Why were england so s***?

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

They were in love with Chris Lewis and Phil De Freitas

 

[PhatBoy]

They were in love with Chris Lewis and Phil De Freitas

lewis in particular was garbage

 

[PhatBoy]

Add Dominic cork to the list of non world beaters but capable players. 130 wickets at 29

 

[TigerCraig]

Add Dominic cork to the list of non world beaters but capable players. 130 wickets at 29

Unless you can consistently bowl teams out for under 350 in a first innings and wrap up teams in a second innings, you arent going to win series, and they never had an attack that could

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Andy Caddick had a very good second innings record from memory and a comparably poor first innings record.

Seemed that after the game was won/lost and the pressure was off he performed fine but not so much when faced with a blank canvas at the start of a game.

Always got the feeling that Darren Gough, as good as he was, had a loser's mentality too. Loved being the back-to-the-wall, heart-on-the-sleeve, tireless worker. Courage. Still charging in while catches went down and runs piled up. Hands on head, stoic. That's when he was most comfortable and he performed best. When they were already losing so had nothing else to lose. Seemed to find a second wind. When games were there to be set up and won however...?

 

[PhatBoy]

Unless you can consistently bowl teams out for under 350 in a first innings and wrap up teams in a second innings, you arent going to win series, and they never had an attack that could

Indeed. But they shouldn’t have been as pathetic as they were either.

 

[PhatBoy]

Andy Caddick had a very good second innings record from memory and a comparably poor first innings record.

Seemed that after the game was won/lost and the pressure was off he performed fine but not so much when faced with a blank canvas at the start of a game.

Always got the feeling that Darren Gough, as good as he was, had a loser's mentality too. Loved being the back-to-the-wall, heart-on-the-sleeve, tireless worker. Courage. Still charging in while catches went down and runs piled up. Hands on head, stoic. That's when he was most comfortable and he performed best. When they were already losing so had nothing else to lose. Seemed to find a second wind. When games were there to be set up and won however...?

actually it’s funny you should say that, there’s a fairly insightful section on his wiki page of all places that talks about his early county career where he was very much erring on the side of caution in his cricket - he had 4-fer in an innings once and said he was mentally forced to consciously try and attack to take the fifth wicket whereas up until that point his mentality was to bowl conservatively and protect his figures

 

[Richard Pryor]

actually it’s funny you should say that, there’s a fairly insightful section on his wiki page of all places that talks about his early county career where he was very much erring on the side of caution in his cricket - he had 4-fer in an innings once and said he was mentally forced to consciously try and attack to take the fifth wicket whereas up until that point his mentality was to bowl conservatively and protect his figures

I remember Ian Botham saying in one of his books Chris Old was 10 times the bowler in the nets that he was in Test cricket because he would pitch it up more in the nets, but did not want to risk leaking runs in actual matches.

I feel like that kind of sums up England in the 90's (going off folklore as I wasn't alive back then). Playing to avoid a bad statsheet or bad roll of the dice getting you dropped rather than playing to win. KP debacle illustrates the mentality as well, England cricket prefers mediocrity and not rocking the boat to maverick risk taking regardless of how successful the latter is, which breeds an attitude of convention over imagination which holds a side back in a sport as creative as Test cricket.

 

[Kyptastic]

England in the 90s can be see as kind of the image of what could have happened to Australia after the tribulations of the mid 80s. There's a fair few parallels between England from about 89 to 94 and Australia from 81 to 85. A disastrous Ashes loss (81 for Australia, 89 for England), a swathe of retirements at the same time of experienced players shortly after and Rebel Tours taking experienced players out of the game. Australia were lucky that they had a gritty leader in Border, a great coach in Simpson and selectors who stuck by talent like Waugh, Hughes and McDermott. England really didn't have any of those and the decline lasted longer. It's not until Hussain and Fletcher unite as Captain and Coach that England start to turn it around in the early 2000s, culminating in 2005.

 

[corbies]

In The Greatest Season That Was podcast about the 1999 World Cup they interviewed Alec Stewart and he felt a major issue England had in the 90's was that they were all contracted to their counties and would only be contracted for England for one tour or tournament at a time. This included the captain who was only appointed for that particular tour. They'd have to negotiate a pay deal each time they went on a new tour.

He said it made them feel like they were contracting out to England and they were never really a team. You weren't an English cricketer you were a Yorkshire/Surrey/whoever cricketer who sometimes played for England.

smith and Thorpe both averaged mid 40s in sides that were routinely spanked in an era where few players averaged 50. Atherton scored more runs than any other player in the 90s if I recall correctly before his average plummeted over the last 2 years of his Career. Stewart averaged 40 and kept wickets for a lot of that. Hussain hit a double century and a century in the same ashes series.
No this wasn’t the West Indies, but this wasn’t a side that should have at one point been ranked below zimbabwe

This was actually Stewart.

 

[PhatBoy]

In The Greatest Season That Was podcast about the 1999 World Cup they interviewed Alec Stewart and he felt a major issue England had in the 90's was that they were all contracted to their counties and would only be contracted for England for one tour or tournament at a time. This included the captain who was only appointed for that particular tour. They'd have to negotiate a pay deal each time they went on a new tour.

He said it made them feel like they were contracting out to England and they were never really a team. You weren't an English cricketer you were a Yorkshire/Surrey/whoever cricketer who sometimes played for England.


This was actually Stewart.

really? Ok there you go

 

[Cleavy]

a competitive, cocky England are no fun to watch. I liked it better when they were down and out.

 

[PhatBoy]

a competitive, cocky England are no fun to watch. I liked it better when they were down and out.

they sure had a lot more likeable players at that point in time.

 

[PhatBoy]

they sure had a lot more likeable players at that point in time.

although for all that, their 05 era side was fairly likeable when they got good. Trescothick was very affable, Bell was harmless, Strauss was ok before he got the captaincy, Flintoff and Harmy were lager louts, Hoggard was just a trier,I didn’t mind Vaughan

 

[The Speaker]

They consistently struggled to figure out how to balance their side, because they compared themselves to Australia. So they'd pick bowlers who could bat a bit, or all-rounders because they could do everything (when in reality they couldn't do anything well enough), or they'd convert their best batsman into a keeper because their best keeper wasn't much of a batsman.

I know we like to point to Gilly and say that they were just trying to copy us, but you have to realise that England had a much longer history of keepers that could bat than Australia did. Rod Marsh was the first regular keeper to average around 25 for Australia (I believe), yet Les Ames averaged 40 playing 40 years earlier than Marsh. Godfrey Evans was good enough with the gloves to get away with an average in the 20s, but Jim Parks and Alan Knott averaged over 30. The problem come the 90s is that there were no keepers good enough to make the national side that could also hold a bat (at least that I know of), even though Russell's respectable average of 27 is on par with Healy's. So they decided they needed to get Stewart in there from time to time, and then permanently after Russell's retirement.

 

[ioppolo]

although for all that, their 05 era side was fairly likeable when they got good. Trescothick was very affable, Bell was harmless, Strauss was ok before he got the captaincy, Flintoff and Harmy were lager louts, Hoggard was just a trier,I didn’t mind Vaughan

The only bloke from 2005 I genuinely dislike is Simon Jones

 

[Freo Big Fella]

In The Greatest Season That Was podcast about the 1999 World Cup they interviewed Alec Stewart and he felt a major issue England had in the 90's was that they were all contracted to their counties and would only be contracted for England for one tour or tournament at a time. This included the captain who was only appointed for that particular tour. They'd have to negotiate a pay deal each time they went on a new tour.

He said it made them feel like they were contracting out to England and they were never really a team. You weren't an English cricketer you were a Yorkshire/Surrey/whoever cricketer who sometimes played for England.

There's a lot to be said for this - it's telling that their tear of good form in the lead-up to 05 coincided with their adoption of Australian-type systems (first central contracts, academies, more specialist coaching.)

That was mirrored in their aggression and mental toughness as well - for all the cricket commentariat (Agnew, Haigh et al) liked to whine about Australian 90s-2000s-era dominance "ruining the game", they tend to skip over the fact that the latter day England and Indian number one sides got that way by playing exactly like Taylor/Waugh/Ponting-era Australia.

although for all that, their 05 era side was fairly likeable when they got good. Trescothick was very affable, Bell was harmless, Strauss was ok before he got the captaincy, Flintoff and Harmy were lager louts, Hoggard was just a trier,I didn’t mind Vaughan

The home (TV) commentary was the only disagreeable thing I can remember about 05 - Athers and Nasser in particularly snide form given how good the cricket actually was.

 

[PhatBoy]

There's a lot to be said for this - it's telling that their tear of good form in the lead-up to 05 coincided with their adoption of Australian-type systems (first central contracts, academies, more specialist coaching.)

That was mirrored in their aggression and mental toughness as well - for all the cricket commentariat (Agnew, Haigh et al) liked to whine about Australian 90s-2000s-era dominance "ruining the game", they tend to skip over the fact that the latter day England and Indian number one sides got that way by playing exactly like Taylor/Waugh/Ponting-era Australia.



The home (TV) commentary was the only disagreeable thing I can remember about 05 - Athers and Nasser in particularly snide form given how good the cricket actually was.

those two annoy because their actual analysis is usually really good and their self deprecation is often very funny. When they get triumphalist they are ordinary

 

[revo333]

That was mirrored in their aggression and mental toughness as well - for all the cricket commentariat (Agnew, Haigh et al) liked to whine about Australian 90s-2000s-era dominance "ruining the game", they tend to skip over the fact that the latter day England and Indian number one sides got that way by playing exactly like Taylor/Waugh/Ponting-era Australia.

Michael Vaughan has said that on the plane trip for his first tour of Australia the team were already talking like they had been defeated.

Australia went through a similar phase to what England did in the 90's trying to replace Hayden, Langer, Warne, Martyn in which they couldn't commit to a long term plan and were rushing anyone into the team and giving anyone a game.

Lucky for Australia it didn't last as long.

 

[revo333]

Always got the feeling that Darren Gough, as good as he was, had a loser's mentality too.

He was a talented cricketer but probably one who had self doubts and needed high confidence to get the best out of himself.

If he played 10 years later in a more successful team I think he would of been world class for atleast 3-4 years playing in a better team environment.

 

[Leeda]

They were in love with Chris Lewis and Phil De Freitas

and we say things we don't mean..god luv us..

 

[cricketnut14]

lots of valid reasons have been mentioned.

they also played 2 good teams (Aust & WI) during that time.

you gotta remember if you are doing and all time england team, none of them would make it, whereas if you did an allltime aussie XI, then you have walk up starters in ponting, gilchrist, warne & mcgrath and the likes of border, s.waugh & hayden, whereas the windies had lara, ambrose & walsh and a bit of richards, dujon & marshall.

while they may have tried 29 players during the 89 ashes series, they also gave some guys 100+ tests (atherton, strauss, hussain (96) that perhaps should not have played that many. they perhaps could have kept trialling others until they stumbled across a star. in saying that, maybe they didn't have any.

the english were also obsessed playing bits and pieces allrounders, when in fact at best they were white ball allrounders.

the aussies and windies kept to a traditional 6 bats, keeper and 4 bowlers with one of the top six bats having a trundle from time to time.

 

[Phone]

the answer, of course, is that the County championship's move to 4 day cricket in 1993 ruined a generation of cricketers.

In The Greatest Season That Was podcast about the 1999 World Cup they interviewed Alec Stewart and he felt a major issue England had in the 90's was that they were all contracted to their counties and would only be contracted for England for one tour or tournament at a time. This included the captain who was only appointed for that particular tour. They'd have to negotiate a pay deal each time they went on a new tour.

He said it made them feel like they were contracting out to England and they were never really a team. You weren't an English cricketer you were a Yorkshire/Surrey/whoever cricketer who sometimes played for England.

Well, in regards to their OD team, they also played far far far less ODers than everyone else, barely ahead of Zimbabwe. But then they used almost as many players as Pakistan & India, despite nearly half the games played. It's quite an incredible feat: https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

an interesting thought experiment is whether more OD cricket played as the same team unit could have led to better test match performances.

 

[Leeda]

the answer, of course, is that the County championship's move to 4 day cricket in 1993 ruined a generation of cricketers.



Well, in regards to their OD team, they also played far far far less ODers than everyone else, barely ahead of Zimbabwe. But then they used almost as many players as Pakistan & India, despite nearly half the games played. It's quite an incredible feat: https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

an interesting thought experiment is whether more OD cricket played as the same team unit could have led to better test match performances.

an no more cricket hasn't actually led to better cricket or even teaching everyone everything about cricket.. they just bowl more balls, and
catch more balls and when they are not doing anything important they aren't doing better at anything at all.. don't deceive yourselves.. it isn't
what it seems..

 

[Gough]

England's selectors where really unwilling to try new faces as well, Ned Larkins and Eddie Hemmings were good honest toilers but there must have been better and younger players they could have selected to come out in 90/91. The County system was similair riddled with trundlers who'd been plying their trade for twenty years.