• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The English disease

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
In terms of cricket, in my lifetime, England just simply have not been very good in the subcontinent. Barring the odd result like England beating Pakistan in 2000 I can't remember anything to really get excited about.
They also won in SL about 3 months later.

Beyond that piece of nit-picking, the worry about this series is that they've fared even worse than on various tours of India and SL since Nasser's finest hours. Granted we haven't looked like winning many tests in the SC, we hadn't actually lost many, either. This, otoh, is new territory for English followers who had at least been used to seeing our lads compete out there.
 

Jacknife

International Captain
Yeah, the last performance didn't suffer in this regard, but I think the mental mess which they undoubtedly did suffer from in this match would have been largely caused by the performance in the first match, which may have been in part (I suspect) caused by overconfidence. What I'm saying is pretty much total conjecture, but I would not have been at all surprised if the team (much like the majority of the public) had strolled up to this series high on confidence, imagining that they'd probably be given a good game but also that they'd emerge triumphant over the course of the series without it being too much of a taxing experience.
Yes, I think after the events of the first test, it's fair to say their confidences would have taken a pounding but I also think people want black or white answers when sometimes there are non. England obviously struggle in these conditions more than any other and the English way of playing back or on the back foot, more often than not leaves them in loads of trouble when the balls spinning. There's no doubt imo that when your confidence is gone, you over think things and that just leads to a technical mess.
Equally, I think that a few of the England batsman have found themselves in poor form after the break and have struggled to play themselves into any sort of form, I thought it was pretty evident the way they have even played seam bowling over the last couple of tests, particularly the first.
I do think people try to make things out to be worse than need be, if this turns into a poor run then questions have to be asked but losing your first test series since 2008, shouldn't be a huge worry imo.
 

Arachnodouche

International Captain
^I think that's the difference in basic psyche that this thread is presumably about. It should be a pretty big worry when you lose the first two games of a 3 Test series to a side ranked some 4 places beneath you. It sure rankled the Australians no end when they lost to India in '01. They won the series the next go around here.
 

Hurricane

Hall of Fame Member
I think yes the English might like to take stock and learn some lessons from this series. But they also need to hold on to the fact they have a gun team and not make substantial changes.

I don't think there is anything in the English psyche apparent here - but I am not English - I just think there are a number of good teams around at the moment.
 
Last edited:

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
England just happened to go to Asia and play quality spin after becoming #1 this time.

Last time England faced an amazing Shoaib and were a far inferior side to this one. This time a very good team who can't play spin in spin friendly conditions has fallen very short.

Pretty simple I reckon. #1 mantle irrelevant. Had England gone to South Africa or New Zealand next they'd not have played so poorly, because those conditions are not as foreign.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
The plus side, as alluded to by Spark, is our bowlers have been excellent. Big question marks have been placed on their potency in Asia since this attack came together but with a bit of luck people are accepting Anderson and BRoad as quality bowlers for any location now.
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
TBF, Anderson has been accurate without showing any real penetration and the majority of the Pakistani batsmen arent great by any means
 

nightprowler10

Global Moderator
England just happened to go to Asia and play quality spin after becoming #1 this time.

Last time England faced an amazing Shoaib and were a far inferior side to this one. This time a very good team who can't play spin in spin friendly conditions has fallen very short.
Plus, Pakistan really had something to prove both times. They tend to really get up to play England at home since the dawn of time, in recent years more so than against India.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
TBF, Anderson has been accurate without showing any real penetration and the majority of the Pakistani batsmen arent great by any means
Maybe not but it's good to see that he can play the role of stock bowler and not be a complete liability in alien conditions.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
Anderson was always going to struggle a little for penetration though. He doesn't have the natural advantages that Broad has in terms of hitting the seam hard (because he's not as tall and has a much skiddier action) and getting whatever he could from the deck, and his natural swing-bowling line is probably just a little wide for these conditions. In those circumstances his best bet is to just bowl line+length and exert pressure, and he's been fine at that. Don't think there's anything to be concerned about wrt his performances.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Anderson was always going to struggle a little for penetration though. He doesn't have the natural advantages that Broad has in terms of hitting the seam hard (because he's not as tall and has a much skiddier action) and getting whatever he could from the deck, and his natural swing-bowling line is probably just a little wide for these conditions. In those circumstances his best bet is to just bowl line+length and exert pressure, and he's been fine at that. Don't think there's anything to be concerned about wrt his performances.
Been unlucky as well.
 

Jacknife

International Captain
England just happened to go to Asia and play quality spin after becoming #1 this time.

Last time England faced an amazing Shoaib and were a far inferior side to this one. This time a very good team who can't play spin in spin friendly conditions has fallen very short.

Pretty simple I reckon. #1 mantle irrelevant. Had England gone to South Africa or New Zealand next they'd not have played so poorly, because those conditions are not as foreign.
This

The plus side, as alluded to by Spark, is our bowlers have been excellent. Big question marks have been placed on their potency in Asia since this attack came together but with a bit of luck people are accepting Anderson and BRoad as quality bowlers for any location now.
This, really big thing for England this, especially with the re-emergence of Monty because with a good bowling attack for all conditions, it will always give you a chance of winning.

Been unlucky as well.
Yes he has, bowled a brilliant spell as Spark alluded to but was always there or there abouts all match,He's been over shadowed by how awesome Broad bowled but still he really has turned into a really good bowler, who can do a very good job anywhere in the world. Broad well what can you say, he looks like one of the best around at the moment and to do over in the UAE what he was doing in England says a lot.
 
Last edited:

Xuhaib

International Coach
don't think Monty is better then Rehman its close but I would back Rehman to produce more in sub cont then Monty and there is no need to play Swann when you laready have Ajmal and Hafeez. KP also averages mid 20's in sub cont if you remove Bangladesh and thats over a period of 12 tests so its a decent sample size. In sub cont a combined Pak-Eng side would be.

Cook
Hafeez
Trott
Younis
Misbah
Bell
Prior
Broad
Rehman
Ajmal
Anderson

6-5 England. Not as much a difference as many people think.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
don't think Monty is better then Rehman its close but I would back Rehman to produce more in sub cont then Monty and there is no need to play Swann when you laready have Ajmal and Hafeez. KP also averages mid 20's in sub cont if you remove Bangladesh and thats over a period of 12 tests so its a decent sample size. In sub cont a combined Pak-Eng side would be.

Cook
Hafeez
Trott
Younis
Misbah
Bell
Prior
Broad
Rehman
Ajmal
Anderson

6-5 England. Not as much a difference as many people think.
Haha I would definitely play Swann over Rehman or Panesar. Don't care about lefty/right; he's a far, far better cricketer than either of them.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
Yeah indeed, not least because of his batting, even presuming Rehman was a better bowler (which he isn't) or that the variety gives him a major advantage (which it doesn't as Swann/Ajmal/Hafeez are all significantly different bowlers anyway)
 

Xuhaib

International Coach
yeah on variety only I for one don't think Rehman is better then Swann but 3 offies is pushing it imo.
 

Top