Why do England struggle to produce undisputedly great players?

[listento_me]

Just looking at the list of top test wicket takers. There are a No of ATG's on the list and IMO anyway the top 30 (with maybe a few exceptions) would all be considered "great"

Jimmy's No 6 FFS.........I don't care how many tests he' splayed you don't get there without being a Great.

As much as I like Jimmy, he isn't an all time great. An english great certainly but not all time. A guy who averages almost 30 with the ball doesnt get to be considered in teh same was as Akram, McGrath and Lillee.

 

[listento_me]

Yeah that was a fantastic perforce. Right up there with some of Cook's innings in 2012.

I would certainly hold Cook as an all time great.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Harbhajan was the biggest **** to have ever walked onto a cricket field, but as a player he's about as much as great of the game as Anderson is IMO

Take into account that I barely watched him during the stage of his career where he was supposedly crap so take what I say with a grain of salt

Suffice it to say however that looking at a list of leading wicket-takers is a very poor way of deciding who is "great". A lot of factors go into that sort of list, the fact that England play nearly twice as many tests as some other countries being one of them.

 

[Adders]

As much as I like Jimmy, he isn't an all time great. An english great certainly but not all time. A guy who averages almost 30 with the ball doesnt get to be considered in teh same was as Akram, McGrath and Lillee.

JFC, how many times does it need to be said??

There is a difference between an ATG and a Great right?? I have never said Jimmy is an ATG, I don't believe for a second he is in the same tier as Malcolm Marshall, Glenn McGrath, Imran and bowlers of that calibre. But below them there are the next level of bowlers......I like to call them simply "Greats", not ATG but "Greats". Jimmy Anderson is in that bracket, IMHO.

 

[cnerd123]

Nah if Jimmy were the bowling equivalent of Sanga he'd average low 30s up to 2008 or so and then end up averaging 24 overall. Sanga was still a quality player when he was a keeper-batsman and would have played for most sides in the world. Anderson was in and out of the team and at one point was considered a one day specialist.

A better comparison might be someone like Martin Crowe whose relatively modest mid-40s average is usually tempered by ignoring his dodgy first 20-ish tests or by pointing out how good he looked on song.

Yea Sanga was a bit of a clunky example; I was trying to think of a ATG quality batsman who had a weak start to their career, but ultimately benefited to it. Crowe might be a better pick.

Related: If Harbhajan had retired in 2005 with 200 wickets at 27 in order to become a marketing consultant or something, that wouldn't make him a better cricketer, surely

He'd be seen now as a great though if he had. That is why the drop off and him remaining in the side was so surprising.

Not picking on those players I mentioned as England did the exact same thing with Botham in the 80's. Does his pathetic end to his career mean he wasn't an exceptional player at his peak?

I like PEWS' take on this. We should evaluate players based on how good they were during their peak, and how long that peak lasted. Before their peak they weren't the player they were to become, and playing on long after their peak shouldn't be held against them - as the Harbhajan and Botham examples show, you don't magically become a better or worse player just because you played less cricket. Similarly, it's up to the player to decide how much they want to play, and it's up to the selectors to pick teams. Just because a player wants to keep playing on, you don't write off/ignore/lessen how good they were at their peak.

For me, JimmyA's peak of ~350 wickets at 25 is both very good and very long. He's definitely an ATG quality player, despite how his overall record looks.

 

[Adders]

Suffice it to say however that looking at a list of leading wicket-takers is a very poor way of deciding who is "great". A lot of factors go into that sort of list, the fact that England play nearly twice as many tests as some other countries being one of them.

FTR that was not what I was doing..........but if you look at the top 30 it's pretty clear to me that it's made up of ATG's and the rest (mostly) all sit comfortably in the next tier below. Of course it's not definitive and I'm not suggesting that Jimmy (at No6) is better than Fred Trueman (at No 30) Or that there aren't bowlers down at no 70 or 80 who if they'd played 100 tests would be top 10.

 

[ImpatientLime]

jimmy is the graham gooch of bowling.

slow start to his career despite an abundance of talent
great longevity
stacks and stacks of wickets just like goochy did in the runs column
absolutely godly in the right scenario (swinging conditions, gooch versus the might of the west indian pace attack)
pretty damn good everywhere else whilst probably falling short of great status

 

[Furball]

As much as I like Jimmy, he isn't an all time great. An english great certainly but not all time. A guy who averages almost 30 with the ball doesnt get to be considered in teh same was as Akram, McGrath and Lillee.

He doesn't average almost 30 with the ball and his average has been nowhere near 30 for some time.

This sort of stuff is just dishonest.

 

[Furball]

FTR Anderson's early career can be broken down into 2. Series where he was a first pick and given the full series, where he usually bowled acceptably and averaged around 30, and series where he was picked in one off scenarios wothout much bowling or match sharpness and was almost always gash. A handful of absolute shockers (SA away in 2004/05, Sri Lanka in 2007) where he has figures of something like 1/350 in those Tests makes a huge dent in his early career figures.

 

[TheJediBrah]

He doesn't average almost 30 with the ball and his average has been nowhere near 30 for some time.

This sort of stuff is just dishonest.

I wouldn't call it dishonest for someone to categorise ~27 as being "almost 30"

it's can easily be seen as an accurate description

 

[Jono]

Nah its misleading.

 

[TheJediBrah]

nah if I someone described a 27 or 28 year old person as "almost 30" I wouldn't bat an eyelid

 

[Jono]

Sure but the context is different. People are common to live up to 80 or 90. As a percentage those 3 years are bugger all.

Most bowlers average between 20-40. To say someone who averages 27 averages around 30 is misleading. As a percentage its a huge difference to the general range of bowling averages.

Plus just generally 27 is a very good average, 30 is so-so. There's quite a difference.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You realise how ridiculous a thing this is to be arguing about?

Not saying we should stop, just pointing it out

And yes I know it's mostly my fault

 

[Jono]

Yes as I was writing my post I realised it was pedantic but figured I'd go with it and see who would crack first.

 

[TheJediBrah]

tbh it's probably no worse than arguing about whether someone is "great" or not. Great being pretty much as subjective a word as you can get.

 

[OverratedSanity]

tbh it's probably no worse than arguing about whether someone is "great" or not. Great being pretty much as subjective a word as you can get.

'overrated ' takes the cake

 

[Jono]

When did Kane Williamson take the cake?

 

[honestbharani]

once he stopped being the icing

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I wouldn't call it dishonest for someone to categorise ~27 as being "almost 30"

it's can easily be seen as an accurate description

Could easily say almost 25 then and that is closer to 27 than 30 is.