English cricket team sucks

[GIMH]

Well, I've based my scores on the performances and effort, rather than the results tbh. Or tried to. If you disagree fine, but I didn't just put scores, I did explain my thoughts and such like.

4 against Pakistan - because giving anything less would be wrong, if you think we performed at less than 40% of our best, well I think you're wrong. I did some sloppy, sloppy work when I was at school, and scoring less than 4 was very rare. So I think 3 is harsh enough for this Ashes performance, as any less would suggest that we have not performed at any point.

As for Sri Lanka, well maybe it is generous. But this is me, remember. I call it as I see it, but I see it through rose-tinted glasses.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Ah the arguement of the faithfull. You must take a body of work to analyse rather than a few games. Just 'cause he did it in a few games does not mean he is good enough or consistent enough to hold the place usually occupied by a Test standard specialist bat.

Flintoff did well in the last Ashes. but that does not mean he is a #6. Especially when it makes the team far stronger with him lower down. Batting depth is essential in Test cricket. The deeper the the batting the better. One more batman for England could be the difference between 4-0 and 2-0-2 in this series.

Was anyone complaining about his suitability before this series?

 

[GIMH]

Was anyone complaining about his suitability before this series?

TBF, yeah. I think even during the last Ashes people were tbh

 

[silentstriker]

Was anyone complaining about his suitability before this series?

Yes.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Such as?

 

[silentstriker]

Such as?

Goughy, for one.

 

[Goughy]

Was anyone complaining about his suitability before this series?

I think you will find I was and always have. I have always advocated the things I have mentioned in my earlier post. I know I am right but many others disagree so it is pointless debating the fact anymore.

 

[silentstriker]

Even Gilly, an infinitely better batsman than Flintoff (and I mean infinitely), bats at #7. Nothing wrong with batting at 7, and giving a recognized batsman the #6 spot.

And really, Jones and Read are #8's more than anything.

 

[GIMH]

Even Gilly, an infinitely better batsman than Flintoff (and I mean infinitely), bats at #7. Nothing wrong with batting at 7, and giving a recognized batsman the #6 spot.

And really, Jones and Read are #8's more than anything.

Agree with you on both counts tbh.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Even Gilly, an infinitely better batsman than Flintoff (and I mean infinitely), bats at #7. Nothing wrong with batting at 7, and giving a recognized batsman the #6 spot.

And really, Jones and Read are #8's more than anything.

Don't you think that Flintoff batting higher than Gilchrist might have nothing to do with their respective talents, and everything to do with with the strength of the top 7?

 

[silentstriker]

Don't you think that Flintoff batting higher than Gilchrist might have nothing to do with their respective talents, and everything to do with with the strength of the top 7?

Yup. Thats my point. England need more strength up top by getting a recognized batsman to bat there.

 

[Goughy]

Yup. Thats my point. England need more strength up top by getting a recognized batsman to bat there.

A recognised bat that can help out with the ball would be ideal (as only 3 specialist bowlers + Flintoff would be played). As I mentioned earlier a specialist batsman who could do a job with the ball like most test nations have eg Gayle etc hell even a Styris. Just look at how the SA tail has been lengthened by Kallis not playing in this Test. They are just lucky their tailenders can bat well.

Team composition is very important and its an area few truly get right.

 

[GIMH]

A recognised bat that can help out with the ball would be ideal (as only 3 specialist bowlers + Flintoff would be played). As I mentioned earlier a specialist batsman who could do a job with the ball like most test nations have eg Gayle etc hell even a Styris. Just look at how the SA tail has been lengthened by Kallis not playing in this Test. They are just lucky their tailenders can bat well.

Team composition is very important and its an area few truly get right.

Bell, Collingwood and Pietersen are all handy, but I guess they'll never be prolific wicket-takers, in Tests. Though I reckon if KP bowled say 20 overs in an innings, he'd take a few wickets, but probably at some cost, as he mixes some great balls than have a lot of turn, with a hell of a lot of "four" balls, as someone on here said yesterday.

 

[Legga]

England suck the big one.

This is a good thread

 

[Krishna_j]

I don't think England team sucks they tried their best and failed - its the ENGLISH MEDIA which sucks and they hype they created for their "INVINCIBLE" team

If anyone feels otherwise ref to Mike Marqusee's book "Anyone but England" and the excuses touted on england's 3-0 Brownwash by India in 1993

 

[nightprowler10]

though the 3-0 whitewash of Pakistan helped a bit.

3-0 (any English fan with any pride will say 2-0) in a 4 test series is not a whitewash

 

[Krishna_j]

3-0 (any English fan with any pride will say 2-0) in a 4 test series is not a whitewash

Naw it was a three test series - eng really should have won the first test which they lost by 22 runs

 

[Prince EWS]

Man seriosuly they really suck, look at how they are getting raped in the Ashes. i think Australia will sweep this series. Seriously Englands one day match performances have been in decline for the last 7 or 8 years and now this Ashes series prove that their Test side preety much sucks aswell. Bravo.

Andrew Symonds scored 156 against them in a test match.
Just take a step back and think about that for a minute.

It truly shows just how much they do indeed suck.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Man seriosuly they really suck, look at how they are getting raped in the Ashes. i think Australia will sweep this series.

Thank you Nostradamus II.

 

[nightprowler10]

Naw it was a three test series - eng really should have won the first test which they lost by 22 runs

I was referring to the series held in England.

Reading back on the thread, seems that my point has already been beaten to death.