• 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.

why can't england produce a 50+ batsman?

_00_deathscar

International Debutant
Its probably fair to speculate that if KP and Cook had tried to play for India they may never have got a chance
That's a bit harsh. Cook would have easily gotten into the Indian team - early on, in place of Gambhir for the PERFECT Sehwag foil, and in recent years ahead of Shikhar Dhawan (except perhaps in home conditions?)

Pietersen is a tough one. Maybe lower middle-order. Mercurial talent though, and apart from Sachin, arguably more 'talented' than any of the Indian cricketers. He was a hell of a talent, just didn't really make the most of it but still did really well.

But back on point - some of these excuses are laughable. The truth is, English batsman, just like Indian bowlers, have largely not been good enough.

For finishing with 50+ you're talking not just world class, but potential ATG contenders. How many batsman does that apply to in case of England in the last 30 years or so? At best Pietersen.
 
Last edited:

_00_deathscar

International Debutant
For the record, home/away averages for England's two best in the last 30 years or so:
PIETERSEN
Home: 52.75
Away: 44.16
Neutral: 11.16 (3 tests)

COOK
Home: 43.68
Away: 45.64
Neutral: 55.36 (6 tests)


Safe to say the "batting in English conditions is difficult so our players average much lower overall as a result" stuff is bollocks.

Pietersen actually played a few MORE home tests than he did away, Cook played a lot more at home but his away average isn't significantly better to account for any difference had he played that many more away instead.

Now let's break down the "other top batsmen (who did happen to average above 50 during this period) padded their stats vs **** teams". Although they didn't play as many tests vs Zimbabwe (none) and Bangladesh, they did play plenty against West Indies, who weren't much better. Here is what the two average vs them:
PIETERSEN
Bangladesh - 68.40 in 4 tests
West Indies - 56.20 in 14 tests

COOK
Bangladesh - 49.00 in 6 tests
West Indies - 57.96 in 20 tests


Again, safe to say that if you took these out of their standings, their averages would drop EVEN further. You can't just take out averages for one set (the ones who averaged > 50) and then not take them out for the ones who didn't.

Edit: Interestingly enough, Dravid only averages 38.67 in 33 tests vs Australia, and 33.83 in 21 tests vs South Africa (29.71 in 11 tests IN South Africa) which are very, very poor records for a player of his calibre. Didn't realise that. While I still think he's a top player, there were clearly chinks in his armour. And the suggestion that he was (overall) a better bat than Sachin Tendulkar is, quite frankly, ludicrous.

It's also worth noting that for a few of the players, the Zimbabwe sides they played against (early 90s to late 90s certainly) were arguably a better team than both Bangladesh and West Indies currently are. They had Andy Flower and Heath Streatk, for starters. The rest of the team (bar Houghton) may have largely been ****, but they still had a few capable players. Andy Flower is arguably a better bat than any English bat since the 90s.
 
Last edited:

Bolo

State Captain
Safe to say the "batting in English conditions is difficult so our players average much lower overall as a result" stuff is bollocks.
Overstated maybe, not bollocks. Bats are used to home conditions and visiting opposition bowlers aren't. Home advantage and difficulty of conditions are independent. In tough home conditions you find averages tend to be similar home and away, but it varies based on player.

People with easy home conditions tend to have very big differences. See Jayawardene or Warner. Not always, but you find plenty of guys in the Cook/Pietersen class averaging 60ish at home.

Anyway, this doesn't change the fact that English players aren't good enough. The greats average either side of 50 home and away irrespective of home conditions. English bats face a bit of a disadvantage, but when it comes down to it they just aren't good enough.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah Dravid is often overrated on CW imo. Great bat but I don't agree with the people who put him in the same bracket as someone like Sanga.
 

S.Kennedy

International Vice-Captain
Test cricket is simply not part of the national consciousness in England as it is in Australia and sub-continent (and was in West Indies before they chucked their lot in with pyjama cricket). There is no conceivable passageway for a potential ''English Lara'' to find, getting into the sport unless he comes from a wealthy (public school) background. He cannot even watch the sport on television unless he has a Sky subscription, circa £40 per month! English cricket draws in only the upper echelon, which is very restrictive and undemocratic in discovering talent. There is of course club cricket, but club cricket is chronically underfunded, clubs folding, playing fields built upon. That is really the only gate way (and even then, future stars are picked up by public schools on scholarships, that being basically the only passageway into first-class).

Put simply, there is no people playing cricket at state schools, no cricket on ''normal telly'' and no kids playing it in the streets.

And then there is the allure, rivalry and promotional push that is Premiership football. Cricket cannot compete. Why would a kid give a **** about Joe Root when ''he isn't even famous enough to be on the tv'', and plays some ''weird incomprehensible sport'' when there is Harry Kane there playing in the World Cup? How many English Laras have been lost, and ended up doing something else in their career, never having watched or understood cricket. How many have been lost to football?
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Edit: Interestingly enough, Dravid only averages 38.67 in 33 tests vs Australia, and 33.83 in 21 tests vs South Africa (29.71 in 11 tests IN South Africa) which are very, very poor records for a player of his calibre. Didn't realise that. While I still think he's a top player, there were clearly chinks in his armour. And the suggestion that he was (overall) a better bat than Sachin Tendulkar is, quite frankly, ludicrous.
Again like Graeme Smith, imo Dravid had lots of very good performances against Australia even apart from the 04 series where he bashed a poor attack.

He definitely was terrible vs SA though. He gets overrated by people wanting to make ludicrous Dravid>Sachin arguments all the time. Still an ATG though and played more great knocks in difficult-to-bat conditions than most batsmen I've watched but he had flaws.

Yeah Dravid is often overrated on CW imo. Great bat but I don't agree with the people who put him in the same bracket as someone like Sanga.
Sanga was better but not by too much imo. Sanga barely played Australia and only averaged 42 or something in the games he did. Dodgy record against England too.
 

_00_deathscar

International Debutant
Again like Graeme Smith, imo Dravid had lots of very good performances against Australia even apart from the 04 series where he bashed a poor attack.

He definitely was terrible vs SA though. He gets overrated by people wanting to make ludicrous Dravid>Sachin arguments all the time. Still an ATG though and played more great knocks in difficult-to-bat conditions than most batsmen I've watched but he had flaws.
Yea agreed - averages don't always tell the whole story; as with Laxman, there have been plenty of invaluable 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s with Dravid when the whole team got out for about 150 or something silly. It wasn't so much a slight on him as I was just surprised his average was THAT low.

And yes, clearly does get overrated by the Dravid > Sachin fanbase - really, really crazy opinions. But opinions are like arseholes I suppose. There's probably wanker out there right now claiming Dravid to be even a better ODI bat than Sachin.
 

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Again like Graeme Smith, imo Dravid had lots of very good performances against Australia even apart from the 04 series where he bashed a poor attack.
Apart from the 180 it's hard to think of terribly many examples to back it up. The 93 at Perth 08 was pretty good, but otherwise there doesn't appear to be terribly many innings apart from that 03/04 series where he did particularly well. And given he played 33 Tests, it's not like there isn't a lot of data.
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Apart from the 180 it's hard to think of terribly many examples to back it up. The 93 at Perth 08 was pretty good, but otherwise there doesn't appear to be terribly many innings apart from that 03/04 series where he did particularly well. And given he played 33 Tests, it's not like there isn't a lot of data.
Got several good fifties in the 98 series, although tbf a lot of batsmen did. 81 in the 2001 Chennai test came at an important time as well and th partnership with Tendulkar was really crucial to winning that game. It's a meh record but I wouldn't call it poor or anything.

Its certainly nowhere near Tendulkar or even Laxman but still that's 4-5 excellent knocks in big wins. And his 2 tons are arguably two of the best ever against Australia. Goes to show how few great batsmen did well against that Australia team tbh. Apart from Tendulkar, Lara and Laxman, I cant think of many. Kallis' record is about the same as Dravid's, Inzi's is even worse, and Sanga didn't play thm enough.
 

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Dravid's 233 and 73 were awesome (India were 80/4 at one stage IIRC). Don't care if it was a B attack. One of the most memorable points in Indian cricket.

 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Oh definitely. It wasnt an ATG attack, but scoring a match winning double from 80-4 trailing by almost 500 is amazing even if it had come against a club attack.
 

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Oh definitely. It wasnt an ATG attack, but scoring a match winning double from 80-4 trailing by almost 500 is amazing even if it had come against a club attack.
So good to watch some of those strokes. He was great to watch for a slow-scoring batsman.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
You've got to be kidding that Dravid's double was against a joke attack. Gillespie and Magill alone elevates it to very, very good whereas Williams and Bichel were amongst the better Shield bowlers around at the time, as evidenced by India initially being in a bit of trouble.

I was there, the deck was pretty flat, sure, and it was bloody warm. But you can see it from the highlights, a lot of his boundaries were against balls on the up and Dravid had to work his knackers off all day because there were no really easy runs but his defence was like a brick wall. And he brought his ton up with a 6 over deep fine. Superb knock, I'd be surprised if he doesn't rate it as up there with his best.
 
Last edited:

Coronis

Cricketer Of The Year
You've got to be kidding that Dravid's double was against a joke attack. Gillespie and Magill alone elevates it to very, very good whereas Williams and Bichel were amongst the better Shield bowlers around at the time, as evidenced by India initially being in a bit of trouble.

I was there, the deck was pretty flat, sure, and it was bloody warm. But you can see it from the highlights, a lot of his boundaries were against balls on the up and Dravid had to work his knackers off all day because there were no really easy runs but his defence was like a brick wall. And he brought his ton up with a 6 over deep fine. Superb knock, I'd be surprised if he doesn't rate it as up there with his best.
All he said was that it wasn’t an ATG attack. i.e no Warne and McGrath.
 

Top