Why do England struggle to produce undisputedly great players?

[Tec15]

Spot on. I know who McGrath-Gillespie-Lee would rather bowl to or Akram/Waqar or Ambrose/Walsh or Donald/Pollock for that matter.

Averages only mean so much and then it is actually watching how each players adapted to different situations and played situations and who they faced.

But pure averages is boring but we can put it down as well : Cook averages 39 v weaker Australian attacks than Gaz faced and Cook averages only 35 v South Africa (lowest against all teams)

Same with Anderson who averages 35.87 v Australia and 38.60 v South Africa with the ball. Morkel as our 3rd seamer hasn't been a bad supporting act when he 'averages' as much England's leader.

Boom. Spot on.

 

[Burgey]

For South Africa: Steyn,Pollock,Donald,Smith,Amla, ABDV ,Ntini,Gary Kirsten and Brian McMillian.

Shaun Pollock is one of the few cricketers who I reckon is both really under rated and really over rated at the same time.

I know it's Monday morning, but in my head atm it makes sense to say that. If I have time later today I'll come back to it.

 

[vcs]

what? Morkel takes same percentage of top order wickets and lower order wickets as Anderson despite not getting the new ball. He has also performed better on tours than Anderson.

Anderson has 175 wickets at 33 with 4 fifers
Morkel 124 wickets at 29 with four fifers in fewer matches.

Anderson has been very good at home compared to Morkel and overall marginally better but let's not pretend Anderson was on different level.

Don't think he is a great of the game. He is in the Harbajan, M Johnson category. Players that had very good career but not great of the game.

Cook's record against Australia is nothing special either. And if Cook gets bonus points for having to open in England, Kirsten should get a bunch for opening in SA in a tougher period for batsmen.

I dunno. Feels like he's never properly stepped up and been the difference-maker for them when they've needed it, he's always happy to play second fiddle. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's the impression he gives me. Stuart Broad makes a pretty interesting contrast. Mitch, Bhajji etc. also were the spearheads for their team on several occasions, bowled several memorable spells. In Morkel's case, I can remember maybe one occasion.. vs. New Zealand in 2012 or something when Williamson made a match-saving 100.

I can remember more match-winning performances from bloody Ishant Sharma FFS. I do think Morkel's numbers are more than a tad flattering.

 

[Daemon]

Morkel against Australia when they toured was jizzworthy

 

[Gob]

Morkel against Australia when they toured was jizzworthy

When Aust toured SA? Was good to watch but bowled way too short. Only needed a good full one at the base of the off stump to Mik Clarke @ Capetown early on

 

[Gob]

r00t would be pretty great

 

[vic_orthdox]

Morkel vs Australia in SA probably summed up his career. No-one likes facing him but didn't take the wickets that reflected his efforts.

 

[91Jmay]

Spot on. I know who McGrath-Gillespie-Lee would rather bowl to or Akram/Waqar or Ambrose/Walsh or Donald/Pollock for that matter.

Averages only mean so much and then it is actually watching how each players adapted to different situations and played situations and who they faced.

But pure averages is boring but we can put it down as well : Cook averages 39 v weaker Australian attacks than Gaz faced and Cook averages only 35 v South Africa (lowest against all teams)

Same with Anderson who averages 35.87 v Australia and 38.60 v South Africa with the ball. Morkel as our 3rd seamer hasn't been a bad supporting act when he 'averages' as much England's leader.

How, pray tell do you know who those bowlers would bowl at? Oh you don't, you're just pulling it out of your arse to support your incorrect point.

Cook's record in Asia makes him a better player than Kirsten. Typical Aus/SA mentality to only focus on pace bowling teams as if that is the be all and end all.

 

[SeamUp]

Were you born in 1991 ?

Gaz scored runs in the sub-continent against Kumble/Mushtaq/Saqlain/Murali mate. But lets pretend he didn't because Cook does.

If you want a bit of something else to try tug on - maybe try an go on aesthetics - oh wait Cook isn't that aesthetiacally pleasing either.

 

[OverratedSanity]

How, pray tell do you know who those bowlers would bowl at? Oh you don't, you're just pulling it out of your arse to support your incorrect point.

Cook's record in Asia makes him a better player than Kirsten. Typical Aus/SA mentality to only focus on pace bowling teams as if that is the be all and end all.

You're being a little unreasonable here. Kirsten batted well in Asia too. Also it was you who brought up his Australia and West indies record in the first place but you were accusing others of only focusing on fast bowling. Come on.

 

[91Jmay]

Were you born in 1991 ?

Gaz scored runs in the sub-continent against Kumble/Mushtaq/Saqlain/Murali mate. But lets pretend he didn't because Cook does.

If you want a bit of something else to try tug on - maybe try an go on aesthetics - oh wait Cook isn't that aesthetiacally pleasing either.

He doesn't have nearly as good a record in Asia as Cook does, even including Bangladesh who Cook hasn't played yet.
My point on Kirsten is the whole 'he played in a great era of fast bowling stuff' isn't as relevant as when he faced the two premier teams he wasn't great.

 

[Shri]

He doesn't have nearly as good a record in Asia as Cook does, even including Bangladesh who Cook hasn't played yet.
My point on Kirsten is the whole 'he played in a great era of fast bowling stuff' isn't as relevant as when he faced the two premier teams he wasn't great.

You don't understand what great meant at that time. You know how many players averaged above 50 when facing a WI side that had both Walsh and Ambrose bowling together after a good number of games(sample size)? One, Graham Gooch. The next best was Steve Waugh who averaged 45. An average of 39 against those guys?You would take that any day because it was quite good.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah Gary Kirsten was awesome.. Pretty silly to suggest Cook is some kinda level above him as a test match opener.

 

[Tec15]

He doesn't have nearly as good a record in Asia as Cook does, even including Bangladesh who Cook hasn't played yet.
My point on Kirsten is the whole 'he played in a great era of fast bowling stuff' isn't as relevant as when he faced the two premier teams he wasn't great.

West Indies absolutely were not one of the " two premier teams" when Kirsten faced them ffs. Pakistan, to name one example, better fits the bill. And how about Cook who averages much less against the two premier teams of his time (Australia and South Africa) and who has also (unlike your claim) cashed in against Bangladesh?

 

[Slifer]

Their bowling attack was. Amby/Walsh + any of Rose, King, Benjamin are as good a bowling attack as any in the 90s.

 

[AndrewB]

You don't understand what great meant at that time. You know how many players averaged above 50 when facing a WI side that had both Walsh and Ambrose bowling together after a good number of games(sample size)? One, Graham Gooch. The next best was Steve Waugh who averaged 45. An average of 39 against those guys?You would take that any day because it was quite good.

That said, Kirsten's average of 39 included a 71* in an innings where Ambrose and Walsh broke down after 4 overs each. But for that his average against attacks including both of them was 25.

 

[cnerd123]

JimmyA is a lot like Sanga.

They both benefit from having been exposed to International cricket while raw and young and being able to grow and develop from that.

They both then evolved into cricketers that were absolutely world class and worthy of ATG status.

But to truly appreciate how great they are, you have to look past the first phase of their careers - JimmyA as the young, raw, wayward, injury prone quick and Sanga as the wicketkeeper who could bat decently.

But then you are faced with a paradox - if it weren't for their first phase of their careers, you wouldn't have the second phase of their careers. Therefore, is it fair to just use the second phase of their careers to justify their ATG status?

Zak probably suffers from this a bit too. Sandwiched between a raw start and a injury ridden end he was quite superb - from his comeback vs SA in 2006 to the 2012 tour vs Australia he had 167 wickets @ 28.47. But had it not been for the start, he would not have made the move to Worcestershire and grown into the bowler he was for that window of time. And sure he carried on a bit too long, but should we ignore that?

 

[Burgey]

It's a bit of an indictment that we're talking about either Cook or Kirsten as greats tbh.

 

[TheJediBrah]

JimmyA is a lot like Sanga.

They both benefit from having been exposed to International cricket while raw and young and being able to grow and develop from that.

They both then evolved into cricketers that were absolutely world class and worthy of ATG status.

But to truly appreciate how great they are, you have to look past the first phase of their careers - JimmyA as the young, raw, wayward, injury prone quick and Sanga as the wicketkeeper who could bat decently.

But then you are faced with a paradox - if it weren't for their first phase of their careers, you wouldn't have the second phase of their careers. Therefore, is it fair to just use the second phase of their careers to justify their ATG status?

Zak probably suffers from this a bit too. Sandwiched between a raw start and a injury ridden end he was quite superb - from his comeback vs SA in 2006 to the 2012 tour vs Australia he had 167 wickets @ 28.47. But had it not been for the start, he would not have made the move to Worcestershire and grown into the bowler he was for that window of time. And sure he carried on a bit too long, but should we ignore that?

Literally read through your whole post getting more and more confused before realising that you weren't talking about Jimmy Adams

 

[Jono]

JimmyA is a lot like Sanga.

They both benefit from having been exposed to International cricket while raw and young and being able to grow and develop from that.

They both then evolved into cricketers that were absolutely world class and worthy of ATG status.

But to truly appreciate how great they are, you have to look past the first phase of their careers - JimmyA as the young, raw, wayward, injury prone quick and Sanga as the wicketkeeper who could bat decently.

But then you are faced with a paradox - if it weren't for their first phase of their careers, you wouldn't have the second phase of their careers. Therefore, is it fair to just use the second phase of their careers to justify their ATG status?

Zak probably suffers from this a bit too. Sandwiched between a raw start and a injury ridden end he was quite superb - from his comeback vs SA in 2006 to the 2012 tour vs Australia he had 167 wickets @ 28.47. But had it not been for the start, he would not have made the move to Worcestershire and grown into the bowler he was for that window of time. And sure he carried on a bit too long, but should we ignore that?

Disagree with this. Sanga's record stands up as ATG by itself. Jimmy's doesn't on the face of it, you need to discard periods etc.