The English disease

[sreeku7]

The bottom line is, don't read too much in England's recent performances against a depleted Australian team and a jaded injury- hit Indian team.The present Number one position is a hollow one as was India's Top ranking a few months ago.Neither of these teams deserve to be the No.1 team in their present state

I think this may be relevant now

 

[Daemon]

You can't not deserve to be ranked no.1.

 

[Prince EWS]

You can't not deserve to be ranked no.1.

Sure you can. Take Zimbabwe for example.

[/pedantry]

 

[Furball]

As always you miss the point. This idea is always worth it when your 6th batsman is someone like Morgan. Simple as.

Are you on the windup?

 

[Furball]

There is no reason for England to be so terrible at spin. It seems they just freeze when they tour the subcontinent.

It's like they think they have to play crazy shots to get on top of spinners on the subcontinent, or play no shots to not lose wickets. Most wickets are just flat, they aren't spinning minefields. But they get it into their heads that they are. It makes very little sense to me - just play normally FFS.

We play it fine until the first wicket falls. At which point everyone just seems to collectively panic and lose the plot until 4 or 5 quick wickets fall before someone in the lower order smacks it around for a bit.

 

[Cabinet96]

I did say I would rather play a seamer for Morgan.. You guys just thought it was funny.

I would've have done that before the first game to be honest. But after the performance in the first game you can't really shorten the batting. As for the fact that's it's Morgan, you can't assume he's not going to score runs and therefore pick Finn because there won't be a difference in runs scored and one can do a much better job with the ball. You have to back you top 6 batsmen to fire.

There is no reason for England to be so terrible at spin. It seems they just freeze when they tour the subcontinent.

It's like they think they have to play crazy shots to get on top of spinners on the subcontinent, or play no shots to not lose wickets. Most wickets are just flat, they aren't spinning minefields. But they get it into their heads that they are. It makes very little sense to me - just play normally FFS.

Yeah, reckon a lot of it is in the mind. Take the first morning in Dubai for example, not really turning but they still collapse to the spinners. If it was played at a ground in England, which would have spun no less, I doubt they would have had such problems.

 

[Jono]

I remember lolsweeping against spin the last SC tour.


Stop lolsweeping.

There is no reason for England to be so terrible at spin. It seems they just freeze when they tour the subcontinent.

It's like they think they have to play crazy shots to get on top of spinners on the subcontinent, or play no shots to not lose wickets. Most wickets are just flat, they aren't spinning minefields. But they get it into their heads that they are. It makes very little sense to me - just play normally FFS.

It's unbelievable that this has been the case for so many years, no matter who the personnel in the team is.

That cricinfo article which showed England's record in Asia spoke volumes. And that was before the 2nd test!

 

[BoyBrumby]

A quick dig for this to see if anyone has changed their minds about England's inability to maintain continuing excellence.

Reading back through the thread there seemed to be a suggestion from some quarters that it was the alien conditions and Pakistan's spinners that accounted for England's 3-0 defeat immediately after ascending to the #1 slot.

In the five tests since then England have suffered a further two defeats, one against a side who almost literally have no bowling attack and another in English conditions, and also had rather the worst of a draw at home against the Windies.

Even Jimmy Anderson is suggesting England's mindset isn't attuned to being top dogs.

When you're trying to become number one in the world, you're trying to chase everyone else down and now we're the ones being chased. So it's a different position we're in and maybe we've not quite come to terms with that yet.

It's also perhaps worth noting that in the ODI series since the UAE England have gone from strength to strength in a format they haven't traditionally favoured but in which they're still climbing the table.

Thoughts?

 

[Ruckus]

I think the answers pretty simple really; the current English team just isn't a great side, and never has been. They are good, perhaps even very good (relative to the other teams), but that isn't enough to stop them losing a few matches. I really don't think it has much to do with a lack of self-belief that's deeply engrained in the English psyche or anything like that. They simply don't have the caliber of players necessary to dominate.

 

[Spark]

Yeah I think that's it. They have a very well-drilled, professional unit but without the individual exceptional quality (glimpses of KP and maybe Anderson/Broad aside) to win everything.

 

[Burgey]

They're like Australia in the early days under Tubby, still prone to a collapse and losing a series away.

I mean, they'll never reach those heights obviously, but it doesn't mean they're a poor side.

 

[wpdavid]

I think the answers pretty simple really; the current English team just isn't a great side, and never has been. They are good, perhaps even very good (relative to the other teams), but that isn't enough to stop them losing a few matches. I really don't think it has much to do with a lack of self-belief that's deeply engrained in the English psyche or anything like that. They simply don't have the caliber of players necessary to dominate.

I agree that we're not as good as some would have had us believe 12 months ago. But I also think that we're not playing as well as we did 12 months ago, even allowing for SA being rather better than India and Aus. It's not just that SA are awesome and the Pak loss was OK because they had a couple of decent spinners.

I'm not sure that it's lack of self-belief on this occasion either. If anything, the opposite: we're number 1, so we should win regardless. Not all of the side, but some of them imo. Against Pak & SL it was the batting. Now the bowling's at fault too. Players do seem to get away with things that wouldn't happen in a stronger cricketing culture. We're told today that Trott & Bell 'don't like' fielding in the slips, so they haven't had to learn how to, despite the obvious need once Collingwood retired from test cricket. Broad reverting to crap mode instead of getting his head down and bowling like he did for 4 tests last summer. Batsmen not managing to adjust to the demands in UAE 6 months ago but apparently it's fine. Too many players simply being mediocre in the field.

It's as if we can't quite keep up the effort to excel for more than 6 months, so we revert to our default mode of general ****tiness.

Post-2005 was different imo. Too many key injuries / illnesses for a start.

 

[Jacknife]

I agree that we're not as good as some would have had us believe 12 months ago. But I also think that we're not playing as well as we did 12 months ago, even allowing for SA being rather better than India and Aus. It's not just that SA are awesome and the Pak loss was OK because they had a couple of decent spinners.

I'm not sure that it's lack of self-belief on this occasion either. If anything, the opposite: we're number 1, so we should win regardless. Not all of the side, but some of them imo. Against Pak & SL it was the batting. Now the bowling's at fault too. Players do seem to get away with things that wouldn't happen in a stronger cricketing culture. We're told today that Trott & Bell 'don't like' fielding in the slips, so they haven't had to learn how to, despite the obvious need once Collingwood retired from test cricket. Broad reverting to crap mode instead of getting his head down and bowling like he did for 4 tests last summer. Batsmen not managing to adjust to the demands in UAE 6 months ago but apparently it's fine. Too many players simply being mediocre in the field.

It's as if we can't quite keep up the effort to excel for more than 6 months, so we revert to our default mode of general ****tiness.

Post-2005 was different imo. Too many key injuries / illnesses for a start.

Yes I think the bolded part is the main thing, just not playing anywhere close to what we have the past couple of years.

Trott was asked the other week about fielding in the slips and said he's happy to if the team wants it and he's done it for Waks for years, never personally heard that he doesn't like it.

To get England to the top it took mostly 11/12 players with the same ambition all pulling together, on top of that quite a few of those players where in top form during the course of that, since then players form has been indifferent, hence the results.

Think you're been a bit unfair on Broad, the bloke had one poor test, bowled great all last summer and all winter till he got injured, still time for him to turn it around.

I'm not sure what you mean by ' Players do seem to get away with things that wouldn't happen in a stronger cricketing culture', like what for example?

I keep on hearing this 2005 thing about injuries etc but I don't necessarily buy it, sure we lost Jones but the rest went away that winter and the next home summer we eventually lost Tres a bit later, sure we had injuries but all sides do including this side. Can't see why they should be given excuses or compared any differently if we compare the 2005/6 side to the one from last year and after.

 

[wpdavid]

Yes I think the bolded part is the main thing, just not playing anywhere close to what we have the past couple of years.

Trott was asked the other week about fielding in the slips and said he's happy to if the team wants it and he's done it for Waks for years, never personally heard that he doesn't like it.

To get England to the top it took mostly 11/12 players with the same ambition all pulling together, on top of that quite a few of those players where in top form during the course of that, since then players form has been indifferent, hence the results.

Think you're been a bit unfair on Broad, the bloke had one poor test, bowled great all last summer and all winter till he got injured, still time for him to turn it around.

I'm not sure what you mean by ' Players do seem to get away with things that wouldn't happen in a stronger cricketing culture', like what for example?

I keep on hearing this 2005 thing about injuries etc but I don't necessarily buy it, sure we lost Jones but the rest went away that winter and the next home summer we eventually lost Tres a bit later, sure we had injuries but all sides do including this side. Can't see why they should be given excuses or compared any differently if we compare the 2005/6 side to the one from last year and after.

Interesting about Trott - I was only quoting what I heard on TMS. If you're right, then I really don't understand why he isn't in the slips in this test.

Broad - yes probably, but it was more about how poor he had been against SA rather than how long the poorness had lasted. Quality rather than quantity. Which doesn't mean I'd drop him, but I think we're entitled to ask wtf is going on.

The bit about culture - poor fielding, especially in the slips, the shoddy batting that we've seen for too much of 2012, bowlers trundling in rather than bending their backs like we saw Morkel & Steyn doing at The Oval. KP's ego wouldn't be tolerated in a stronger culture either - all his crap about "it's how I bat" would be given very short shrift.

As for the 2005 side, I think there was a bit more to it than losing Jones. Tres missed the Indian tour. And Vaughan too. Yet we still drew it, which was a pretty decent result. And comfortably beat Pakistan at home. I don't actually think the results of that side were as disappointing anyway. Even the 0-5 in 2006/7 would, I think, have happened to pretty much anyone who had been stripped of players of the calibre of Tres, Vaughan and Jones.

 

[Plumbinfront]

England are an incredibly good side but they aren't a team that can sustain excellence for very long periods simply because they lack the individual excellence that is required. Some might put Kp's name forward but he's as unpredictable and inconsistent as the English weather. While the wins against an injury hit India at home and an Australian side beleaguered with problems were impressive, they were really helped by some very, very poor application and discipline from the players of those sides. SA are not like that. They are the only current team capable of winning away series on a consistent basis.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Some might put Kp's name forward but he's as unpredictable and inconsistent as the English weather.

He's really not. If anything, he's very predictable.

 

[Xuhaib]

Two good series against Aus (away) and India (home) give the English fans a false sense of security that they are much ahead of the pack but the happenings of the last 6-8 months shows it clearly not the case. I do find the current period fascinating for test cricket where there are atleast 6 teams ranging from good to reasonable with no one side clearly being far ahead of the pack and the teams fortunes keep on changing due to form, fitness or conditions.

 

[Jono]

Two good series against Aus (away) and India (home) give the English fans a false sense of security that they are much ahead of the pack but the happenings of the last 6-8 months shows it clearly not the case. I do find the current period fascinating for test cricket where there are atleast 6 teams ranging from good to reasonable with no one side clearly being far ahead of the pack and the teams fortunes keep on changing due to form, fitness or conditions.

Yeah and its been like this for around 3-4 years now.

 

[wpdavid]

Yeah and its been like this for around 3-4 years now.

And tbf it was widely forecast once the great Aus side started retiring.

 

[Jono]

Definitely. India were, and England now, are still a deserved number 1 team (and if SA become number 1, same with them too). But that doesn't mean they were much superior when they were ranked number 1, they just had a period of playing very very well and beating (or not losing) to teams for a while. When they've been number 1 they've dropped games to good teams, and also just snuck over the line or just prevented a loss as well.

It was stressed on this forum ad nauseam that they weren't dominant teams. Nothing has changed.