Lack of English Batting Talent

[Goughy]

Im not going to go into the current side and the rights and wrongs of certain selections.

I just wanted to have a look at what else was available.

What I did was set criteria based on Domestic List A performances that I would want English players to meet and tried to see how long the list of candidates that fulfilled the criteria would be.

I had no idea how many players would make the list.

1. Stats from the last 2 season used to show consistency
2. Strike rate min of 80 in both the last 2 seasons. Need to be able to score quickly off Domestic attacks if you want to do it at International level
3. At least 1 century in each season. Ability to play a big, matchwinning innings rather than just cameos.
4. Average of over 35 in both of the last 2 seasons. Showing consistency and I believe 35 should be a rough approx. of the min. International calibre players should achieve

In all honesty, I didnt think the qualifying targets were that difficult to meet. And they weren't for foreign players.

The English Players List
Ali Brown
Marcus Trescothick

Thats it, thats the list

Very poor.

 

[silentstriker]

What suprises me the most is when England had their last player average 50+ in Test matches at the end of his career.

 

[Richard]

I've been saying it for, oh, 5 years at least.

For some reason, we just don't seem to produce many quality one-day batsmen. And the few we do produce (Usman Afzaal) don't get picked, with those of First-Class pedigree preferred.

The annoying thing is, that should mean loads of bowlers with good records - but it doesn't. There are only a small handful of bowlers with even reasonable one-day economy-rates, those being the like of Ealham, Gough, Mascarenhas, Martin-Jenkins and Killeen, and they get completely ignored in favour of "wicket-takers" (what utter nonsense) like Kirtley, Tudor, Harmison, Kabir Ali, Mahmood, Wharf, Simon Jones, Tremlett, Plunkett, Broad and Panesar. And heck, even those like Tim Bresnan who've done precisely nothing of note in their entire careers.

Bad domestic performance is compounded by bad selection. And yet there's no reason, at all, that there should be so few high-calibre cricketers at the limited-overs game. It's not like we don't play enough of it, at both club and county level.

 

[Richard]

What suprises me the most is when England had their last player average 50+ in Test matches at the end of his career.

?

 

[Goughy]

Well, as an advocate of Ali Brown, the list was satisfying for me.

I honestly think that if he had been born 5 years later he would have been one of the best ODI batsmen England have produced.

Instead the most destructive batsman of his generation was dismissed as a 'clown' but to him being marginally before his time.

Even when he was selected it was pretty clear he was not wanted and people were waiting for him to fail to jetison him.

 

[Richard]

TBH, I was never 100% convinced about him. A bit of an Afridi, I do think. Real shame he never played a Test, and certainly was capable of playing one-day innings few if any could match, but he never achieved that consistency you quite rightly state is essential. Would routinely string together 6 or 7 innings of nothing-much.

And I never thought he'd make it when he was picked for ODIs. I think had he played a few more nothing other than a continuation would've happened.

 

[Goughy]

TBH, I was never 100% convinced about him. A bit of an Afridi, I do think. Real shame he never played a Test, and certainly was capable of playing one-day innings few if any could match, but he never achieved that consistency you quite rightly state is essential. Would routinely string together 6 or 7 innings of nothing-much.

And I never thought he'd make it when he was picked for ODIs. I think had he played a few more nothing other than a continuation would've happened.

*shakes head and cries*

Like Afridi? Really? Not a chance

Again it is lack of foresight and the fact that people lump these type of players together.

He should never have played Tests but would have been a real dangerman for England in ODIs. The type of player that actually scares opponents.

Also you are being harsh on Kirtley in a previous post. By far the best List A bowler in England over the past 2 seasons and has done so with a good economy rate. Especially when compared to an 'Economy guy' like Mascarenhas who had a far worse ER in 2006 and obviously cant come close in abilty to take wickets. Also I have no idea how you can nominate a guy like Martin-Jenkins. He averaged a wicket every 2 games last season at an average of 60 The economy rate was ok but nothing special. TBH Martin-Jenkins is an average cricketer.

If you want a real 'economy guy' then you will have to wait 2 seasons as the closest England have to a player that had an economy rate under 4 for each of the past 2 seasons is Ray Price.

 

[Richard]

Kirtley has been heaps better recently but he was absolutely God-damn dreadful when he was picked for ODIs and should never, ever have been near the side at that time. I do wonder about the current time, but TBH his chances are probably gone.

I wasn't meaning Brown was quite so bad as Afridi, but he does of times seem to be lumped into the Craig McMillan, Herschelle Gibbs, Chamara Silva category in that it often seems to me when I'm watching him that he's more concerned about playing shots than scoring runs.

As for the bowlers - yeah, Mascarenhas has been poor the last couple of seasons, which has really disappointed me. His time, too, is probably gone now.

But Martin-Jenkins - just calling him an average cricketer is so, so unfair. IMO it's all down to one thing - Ronnie Irani. Everyone remembers him (a little unfairly too) as the epitome of "average county pro". If Martin-Jenkins was a specialist bowler who never had batting pretensions (a bit like Ealham) he'd possibly have been taken a bit more seriously. I couldn't give a **** about how few wickets he's taking, TBH - give me him over Bresnan any day.

 

[steds]

?

Almost 50 years. Barrington.

 

[Richard]

Aha, yeah, I sees what he meanses now...

Not too surprising to me, TBH.

 

[Goughy]

Kirtley has been heaps better recently but he was absolutely God-damn dreadful when he was picked for ODIs and should never, ever have been near the side at that time. I do wonder about the current time, but TBH his chances are probably gone.

Obviously he has improved, as he has been incredible the last few years. But he wasnt doing that bad when he was originally selected.

His first ODI was in 2001 and he was one of the premier bowlers in List A cricket that season.

There were only 4 bowlers that had more wickets at a better average and economy rate in that season.

A Sheriyar
SR Lampitt
MJ Saggers
MA Robinson

Obviously Robinson and Lampitt were ancient and that leaves only 2 guys that had realistic England pretentions that outperformed him.

For reference. Kirtley in 2001 in List A games. 20 games, 27 wkts, av 25.03, econ 4.3

 

[Richard]

Yes. 1 reasonably good season he had indeed had.

But his previous few seasons had been nothing remarkable at all. And he was picked more for his average than his economy-rate, and in my experience that usually results in what it did with him and Tudor - the high ER retained, the wicket-taking absent.

EDIT: what was Sheriyar's ER in 2001? I can't ever remember him being anything other than your stereotypical "expensive wicket-taker". Mind, I always liked him, TBH - thought he had real potential. Another one that got away.

 

[Goughy]

EDIT: what was Sheriyar's ER in 2001? I can't ever remember him being anything other than your stereotypical "expensive wicket-taker". Mind, I always liked him, TBH - thought he had real potential. Another one that got away.

Ha, you would ask that after I closed my spreadsheet and didnt bother to save it.

I liked Sheriyar as well though England probably got it right as he more than likely wasnt International standard. He could be quick on his day though.

EDIT: Sheriyar in 2001. ER= 4.2 Pretty good

 

[steds]

Also you are being harsh on Kirtley in a previous post. By far the best List A chucker in England over the past 2 seasons

Corrected.

 

[Burgey]

This is an interesting thread imo. Given that England have struggled in the ODI area for so long (recent CB series in Oz aside), is it a structural/ developmental thing about the way their players are coached at an early age, or is it an unfortunate accident of history that that there just isn't the dynamism at the moment?
When I look at the England side, most of their batsmen aren't bad players, they're just the WRONG type of player for ODIs. There is an array of accumulators but little in the way of genuine belters of the ball (KP and Fred aside). The fact that they are currently ranked #2 in tests says that the players they have there can play, but they just don't seem dynamic enough imo for the shorter version. Further, the fact that KP and Fred are the only two really consistently devastating hitters means there is bulk pressure on them when, like this morning, the side needs to motor along in the innings - the opponents know they are the main men as well.
By contrast, Sri Lanka, NZ, SA and Australia seem to have an arsenal of power hitters who can semi-regularly deposit the ball over the boundary. The depth in this power means that those sides can go hard at the bowling virtually all the way through (barring a collapse) whereas it seems England feel the need to preserve early wickets more than other sides so that their two big hitters are protected from the new ball.
Those who are in England, are there really that many options to fill this void?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Does it have much to do with the grassroots structure, where (from what I hear, anyway) you have the whole "winning draw/losing draw" thing, two day games being played in one day; rather than one day cricket?

 

[Goughy]

This is an interesting thread imo. Given that England have struggled in the ODI area for so long (recent CB series in Oz aside), is it a structural/ developmental thing about the way their players are coached at an early age, or is it an unfortunate accident of history that that there just isn't the dynamism at the moment?
When I look at the England side, most of their batsmen aren't bad players, they're just the WRONG type of player for ODIs. There is an array of accumulators but little in the way of genuine belters of the ball (KP and Fred aside). The fact that they are currently ranked #2 in tests says that the players they have there can play, but they just don't seem dynamic enough imo for the shorter version. Further, the fact that KP and Fred are the only two really consistently devastating hitters means there is bulk pressure on them when, like this morning, the side needs to motor along in the innings - the opponents know they are the main men as well.
By contrast, Sri Lanka, NZ, SA and Australia seem to have an arsenal of power hitters who can semi-regularly deposit the ball over the boundary. The depth in this power means that those sides can go hard at the bowling virtually all the way through (barring a collapse) whereas it seems England feel the need to preserve early wickets more than other sides so that their two big hitters are protected from the new ball.
Those who are in England, are there really that many options to fill this void?

Fair points.

The problem is not that England don't produce dynamic and aggressive players but that they are not trusted, not selected and seen as 'un-English'. As I noted earlier in the thread, look at how Ali Brown has been classified and treated.

Players such as Loye and Benning can take attacks apart as can many others that struggle to maintain a decent average whilst doing so.

 

[Goughy]

A Destructive England ODI Batting XI would look something like this

Brown
Trescothick
Loye
Pietersen
Benning
Benham
Flintoff
Prior
Blackwell
Mascarenhas
Chapple

Now if you found a place for Collingwood, maybe changed the keeper and brought in 2 different seamers I dont think too many would argue that it wouldnt be better than the current XI (EDIT- Second thoughts, they probably would, but I wouldnt).

 

[Prince EWS]

This is an interesting thread imo. Given that England have struggled in the ODI area for so long (recent CB series in Oz aside), is it a structural/ developmental thing about the way their players are coached at an early age, or is it an unfortunate accident of history that that there just isn't the dynamism at the moment?
When I look at the England side, most of their batsmen aren't bad players, they're just the WRONG type of player for ODIs. There is an array of accumulators but little in the way of genuine belters of the ball (KP and Fred aside). The fact that they are currently ranked #2 in tests says that the players they have there can play, but they just don't seem dynamic enough imo for the shorter version. Further, the fact that KP and Fred are the only two really consistently devastating hitters means there is bulk pressure on them when, like this morning, the side needs to motor along in the innings - the opponents know they are the main men as well.
By contrast, Sri Lanka, NZ, SA and Australia seem to have an arsenal of power hitters who can semi-regularly deposit the ball over the boundary. The depth in this power means that those sides can go hard at the bowling virtually all the way through (barring a collapse) whereas it seems England feel the need to preserve early wickets more than other sides so that their two big hitters are protected from the new ball.
Those who are in England, are there really that many options to fill this void?

I don't think boundary hitting is the problem, actually. I haven't done any stats on it, but I'd hazzard a guess to say their batsmen scored a similar percentage of runs in boundries to a lot of other sides (last ten overs of an innings aside, I guess.) It's the simple fact that none of them actually have a clue how to pace an innings in one day cricket, barring Pietersen and Collingwood. Batsmen that are over-reliant on boundries actually tend to struggle a bit in one day cricket as when they can't break the more defensive field, they just can't score at all. An obvious exception to this English problem is Collingwood really - he's the player that the likes of Bell, Vaughan and Strauss should look towards. There's nothing technically to suggest that Bell, Vaughan or Strauss couldn't be good ODI players, but they simply have no idea what they're supposed to be doing, so they'll play a few cracking shots to the fielders, take no singles and then get frustrated into doing something stupid. The problem with most batsmen who can't translate their test performances into one day cricket is too many dot balls - not a lack of boundries. Some of them, like Bell IMO, simply don't know exactly what they should be doing, while there are some like Vaughan who flatly just aren't good at rotating the strike and minimising dot balls.

Bell will eventually mature into a good ODI batsman IMO - although not a particularly special one by any means. Not too much hope for Vaughan or Strauss though as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Goughy]

There's nothing technically to suggest that Bell, Vaughan or Strauss couldn't be good ODI players, but they simply have no idea what they're supposed to be doing, so they'll play a few cracking shots to the fielders, take no singles and then get frustrated into doing something stupid.

That is the key problem for Bell IMO. He hits the fielders and it is far to easy for the oppostion captain to set a field that his bowlers can confidently bowl at.

Bell will cause no sleepless nights for coaches and captains when it comes to gameplanning against England.

Despite his decent ODI average, Bell is a very ordinary ODI batsman as he gives the initiative to the opposition and doesn't improvise.

Batsmen that dont let bowlers control the tempo, can do different things, worry and scare the opposition, stop them getting into a rhythm and stop them being comfortable are the players that win ODIs. Bell can't do that.