Why were england so s***?

[The Passenger]

Must admit I enjoy watching Tuffers on question of sport over in the UK. He is a character.

But as a cricketer 40 tests and 1000 first class wickets does boggle my mind a bit. He should be thankful, because there are genuinely left arm spinners running (or ran - past tense) around first grade cricket in Sydney and Melbourne who are more or less on the same level as him but barely ever get to see a dime for playing the game. First one that springs to mind is Shane Devoy who did very well in Sydney grade cricket circa 2014. I've watched a bit of county cricket and he is better than just about any spinner I've seen playing professionally here. Them's the breaks I guess.

 

[Gough]

Must admit I enjoy watching Tuffers on question of sport over in the UK. He is a character.

But as a cricketer 40 tests and 1000 first class wickets does boggle my mind a bit. He should be thankful, because there are genuinely left arm spinners running (or ran - past tense) around first grade cricket in Sydney and Melbourne who are more or less on the same level as him but barely ever get to see a dime for playing the game. First one that springs to mind is Shane Devoy who did very well in Sydney grade cricket circa 2014. I've watched a bit of county cricket and he is better than just about any spinner I've seen playing professionally here. Them's the breaks I guess.

Tuffers bowled out some good sides but his face didn't quite fit in the Gooch era and he's also only got himself to blame for some of his erraticism but on his day he was class.

 

[The Passenger]

Tuffers bowled out some good sides but his face didn't quite fit in the Gooch era and he's also only got himself to blame for some of his erraticism but on his day he was class.

Yep, inconsistency was his major downfall. He tore us one in the famous Shaun Young test.

 

[Leeda]

lol.. is he looking to resurrect his position as pommie reporter for the occasional defunct Pommie team?

Ie you land a few jokes and hang around for the ending of the match hoping you have won?

barking mad I tell ya..

 

[PhatBoy]

I always felt one of the problems in the 90's with English cricket was how bad their fielding was, especially their catching. Don't know how much better they would have been if this aspect improved, but someone earlier stated that they could never bowl sides out for under 350 on a regular basis, and I suspect this is one reason why. There was nobody in those sides that I can think of that was a great fielder.

Chris Lewis is genuinely the only one that springs to mind and he was a rubbish batsman and bowler. And criminal

 

[Gethelred]

Instead of hypothesising and analysing, let's just take a look at footage of England being sh*t in the 1990's.

I wouldn't mind seeing the footage of that entire innings, because I'm getting the impression I'm seeing only half the story with those dismissals. All those terrible shots, just sticking the bat out and prodding at stuff that doesn't need to be played, coming half forward to try to block balls a good six to ten inches outside off.

What that vid demonstrates as much as anything else just how good a bowler Ambrose was. The ball seems almost to float down out of his hand before exploding off the pitch through at the batsman or the stumps.

I can see why people are impressed with Archer now; he's got a similar effortless pace and bounce going on.

 

[DaRick]

Basically, most of the reasons have been cited in this thread already. My personal take on things:

- County cricket: Posters here have already remarked on how the English players were basically held hostage by their counties. This did various things: 1) it obliged the bowlers to play so much county cricket that they'd wind up injured (Gough, Fraser), 2) it prevented them from properly bonding as a team for want of time and arguably due to greater identification with their counties since they played for them so often and 3) it arguably made them overly accustomed to certain ways of playing and they had trouble adapting (e.g. - relying too much on extracting seam or swing to take wickets, not really learning how and when to put in an effort ball because it wasn't that necessary, not learning how to deal with bounce properly because there wasn't much of that in county cricket). Sheffield Shield wickets by contrast were much more diverse.

- Coaches: Their coaches didn't necessarily seem like an ideal fit for the side's needs at the time. Keith Fletcher couldn't handle the pressure and was probably not assertive enough, while Ray Illingworth was too assertive and alienated players who needed careful management. David Lloyd was probably the most suitable of them, but even he had issues getting along with the ECB.

- Captaincy: They couldn't find a captain who combined man-management with tactical nous until the end of the decade. Gooch was too self-absorbed to be a good man-manager, Atherton didn't really seem to display enough of either, while Stewart lacked tactical acumen. English fans must have envied Australia for having Allan Border and in particular Mark Taylor. Combined with the generally unimpressive off-field management, this resulted in talented but temperamentally flawed players (Hick, Ramprakash, Malcolm, Caddick, Cork, DeFreitas, Tufnell) failing to fulfil their potential. The lack of tactical acumen seemed to contribute to overt defensiveness - Malcolm should have been used as a shock bowler but too often was overbowled, whereas Tufnell was too often used as a defensive stock bowler when really he was an attacking spinner who relied heavily on flight.

- Selection: The selectors created instability in the English camp by dropping players every time the wind changed. Not only did this prevent them from properly bonding as a team, but it made their more temperamentally flawed players even more insecure. They also had a bad habit of selecting no-rounders (Lewis, Croft, White, arguably DeFreitas) or trying to create them when it often wasn't appropriate (Stewart), which meant that not enough of the team consistently contributed, leading to gross inconsistency.

- Media: The English media making the Australian media look tame and compliant most likely led to their selectors committing regular brainfarts, because they were always under pressure. Decisions made under pressure are often not ideal ones. Indeed, English media attention again made their more temperamentally flawed players even more insecure, while giving their opponents somebody to target. For example, I doubt the media attention on Hick prior to his debut helped his mindset, and his subsequent failure would most likely have demoralised the English given the hype around him. It's probably not a coincidence that England often performed better when the series was already dead, because media expectations would have been less intense.

- Professionalism: Compared to Australia, the English team was notably less professional. The county cricket game less resembled competitive sport than it did a 9-5 job, in that you just punched your card every day and arguably lacked that extra little bit of motivation to win the crunch games when it mattered. They struggled with the novel idea of introducing centralised contracts, their players were at times not sufficiently loyal to the side's interests (Gooch and maybe Gower), they struggled to keep their bowlers off the physio's table and their preparation for games was too languid until David Lloyd shook things up. This again, transferred to poor fielding in particular, but also batting/bowling that wasn't as good as it should have been.

- Flawed player pool: Arguably their player pool did not allow them to be consistently good in all conditions. Atherton and Hussain were gritty but poor outside offstump and against spin respectively, Fraser was accurate and determined but maybe lacked the variety to be truly world-class, Gough had plenty of variety but arguably lacked an identifiable stock ball, Caddick relied too much on uneven bounce, Cork was like a lesser version of James Anderson, Malcolm made Harmison look consistent, Tufnell/Mullaly (like Malcolm) were useless when not bowling, Crawley was poor outside offstump and contrary to what some have said here, Hick did indeed have some issues with the short ball. By contrast, Australia's best players had few to no real weaknesses, which made Australia much more consistent.

 

[PhatBoy]

An article came on Cricinfo yesterday or the day before about the best series' ever played by batsmen, the concensus being Steve Smith's Ashes last year were at the top of the list. My interest piqued by the metric used to judge this, I looked at their full top 20 list (I noticed Lara's 680-run effort or whatever it was in 3 tests against Murali on square-turning wickets wasn't there) and saw Taylor's 89 Ashes on the list.

I knew he made nearly 900 runs that series but I actually checked out his full haul - I didn't realise he 'only' made 2 centuries that series. I wanted to see who they came against. Across his two hundreds, just a few tests apart, he faced something like 11 different bowlers.

I couldn't believe it but THAT is how much they liked to chop and change when something didn't work immediately.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

An article came on Cricinfo yesterday or the day before about the best series' ever played by batsmen, the concensus being Steve Smith's Ashes last year were at the top of the list. My interest piqued by the metric used to judge this, I looked at their full top 20 list (I noticed Lara's 680-run effort or whatever it was in 3 tests against Murali on square-turning wickets wasn't there) and saw Taylor's 89 Ashes on the list.

I knew he made nearly 900 runs that series but I actually checked out his full haul - I didn't realise he 'only' made 2 centuries that series. I wanted to see who they came against. Across his two hundreds, just a few tests apart, he faced something like 11 different bowlers.

I couldn't believe it but THAT is how much they liked to chop and change when something didn't work immediately.

I can see why he would be chosen - he looks so weird at the crease that you wonder what on earth is going on unlike Lara or Punter or others who looked somehow born to rule.

But his head is as still as any of them at moment of impact.

 

[MisterMarcus]

One thing I'm not sure has been mentioned is that their bowling was very "same-y" for a lot of this period. Take out Malcolm (pace) and Mullaly (left-arm), and their lineup was basically an endless series of right arm fast-mediums. Unless the conditions really favoured bowling, it was too easy for batsmen to get used to.

I think it's not a coincidence that they started seriously challenging once they had a more varied bowling line up (even if all of Harmison, Jones, Anderson, Flintoff and Hoggard were right-armers, they were all different types of bowlers in terms of pace and technique)

 

[PhatBoy]

One thing I'm not sure has been mentioned is that their bowling was very "same-y" for a lot of this period. Take out Malcolm (pace) and Mullaly (left-arm), and their lineup was basically an endless series of right arm fast-mediums. Unless the conditions really favoured bowling, it was too easy for batsmen to get used to.

I think it's not a coincidence that they started seriously challenging once they had a more varied bowling line up (even if all of Harmison, Jones, Anderson, Flintoff and Hoggard were right-armers, they were all different types of bowlers in terms of pace and technique)

Fairly good point. Daffy, Fraser (who was the pick of them), Pringle, Bicknell very briefly, Small, Caddick (who again was ok), McCague, Cork, Lewis, Headley, Watkin etc - there wasn't a lot of variety. Some capable bowlers there but no standouts

 

[JackBero]

atherton
Stewart
Gooch
Thorpe
Hussain
Smith
Gatting
Russell
Gough
Fraser
Tuffers
Caddick
Malcolm

those are big names, not necessarily big players

also when you compare Australia’s team during that time period (one of the best our country has ever produced), to an average pom team, of course it’s going to make them look like sh*t.

 

[PhatBoy]

those are big names, not necessarily big players

also when you compare Australia’s team during that time period (one of the best our country has ever produced), to an average pom team, of course it’s going to make them look like sh*t.

They were ranked behind Zimbabwe. They weren't relatively sh*t. They were sh*t.

Most of them werent just big names. Stewart scored more runs than any other player in the 90s - and kept wicket for most of it. Atherton I believe was second on that list. While he struggled with Shane Warne (who didn't) Robin Smith was arguably the best pure player of pace bowling for the better part of a decade, in the world. Gooch is in Shane Warne's best XI. There were some hit and miss players there but a lot were more than handy.

 

[swingdog]

They were ranked behind Zimbabwe. They weren't relatively sh*t. They were sh*t.

Most of them werent just big names. Stewart scored more runs than any other player in the 90s - and kept wicket for most of it. Atherton I believe was second on that list. While he struggled with Shane Warne (who didn't) Robin Smith was arguably the best pure player of pace bowling for the better part of a decade, in the world. Gooch is in Shane Warne's best XI. There were some hit and miss players there but a lot were more than handy.

I always thought there was a big gap between their best players and the rest. Also, they never all seemed to be in form at the same time (or were injured), And their bowling was generally shite, Angus Fraser aside.

 

[PhatBoy]

I always thought there was a big gap between their best players and the rest. Also, they never all seemed to be in form at the same time (or were injured), And their bowling was generally sh*te, Angus Fraser aside.

Fairly reasonable assessment

 

[Leeda]

Swing dog ... phatboy... god these are gradually impressing me as names I love to play games with...

love your work... can't contribute much but just to say that life gives you an idea and you run with it...

 

[Leeda]

Tuffers bowled out some good sides but his face didn't quite fit in the Gooch era and he's also only got himself to blame for some of his erraticism but on his day he was class.

suffers is a long gone selfish persona who has good fun with his history.. sorry to delude you.. Goughy my mate.. hang in there..

 

[The Passenger]

I always thought there was a big gap between their best players and the rest. Also, they never all seemed to be in form at the same time (or were injured), And their bowling was generally sh*te, Angus Fraser aside.

Darren Gough was a good bowler too, whilst Caddick had his good moments. But your point about injury and form is so true - Fraser 46 tests over 9.5 years (England played 103 tests during his career span), Gough 58 tests in 9 years (105), Caddick 62 in 9.5 years (114). Those three never played a test (or any international) together either.

And unlike this era of Australian cricket which has had well documented fitness problems with our fast bowlers (although not major issues for a good few years now) England in the 90's didn't even have close to the required depth to deal with such unavailability.

 

[corbies]

They were ranked behind Zimbabwe. They weren't relatively sh*t. They were sh*t.

Most of them werent just big names. Stewart scored more runs than any other player in the 90s - and kept wicket for most of it. Atherton I believe was second on that list. While he struggled with Shane Warne (who didn't) Robin Smith was arguably the best pure player of pace bowling for the better part of a decade, in the world. Gooch is in Shane Warne's best XI. There were some hit and miss players there but a lot were more than handy.

4th. Mark Waugh and Mark Taylor ahead of him.

 

[Dipper]

An article came on Cricinfo yesterday or the day before about the best series' ever played by batsmen, the concensus being Steve Smith's Ashes last year were at the top of the list. My interest piqued by the metric used to judge this, I looked at their full top 20 list (I noticed Lara's 680-run effort or whatever it was in 3 tests against Murali on square-turning wickets wasn't there) and saw Taylor's 89 Ashes on the list.

I knew he made nearly 900 runs that series but I actually checked out his full haul - I didn't realise he 'only' made 2 centuries that series. I wanted to see who they came against. Across his two hundreds, just a few tests apart, he faced something like 11 different bowlers.

I couldn't believe it but THAT is how much they liked to chop and change when something didn't work immediately.

That's nothing the year before against West Indies in a 5 match series we got through 4 captains. Gatting, Cowdrey, Emburey and Gooch.

Then Ted Dexter was made chairman of selectors and sacked Gooch for the '89 series saying his captaincy was like being slapped round the face with a wet fish....then reinstated him after that Ashes debacle.
With the number of players picked in '89, England did just drop people after 1 or 2 tests but I in '89 a rebel tour to SA was announced during the series and everybody who signed up for it couldn't be picked thereafter.

In the initial squad a lot of the fast bowlers had chosen to go to SA although some subsequently changed their minds.

On moto g(7) using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[swingdog]

If you're English and want to torture yourself, this podcast is a good listen:

80's and 90's Cricket Show - The podcast is hosted by Gary Naylor

The podcast is hosted by Gary Naylor

eightiesandninetiescricket.co.uk

 

[Dipper]

Fun fact - just illustrates how much of a late bloomer Gooch was - he is the only opener in the 1990s to average over 50 for the decade.
Saeed Anwar is next on the list

Graham Gooch debuted in 1975 by the start of 1990 his Test average was 38. He smashed it out so much from 1990 to 1994 that he put about 4 runs on his average which was a pretty good show aged 36-40.

But then highlights his underperformance for the previous 15 years.

Allan Border had a season at Essex in1986 and him and Gooch made some really big partnerships but Gooch always dominated. If you saw them batting together you'd never think that Gooch was averaging 13 (or it whatever it was then) less than Border.

There was something wrong with the whole England set up. Firstly most weren't sure of their place, with all the chopping and changing, so there was a lot of paranoia and little team spirit amongst anyone not sure of their place but also they'd win a Test match on day 5 and everyone would jump in their cars and drive to different corners of the country for a county game then next day. No sitting around loving each other, drinking piss, singing the song and lying on the wicket till midnight going over the game together. No time to savour the victory, relax and work on your game and build up to the next Test. They'd have played a 3 day county game, maybe 2, and a Sunday league game or 2 between test matches.

It's no wonder they were shithouse until the start of the 2000s when central contracts came in.

The other thing was the scoring in county cricket, no points for a draw, 16 points for a win and 4 batting and bowling points available for landmarks in the first 100 overs of the first innings.

So losing was no worse than drawing and massive points for a win. If you won 12 and lost 12 you'd probably be champions. And it was 3 day cricket.

So most counties told the groundsmen to produce green top pitches to guarantee a result if no rain, Essex were the dominant side of the 80s, 6 titles from 1979 to 1991, but they were the worst offenders, fast medium or medium fast bowlers just had to hit the seam at Chelmsford and the ball jagged all over the place, Foster and Lever would take 100 wickets at less than 20 regularly, Pringle and his medium pacers were a threat as first change . Throw them onto a flat test pitch and they didn't have the skills or tools to bowl sides out. The whole of county cricket was like that, any bowler with real pace was flogged into submission on the circuit. England's only real quick for a 20 year period was Bob Willis, in county cricket he bowled within himself to save himself for test cricket, it worked but it didn't make him very popular amongst his county committees and members... or captains.

Also the conditions aren't condusive to spin so from Derek Underwood in the 1970s to now England has only had one top class spinner in over 40 years, and that's obviously Swann.

You couldn't have created a system to less support the Test side if you'd tried. Oh and also a bunch of born to rule toffs ran the game which certainly didn't help.

On moto g(7) using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[DaRick]

They were ranked behind Zimbabwe. They weren't relatively sh*t. They were sh*t.

Most of them werent just big names. Stewart scored more runs than any other player in the 90s - and kept wicket for most of it. Atherton I believe was second on that list. While he struggled with Shane Warne (who didn't) Robin Smith was arguably the best pure player of pace bowling for the better part of a decade, in the world. Gooch is in Shane Warne's best XI. There were some hit and miss players there but a lot were more than handy.

1990's ENG were highly inconsistent and big underachievers overall, but they were never that bad in reality.

 

[PhatBoy]

1990's ENG were highly inconsistent and big underachievers overall, but they were never that bad in reality.

Probably not but im fairly certain that they were 9th of 9 at one point in the rankings

 

[BronCrow]

Graham Gooch debuted in 1975 by the start of 1990 his Test average was 38. He smashed it out so much from 1990 to 1994 that he put about 4 runs on his average which was a pretty good show aged 36-40.

But then highlights his underperformance for the previous 15 years.

Allan Border had a season at Essex in1986 and him and Gooch made some really big partnerships but Gooch always dominated. If you saw them batting together you'd never think that Gooch was averaging 13 (or it whatever it was then) less than Border.

There was something wrong with the whole England set up. Firstly most weren't sure of their place, with all the chopping and changing, so there was a lot of paranoia and little team spirit amongst anyone not sure of their place but also they'd win a Test match on day 5 and everyone would jump in their cars and drive to different corners of the country for a county game then next day. No sitting around loving each other, drinking piss, singing the song and lying on the wicket till midnight going over the game together. No time to savour the victory, relax and work on your game and build up to the next Test. They'd have played a 3 day county game, maybe 2, and a Sunday league game or 2 between test matches.

It's no wonder they were shithouse until the start of the 2000s when central contracts came in.

The other thing was the scoring in county cricket, no points for a draw, 16 points for a win and 4 batting and bowling points available for landmarks in the first 100 overs of the first innings.

So losing was no worse than drawing and massive points for a win. If you won 12 and lost 12 you'd probably be champions. And it was 3 day cricket.

So most counties told the groundsmen to produce green top pitches to guarantee a result if no rain, Essex were the dominant side of the 80s, 6 titles from 1979 to 1991, but they were the worst offenders, fast medium or medium fast bowlers just had to hit the seam at Chelmsford and the ball jagged all over the place, Foster and Lever would take 100 wickets at less than 20 regularly, Pringle and his medium pacers were a threat as first change . Throw them onto a flat test pitch and they didn't have the skills or tools to bowl sides out. The whole of county cricket was like that, any bowler with real pace was flogged into submission on the circuit. England's only real quick for a 20 year period was Bob Willis, in county cricket he bowled within himself to save himself for test cricket, it worked but it didn't make him very popular amongst his county committees and members... or captains.

Also the conditions aren't condusive to spin so from Derek Underwood in the 1970s to now England has only had one top class spinner in over 40 years, and that's obviously Swann.

You couldn't have created a system to less support the Test side if you'd tried. Oh and also a bunch of born to rule toffs ran the game which certainly didn't help.

On moto g(7) using BigFooty.com mobile app

Sounds like the SACA really. Most of this post explains South Australian cricket, without the success, in the last 30 years.