like that. If Anderson wasn't picked at the time he was he wouldn't be the bowler he is today. He got picked and smashed around, realized he needed to do a lot better than simply being able to swing the ball and made adjustments to his bowling action, among other things and obviously had the desire to make a comeback. You can't just assume that if Anderson was picked a few years later he would be in prime form and take 315 wickets @ 25 from the outset.

i'm not denying any of that.

my post was in order to counter those who believe 'well his career average is the same as morkel's so he's no better than morkel.'

 

[SeamUp]

Kirsten is if Cook is a borderline great. Opening the batting in SA and averaging 45 with the bat with 21 hundreds in the 90s when there were plenty of great bowlers.

Spot on. I know who McGrath-Gillespie-Lee would rather bowl to or Akram/Waqar or Ambrose/Walsh or Donald/Pollock for that matter.

Averages only mean so much and then it is actually watching how each players adapted to different situations and played situations and who they faced.

But pure averages is boring but we can put it down as well : Cook averages 39 v weaker Australian attacks than Gaz faced and Cook averages only 35 v South Africa (lowest against all teams)

Same with Anderson who averages 35.87 v Australia and 38.60 v South Africa with the ball. Morkel as our 3rd seamer hasn't been a bad supporting act when he 'averages' as much England's leader.

 

[Tec15]

As cute as you following me around for attention is, if you watched that series you'll know how bad Morkel was until the dead rubber.

Clearly not as bad as Jimmeh was in the same series. Try to spin that anyway you like but it's a fact. A "bad" and "pathetic" Morkel averaged the same as Jimmy Anderson's overall career overage and only four more than what the ATG managed at his supposed "peak". But guess which one is not fit to lace the others boots?