Why were england so s***?

[cricketnut14]

they also gave someone like emburey 64 test caps.

he was serviceable sure, but was he there to solid up the batting a little more, when his primary job was to bowl ?

 

[Gough]

they also gave someone like emburey 64 test caps.

he was serviceable sure, but was he there to solid up the batting a little more, when his primary job was to bowl ?

Emberey came from the Brearley school at Middlesex so he probably offered a bit behind the scenes.

 

[Phone]

the 1970s/1980s wasn't exactly an era known for wonderful spin bowling. he averaged 33 for the first 49 test matches, and then it blew out at the end.

considering the overall figures for each team in that era, that's perfectly fine: https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...0;spanval2=span;template=results;type=bowling

 

[t_94]

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.

I reckon they've still got that now. I would back the best couple of grade teams from each state to beat the bottom few of their division 2 county championship. 18 teams is too many considering its a sport for toffs over there these days.

 

[Leeda]

Emberey came from the Brearley school at Middlesex so he probably offered a bit behind the scenes.

hey you say something interesting for a change... but the point is that we all catch the recognition that where we are now is where we should be...

 

[The Speaker]

I reckon they've still got that now. I would back the best couple of grade teams from each state to beat the bottom few of their division 2 county championship. 18 teams is too many considering its a sport for toffs over there these days.

I think the stranger thing about the county system is how badly the minor counties get shafted by it. Perhaps they should try a proper divisional structure.

 

[Bareth Garry]

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...?

100% agree and would say the batting equivalent was Atherton who seemed like he enjoyed the battle of hostile bowling and merely surviving rather than scoring runs.

 

[stax on the mull]

The Australian team had at least one bowler that would trouble any English batsman that came to the crease and they would bring them on at the appropriate time and always kept the pressure on and prevented partnerships.

Smith was a good player against pace but I don't think he had much of an idea against leg spin.

With Gooch they identified that he hit the ball in the air and put a fieldsman at short mid off. They got into his head, made him look for runs playing differently.

Broad smashed the Aussies out in Australia in 86/87 but his poor technique go worked out by the swing and seam of Alderman and Lawson in 89 and was he dropped after 2 tests.

That was one of the other things. Too much chopping and changing of the batting line ups. Home press getting stuck into English with each failure built pressure, starting in 89 when they'd already dubbed the Australian touring team the worst touring team ever - so when England started losing they really turned nasty.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

 

[A Pom]

I think the stranger thing about the county system is how badly the minor counties get shafted by it. Perhaps they should try a proper divisional structure.

As good as it would be there's the obvious issue of minor counties being semi-professional at best and first class counties being fully professional with wage budgets of £1m+.

 

[The Speaker]

As good as it would be there's the obvious issue of minor counties being semi-professional at best and first class counties being fully professional with wage budgets of £1m+.

Of course, but whether county cricket can sustain that over 18 teams is another question. A divisional structure of increasing professionalism the further up you go may have to be considered at some point.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Of course, but whether county cricket can sustain that over 18 teams is another question. A divisional structure of increasing professionalism the further up you go may have to be considered at some point.

Far from an expert, but I can't imagine that the counties who would get shunted out of the top level would go quietly and could end up being a gamble of risking alienating the county stalwarts to try and improve cricket across the board. If it doesn't come off (which if cricket remains behind a paywall on TV would suggest to me it wouldn't) it could hasten a terminal decline in England cricket rather than fixing the problem.

 

[A Pom]

Of course, but whether county cricket can sustain that over 18 teams is another question. A divisional structure of increasing professionalism the further up you go may have to be considered at some point.

I'd worry it'd do more harm than good. A currently non professional team is going to struggle with the jump up to a professional level with most of their team having a second job outside cricket, the teams generally not even having their own exclusive ground and suddenly having to start paying people. A currently professional team is going to pretty much collapse at the first sight of touching on a non-professional level with issues around salaried players, most clubs grounds being prime real estate in city centres etc.

 

[The Speaker]

Far from an expert, but I can't imagine that the counties who would get shunted out of the top level would go quietly and could end up being a gamble of risking alienating the county stalwarts to try and improve cricket across the board. If it doesn't come off (which if cricket remains behind a paywall on TV would suggest to me it wouldn't) it could hasten a terminal decline in England cricket rather than fixing the problem.

I could only imagine it in a situation where the counties were facing ruin anyway. As it is, they're propped up by ECB funding.

I'd worry it'd do more harm than good. A currently non professional team is going to struggle with the jump up to a professional level with most of their team having a second job outside cricket, the teams generally not even having their own exclusive ground and suddenly having to start paying people. A currently professional team is going to pretty much collapse at the first sight of touching on a non-professional level with issues around salaried players, most clubs grounds being prime real estate in city centres etc.

Depends how big the divisions are.

 

[thejockey]

I never got the reward for playing for draws in League cricket there .
It would have been a very minor part of the issue but playing to not lose rather then try to win can't be good for development or competitive edge.

Through the 90s they had a lot of 'good' players . Problem was they were playing teams with very good to gun to once in a generation players.
By the mid 90s they were beaten before they even got on the park .
Once that happens its very hard to swing things around .

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I never got the reward for playing for draws in League cricket there .
It would have been a very minor part of the issue but playing to not lose rather then try to win can't be good for development or competitive edge.

Through the 90s they had a lot of 'good' players . Problem was they were playing teams with very good to gun to once in a generation players.
By the mid 90s they were beaten before they even got on the park .
Once that happens its very hard to swing things around .

Agree with both of those points

Winning draws... talk about an oxymoron

They had to rid their team of Thorpe, Stewart, Atherton, Gough, Hussain, Caddick, Hick and co before they could beat us.

Even though those guys were individually good cricketers they had just lost against us so often that they carried it around into every series.

Battle-scarred.

 

[PhatBoy]

Agree with both of those points

Winning draws... talk about an oxymoron

They had to rid their team of Thorpe, Stewart, Atherton, Gough, Hussain, Caddick, Hick and co before they could beat us.

Even though those guys were individually good cricketers they had just lost against us so often that they carried it around into every series.

Battle-scarred.

Thorpe they dispensed with before his time either way. He had a decent record against Australia and averaged something like 54 overall from 2000 onwards. The others I totally agree with

 

[DaRick]

Thorpe they dispensed with before his time either way. He had a decent record against Australia and averaged something like 54 overall from 2000 onwards. The others I totally agree with

Thorpe retired and had dealt with personal issues for years prior, off the top of my head.

 

[corbies]

Thorpe retired and had dealt with personal issues for years prior, off the top of my head.

I think he retired because he wasn't picked in the 1st Ashes Test though.

 

[PhatBoy]

Thorpe retired and had dealt with personal issues for years prior, off the top of my head.

he retired after he was left out of the 05 ashes squad. He’d missed a few tours at times but he was available and had been scoring runs.

 

[ioppolo]

I was only young but I remember the public opinion changed once Pietersen took on our bowlers in his first test

 

[DaRick]

I was only young but I remember the public opinion changed once Pietersen took on our bowlers in his first test

I was a teen back then but I remember being worried about our ODI form.

The team in general looked off-colour but particularly Kaspr and Gillespie.

 

[PhatBoy]

I was only young but I remember the public opinion changed once Pietersen took on our bowlers in his first test

there is no doubt they made the right call to bring Pietersen in but they played bell on the back of a couple of Mickey Mouse scores against pre-competitive Bangladesh. Really liked Thorpe and would have loved to have seen him finally enjoy a win over a side that he regularly stood up against when his teammates didnt

 

[thejockey]

Agree with both of those points

Winning draws... talk about an oxymoron

They had to rid their team of Thorpe, Stewart, Atherton, Gough, Hussain, Caddick, Hick and co before they could beat us.

Even though those guys were individually good cricketers they had just lost against us so often that they carried it around into every series.

Battle-scarred.

It's crazyness. First game there we make 220 and I was cockahoop when we had them 3/20.
Within 5 overs we are bowling part timers and have 7 on the fence, encouraging them to 'try'.
75% of the games got played that way .

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

It's crazyness. First game there we make 220 and I was cockahoop when we had them 3/20.
Within 5 overs we are bowling part timers and have 7 on the fence, encouraging them to 'try'.
75% of the games got played that way .

Having the opposition block out the last 20 overs of a Sunday friendly was infuriating