Are England The Real Deal?

[hang on]

those are interesting numbers. of the course, the fact that it was pakistan on 3 occasions does flatter the numbers a bit. also, the australians have been making a bit of a habit of being bowled out for abysmal scores recently....find that very strange. perhaps the quality of the batting of the weaker teams is not up there with the general quality of the batting during the period of windies domination? don't really know how to explain it. because noone would say that england have an attack close to that of the the great windians. this leads to another possible topic: the way batting techniques might have been diluted by the preponderance of odi and 20-20 cricket. the moment there's a hint of swing.....

the problem with broad is that he is allowed to play in the tests to work back to so-called peak form. that is completely wrong in my eyes. the best bowlers need to play. if u have been injured and need to get back to top form, then tough....play in the cc and work your way back. btw, has onions recovered fully?

 

[vic_orthdox]

England have a dependable spine. They know what their best team is, and they only have to tinker with it when injuries occur. That's something that all the great teams have. In that way, I think that they have a slight advantage over India in becoming settled long term at the top of the rankings, who still have to work out their number 6 for good, and also have to toss up between two spinners or one depending on the conditions, being home or away.

I can't really split the teams in Test cricket at the moment. I'd probably just give it to India because their top order batting ensures that when they don't fire, they are more likely to get a draw. England rely on their number 11 to get it when they struggle.

 

[hang on]

india need to build up depth in bowling if they are to remain at the top for long. especially once the great batsmen go.

 

[Howe_zat]

those are interesting numbers. of the course, the fact that it was pakistan on 3 occasions does flatter the numbers a bit. also, the australians have been making a bit of a habit of being bowled out for abysmal scores recently....find that very strange. perhaps the quality of the batting of the weaker teams is not up there with the general quality of the batting during the period of windies domination? don't really know how to explain it. because noone would say that england have an attack close to that of the the great windians. this leads to another possible topic: the way batting techniques might have been diluted by the preponderance of odi and 20-20 cricket. the moment there's a hint of swing.....

the problem with broad is that he is allowed to play in the tests to work back to so-called peak form. that is completely wrong in my eyes. the best bowlers need to play. if u have been injured and need to get back to top form, then tough....play in the cc and work your way back. btw, has onions recovered fully?

Onions is back to playing first-class cricket on a regular basis, so I'd say so.

I love how wide you're willing to go though to avoid having to admit that England might have achieved something, though.

England haven't bowled with anything approaching greatness. Oh, wait, the great bowling attacks weren't actually constantly blasting sides away, like I had assumed? Oh, well then, obviously batting must have declined. It's the only explanation.

Nobody would have rubbished the Australian or Sri Lankan batting orders that England have dismissed lately - until they go ahead and do it.

 

[hang on]

not really. while i think that england are a superb team, for them to be the real deal (in my eyes that would mean becoming a dominant side approaching the great teams of the past), the bowling (the strong suit of the team according to many) needs to be better than it is. i think that the bowling is overrated. just becoming number one is not really the question here.

are you honestly saying that this england attack is anywhere close to that of the great windians and the australians? i doubt it. thus, while part of the run of low scores can be attributed to genuinely good bowling, the other part of it will need underpinning by other explanations.

note that this argument about really low scores might be a red herring. perhaps the average scores conceded would be a better indication of the real strength of the attacks vis a vis the west indians and australians.

 

[MW1304]

All in helpful bowling conditions with 3 against a **** Pakistan lineup. Don't get me wrong, I still agree that it is nothing to be scoffed at, and that England have had immense success with the ball in the recent past.

Melbourne wasn't that helpful. I mean we racked up 513 on it. And it wasn't a **** batting lineup.

 

[Flem274*]

England have a bloody good bowling attack in current form. If you look at the career figures it's not great but I'm sure if we took a sample from the past two years they would be fantastic.

Whether they can sustain it is anyones guess, but England have a good depth of bowlers who are similar in quality. Anderson and Swann are the main men but Broad, Tremlett, Bresnan, Onions etc bring good bowling to the table and they're hard to split.

 

[Jacknife]

They're good enough to become the No1 side in the world but they're are questions to be answered,like performing in the sub continent, this summer will answer some of those.
As far as needing ATG players, rubbish, you need a team of players, who know exactly what their role is, great planning, very good coach and you need world class players all or nearly all performing at the same time, which is what England have got.
The difference is this England won't go on and replicate the WI of the 80's and probably won't do he same as the Ozzies, there's a difference between a ATG side and one that might be the best side for a couple of years.

 

[Jono]

England are a very very good cricket team.

I personally think their batting is more of a strength than their bowling, but I understand I may be in the minority on this.

I rate incredibly highly their top 3, and whilst Pietersen has become overrated, he's still a good batsman simply because of what he is capable of. That makes a very very good top 4.

Their bowling has obviously been very strong for a while now. But that recent performance against Sri Lanka in the second test without Anderson on home soil was piss poor.

 

[GIMH]

Do you not rate Bell, Jono?

 

[Jono]

Nah I do, was just more talking about their top 4 because I find them incredibly imposing (not in how they score their runs, but how often they score such runs).

I wouldn't describe Bell as imposing. But he's a good player.

 

[Howe_zat]

Nah I do, was just more talking about their top 4 because I find them incredibly imposing (not in how they score their runs, but how often they score such runs).

I wouldn't describe Bell as imposing. But he's a good player.

Fair.

You could say that the main reason Bell doesn't have the volume of runs that Cook and Trott do over the last 18 months is a lack of oppertunity. Seems to me he's been playing just as well.

 

[marc71178]

Isn't he averaging more than Trott since Trott's debut?

 

[Howe_zat]

Isn't he averaging more than Trott since Trott's debut?

Yeah, 70 to Trott's 64.

On second thoughts, Bell did miss out the very low-scoring series vs Pakistan. That might have dented his average a bit.

 

[Austerlitz]

Yeah i fear england's top 4 more than anything else[not pieterson].
The bowling is good,but not best in the world.They lack the steyn class spearhead.And unproven in the subcontinent.I give them a definite edge at home.
If england manage to beat the subcontinent teams at home and draw abroad they will be no 1.This may be done.Not before that.Ideally they would want to win both,but while the english are good they are not THAT good.

 

[Uppercut]

"he bowlers passed a huge examination with their success in Australia, but repeating it on the subcontinent would be evidence of class."


"England may have claim to number one if they beat India, but that won't be enough. They will need to sustain the previous two years' form for quite a while longer. The winter presents challenges in the form of Sri Lanka away, and Pakistan on neutral territory. Victories away to both in 2000-01 under Nasser Hussain were England's finest away victories of this century until the winter just passed and will need to be repeated if England wish to stake a serious claim for the top spot."

Key points in a well written article. England are certainly heading in the right direction, but if they want to be the number one side in the world, they've got to do well on the subcontinent.

No they don't, they just need to be better than all the other teams.

 

[zaremba]

noone would say that england have an attack close to that of the the great windians

True, I'm not sure that's a relevant benchmark for this particular discussion.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Some bowling averages from start of 2009 onwards:

Jimmy Anderson: 26.70
Tim Bresnan: 28.28
Chris Tremlett: 25.36
Steve Finn: 26.92
Graeme Swann: 26.89

...that's a pretty fearsome bowling lineup at the moment. As good as Bresnan is he has the highest average of this lot.

 

[zaremba]

Good figures. Problem is they also pick Broad who averages 94.

 

[Bun]

I do agree England with a fit Andy and firing Swann are right at the top as a bowling attack can get today, but I am bit sceptical about the averages of the rest. I think the likes of Bresnan, Tiny Trem and Finn need more exposure and series to really say anything about their ability at this level, although from what they have done so far, they can't be regarded as shoddy either.

Except Finn, who just keeps picking wickets looking poo. But I'd take a wicket taker anyday above one who looks spectacular without picking anything.

Not to be forgotten this lineup will be up against an all time great batting lineup. Will be lipsmacking affair