why can't england produce a 50+ batsman?

[ImpatientLime]

why can't england produce a 50+ averaging batsman?

kenny barrington's last day of test match cricket was on the 30th july 1968. since that day not one english batsman has retired with an average of 50+.

now yes average aren't everything but i think it's a fairly damning stat. not one englishman since then would be in a serious conversation about a 1968 onwards xi for his batting alone. kevin pietersen and geoffrey boycott both averaged 47 when they retired. i can't see anyone else with a superior record.

some in recent years flirted with breaking the trend (trott, cook, bell, vaughan) but all fell away fairly drastically. this is a particularly odd trend amongst english batsman.
it would also take a brave man to think joe root will finish with a 50+ average given how flimsy his game is.

since barrington's retirement the following have retired with a 50+ average. (min 10 matches)

australia
adam voges
steve waugh
ricky ponting
mike hussey
matt hayden
greg chappell
alan border

west indies
brian lara
viv richards
charlie davis
shiv chanderpaul

india
vinod kambli
sunil gavaskar
sachin tendulkar
rahul dravid

pakistan
mohammad yousuf
javed minadad
younis khan

south africa
jacques kallis
ab de villiers

sri lanka
kumar sangakkara

zimbabwe
andy flower

only new zealand, england and the new nations to test cricket haven't had a player finish with that landmark.
then there are those who missed by a fraction. inzi, jayawardene, sehwag, michael clarke.

why is this the case? is england a uniquely difficult place to bat? is it the standard of coaching? do players get complacent and too sure of their spot?

like i said i get that a career average doesn't tell you much but i do find it odd that there are 22 names in that list and not one english.

 

[Singh767]

I think it's by far the most difficult country to bat - which is a big factor here. A few players (KP, Root, Boycott, perhaps Trott) since 1968 if they were batting on Aussie roads for half of their career would have had a 50+ average.

 

[vcs]

They had 4 batsmen averaging around 50 (Cook, Trott, Bell, Pietersen) after a decent sample size when India went there in 2011. They all dropped off quite a bit towards the end.

 

[fredfertang]

It's the balls and the clouds

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

It's the food

 

[OverratedSanity]

A lot of their batsmen average more/almost the same at home so it cant be the only reason.

 

[wpdavid]

Go back 7 or 8 years at least we had a bunch of guys averaging 45+.
The decline since then can be clearly linked to the complete pigs ear that's been made of our domestic system. And obviously the imbecilic decision to introduce the 100 ball fiasco on top of the current system will only make matters even worse.

 

[GIMH]

Root could still get there, I guess

 

[Bolo]

The vast majority of these players only averaged 50 because they made merry at home. Home is not an advantage for English bats when it comes to career averages for two reasons. Firstly it's tough to bat there. An English bat won't pad their stats at home, and need to be superior bats in general to have a similar average to players with easier home conditions.

Secondly, English skills are not particularly transferable. Conditions share less similarities with other countries than other countries do with each other- English bats don't get the leg up bats from other countries do in particular away conditions.

 

[Slifer]

Eng also hasn't produced any bowler averaging under 25 in pretty much the same length of time. Anyone care to explain that??

 

[Groundking]

Because the Duke ball keeps teams in the game longer throughout the life of the ball than the other balls used in international cricket, and it's much harder to produce a road in the UK (particularly outside of London) compared to other countries. This in general makes it much harder to bat at home, where other teams can feast at home. Some proof of this is the fact that we average 34.66 at home and 31.64 away, compare this too Australia and India who average 41.60 and 42.09 at home and 29.92 and 30.90 away respectively.

EDIT all these are for the last decade, which include arguably the strongest team we've had since Barrington's time.

 

[StephenZA]

While I do think the Duke ball does make a difference in Eng. SA is not exactly an easy place to bat.

 

[Groundking]

While I do think the Duke ball does make a difference in Eng. SA is not exactly an easy place to bat.

No it's not, last 10 years you've managed 36.14 at home, and 32.79 away. So a big difference compared to India and Australia. If you had the Duke I doubt AB would have managed 50+ average, and Kallis would be borderline imo.

 

[Burner]

If England is more difficult to bat, surely England's bowlers must have averages that correspond to that narrative. So I don't think it's that. It's just that they have not produced many batsmen with the caliber of averaging 50+ recently. Though I predict Root will end up with a 50+ average when he retires.

 

[Slifer]

If England is more difficult to bat, surely England's bowlers must have averages that correspond to that narrative. So I don't think it's that. It's just that they have not produced many batsmen with the caliber of averaging 50+ recently. Though I predict Root will end up with a 50+ average when he retires.

Pretty much my thought process. If England were so hard to bat in, you'd think they'd have a plethora of bowlers sub 25, but they haven't.

 

[Adders]

I think, for whatever reason English batsmen don't seem to be able to maintain levels of excellence whereas the best batsmen of other countries do. As already stated we have had plenty that have flirted with being up there with the best in the world at any given time but for some reason (and I've got nfi why) their careers always take a nose dive just when you think this blokes the real deal.

This is a great thread and something I've pondered for quite some time so interested to hear everyone's opinions.

 

[Bolo]

No it's not, last 10 years you've managed 36.14 at home, and 32.79 away. So a big difference compared to India and Australia. If you had the Duke I doubt AB would have managed 50+ average, and Kallis would be borderline imo.

It's more that they were better than English bats of recent years. Mid 50s away averages for both. Maybe they would have struggled to maintain their averages with the Duke, but they are as about good away as anyone since Bradman.

Pretty much my thought process. If England were so hard to bat in, you'd think they'd have a plethora of bowlers sub 25, but they haven't.

Skills developed for English conditions. They don't transfer well.

Plus there is the fact that England have simply not produced exceptional cricketers in ages, just a lot of good ones.

 

[Adders]

Plus there is the fact that England have simply not produced exceptional cricketers in ages, just a lot of good ones.

Nah I don't buy this. Of recent times Michael Vaughan, Cook, KP and Joe Root were all exceptional batsmen and significantly above just "good". But they all only managed to stay at that exceptional level for a short time.

 

[Bolo]

Nah I don't buy this. Of recent times Michael Vaughan, Cook, KP and Joe Root were all exceptional batsmen and significantly above just "good". But they all only managed to stay at that exceptional level for a short time.

Players from every country struggle to maintain. The difference between these guys and the guys who end up averaging over 50 is that the others managed to average somewhere around 60 for a protracted period. These guys struggled to hit the heights others did more than there being an issue of maintenance.

 

[Daemon]

Could recall Gower and Gooch at the top of the order. Two 60+ batsmen right there who'd probably do a better job than the current lot.