cricketing narratives that aren't true

[grecian]

Going back to "England in the 90s", one myth I've seen (at least from those English writers/fans who were besotted with Botham - not sure anyone else fell for it) was that England were a good team in the 80s but fell away drastically in the 90s.

In the 1980s, England won 20 Tests and lost 39 (out of a total of 104).
In the 1990s, England won 26 Tests and lost 43 (out of a total of 107).

I have always maintained this as one of the biggest falsehoods around, the simple fact that we were **** in both decades in general, but we were good in the Ashes (against an appalling OZ team in the 80s, but awful against a better side in the 90s.

So yes we had bad players in the 90s, but probably worse in the 80s.

That 90s England side is just pure fantasy with some players many years apart, and the fact is we rarerely got Caddick/Gooch and Fraser playing together because of injury, as Vic pointed out, so we had Simon Brown, Ronnie Irani, Min Patel, Martin McCague, Alan Igglesden, Warren Hegg, Richard Blakey, Neil Fairbrother (he was appalling in Tests sorry Fred), Paul Taylor oh the list is bloody endless with Dreck. This is why nostalgia is hideous, most people just remember the good and forget these people.

One thing that pisses me off though is the narrative that all sides were brimming were greats in every side in the 90s, normally rose-tinted nonsense from people growing up in the era,with them as heroes, the 70s and 80s had some decent players too.

 

[Flem274*]

rose-tinted nonsense from people growing up in the era,with them as heroes

#threadderail it's going to be strange in the next couple of years when new posters come here having almost no memory of the all conquering 00s Australian side, or the 00s Indian batting, Flintoff era England, Murali's Sri Lanka, Fleming's NZ, Shoiab Athktar era Pakistan or Lara's Windies because they were like 5-10 years old at the time.

The next batch of Kiwahhhh university students who actually have time/schedules to watch every 2am NZ batting collapse will have grown up with Martin Guptill - test opener since his debut would have been when they were about 8 years old.

I feel old.

 

[Shri]

I have always maintained this as one of the biggest falsehoods around, the simple fact that we were **** in both decades in general, but we were good in the Ashes (against an appalling OZ team in the 80s, but awful against a better side in the 90s.

So yes we had bad players in the 90s, but probably worse in the 80s.

That 90s England side is just pure fantasy with some players many years apart, and the fact is we rarerely got Caddick/Gooch and Fraser playing together because of injury, as Vic pointed out, so we had Simon Brown, Ronnie Irani, Min Patel, Martin McCague, Alan Igglesden, Warren Hegg, Richard Blakey, Neil Fairbrother (he was appalling in Tests sorry Fred), Paul Taylor oh the list is bloody endless with Dreck. This is why nostalgia is hideous, most people just remember the good and forget these people.

One thing that pisses me off though is the narrative that all sides were brimming were greats in every side in the 90s, normally rose-tinted nonsense from people growing up in the era,with them as heroes, the 70s and 80s had some decent players too.

You forgot Alan Mullaly. His last name was hilarious to say out loud as a kid and stuck in my head since I first heard it. I don't remember anything about him except for the fact that I was a fan as a kid because I had a bet with my brother over some insignificant thing involving him when we watched a test together on TV.

 

[cnerd123]

You forgot Alan Mullaly. His last name was hilarious to say out loud as a kid and stuck in my head since I first heard it. I don't remember anything about him except for the fact that I was a fan as a kid because I had a bet with my brother over some insignificant thing involving him when we watched a test together on TV.

Cool story bro

 

[indiaholic]

Or you start with being **** in ODIs and people say "oh it's because you're not suited to the pressure of run rates, you would make a great test batsman because you're oh so talented"

When has this happened?

 

[Black_Warrior]

When has this happened?

Rohit Sharma the ODI cricketer (2007-2012)

 

[OverratedSanity]

Nah that doesn't make sense. People didn't really justify his lack of big runs in that period because they thought he was suited to tests. Besides, if they did think that, he'd have been picked for the test team.

 

[AndrewB]

That 90s England side is just pure fantasy with some players many years apart,

Which one? Everyone in Furball's side played at least one Test in 1998; everyone in mine except Ramprakash played at least once in 1996. It's not like we suggested Gooch opening with Vaughan with Botham and Flintoff as all-rounders.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

England had a poor side in the 90's for many reasons, some substandard players getting far too many games (Ramprakash, Crawley), poor leadership off the field and just the fact there were a few sides who were just filled with better players which you can't do much about. Look how bad India were away despite a decent side at times to know it was tough do well at times in that era. England didn't help themselves with the revolving door policy in selection and they discarded one of the best county cricketers of the decade because he looked poor against a rampant Aussie side in 93 when the selection peaked at it's worst in chopping and changing. If Martin Bicknell hadn't been a 90's player he would have won 40-50 caps or more but we criminally underused him.

 

[Shady Slim]

glad people are linking to this thread when they see something they believe is untrue in another thread

i love the publicity <3

 

[Black_Warrior]

Nah that doesn't make sense. People didn't really justify his lack of big runs in that period because they thought he was suited to tests. Besides, if they did think that, he'd have been picked for the test team.

People said that a lot. They kept saying he was not suited to ODI cricket due to run rate pressure and should be allowed in Test cricket. It's just a long time ago and Rohit is just known as a **** test batsman but a gun ODI batsman now so everyone's forgotten that phase. And what people think or say does not necessarily translate to how team selection is made or what actually happens. No one thinks Pujara should have been dropped but he still got dropped. Everyone thinks Guptill should be dropped but he keeps playing.

 

[Daemon]

People said that a lot. They kept saying he was not suited to ODI cricket due to run rate pressure and should be allowed in Test cricket. It's just a long time ago and Rohit is just known as a **** test batsman but a gun ODI batsman now so everyone's forgotten that phase. And what people think or say does not necessarily translate to how team selection is made or what actually happens. No one thinks Pujara should have been dropped but he still got dropped. Everyone thinks Guptill should be dropped but he keeps playing.

Defs recall this. Was when he was being a Rahane batting lower down the order and averaged 60 in FC.

 

[Black_Warrior]

I'm no longer as young as I'd like to be but CW memories will stay with me

 

[grecian]

Which one? Everyone in Furball's side played at least one Test in 1998; everyone in mine except Ramprakash played at least once in 1996. It's not like we suggested Gooch opening with Vaughan with Botham and Flintoff as all-rounders.

It's pure fantasy, because they weren't really playing together, so if the basic premise is that there were no bad players in the 90s then, it's just a pointless thing ib thos argument.

There have been some bad players this millennia but if you were to do a noughties side, it would be interesting the quality of players you would have to omit, only one of Strauss, Tresco or Cook to open, Vaighan 3, KP 4 Flintoff 6, but who gets the 5 berth, between Thorpe, Bell and Collingwood. WK Prior, but I suppose Stewart played 3 years, so did Gough and Caddick, Gough probably at his best, won't say Bropad as he was at his best afterwards, but you've got Harmison, Hoggard, Anderson, JoneS, going for the 3 pacers role. Spinner has to be Swann With Giles or Panesar in if you need two spinners.

As I say it's not about the first xi's that determines quality, it's about the depth, something we severely lacked in both the 80s and 90s.

I mean people talk about the great Windies and Australian sides of their times, but I was always shocked at the quality of players omitted, Daniels, Clarke, Davis, Law, Blewett, Eliott, Siddons never played a Test, that's the mark of a great team, yet we had a bloke averaging 27 with the bat play 54 Tests in the 90s, because we had so little options.

 

[AndrewB]

It's pure fantasy, because they weren't really playing together, so if the basic premise is that there were no bad players in the 90s then, it's just a pointless thing ib thos argument.

I assume the original claim was "it's wrong to say all England players in the 90s were bad", not "it's wrong to say any of them were bad".

There have been some bad players this millennia but if you were to do a noughties side, it would be interesting the quality of players you would have to omit, only one of Strauss, Tresco or Cook to open, Vaighan 3, KP 4 Flintoff 6, but who gets the 5 berth, between Thorpe, Bell and Collingwood. WK Prior, but I suppose Stewart played 3 years, so did Gough and Caddick, Gough probably at his best, won't say Bropad as he was at his best afterwards, but you've got Harmison, Hoggard, Anderson, JoneS, going for the 3 pacers role. Spinner has to be Swann With Giles or Panesar in if you need two spinners.

As I say it's not about the first xi's that determines quality, it's about the depth, something we severely lacked in both the 80s and 90s.

But this is the "years apart" issue you claimed for the 90s teams: Stewart, Gough and Caddick didn't play after 2003 (Gough barely played after 2001); Prior and Swann didn't debut until 2007/2008. The 90s teams suggested earlier didn't include Gooch, Gower or Lamb (who all average 40+ in the 90s).

I mean people talk about the great Windies and Australian sides of their times, but I was always shocked at the quality of players omitted, Daniels, Clarke, Davis, Law, Blewett, Eliott, Siddons never played a Test, that's the mark of a great team, yet we had a bloke averaging 27 with the bat play 54 Tests in the 90s, because we had so little options.

Blewett averaged 34 in 46 Tests, and Elliott 33 in 21 Tests (if I'm thinking of the right Elliott); about on a par with Crawley for England (or Hick's record in the 90s). Law, Siddons, Cox etc might have been huge successes in Test cricket - or they might have averaged in the mid 30s like Blewett and Elliott, or even less (Bevan averaged 57 in FC cricket and ODIs, but 29 in Tests).

(Also, nit-picking slightly but Ramprakash played 38 Tests in the 90s; despite his poor record, he then played another 14 Tests in the 00s).

 

[grecian]

I assume the original claim was "it's wrong to say all England players in the 90s were bad", not "it's wrong to say any of them were bad".



But this is the "years apart" issue you claimed for the 90s teams: Stewart, Gough and Caddick didn't play after 2003 (Gough barely played after 2001); Prior and Swann didn't debut until 2007/2008. The 90s teams suggested earlier didn't include Gooch, Gower or Lamb (who all average 40+ in the 90s).



Blewett averaged 34 in 46 Tests, and Elliott 33 in 21 Tests (if I'm thinking of the right Elliott); about on a par with Crawley for England (or Hick's record in the 90s). Law, Siddons, Cox etc might have been huge successes in Test cricket - or they might have averaged in the mid 30s like Blewett and Elliott, or even less (Bevan averaged 57 in FC cricket and ODIs, but 29 in Tests).

(Also, nit-picking slightly but Ramprakash played 38 Tests in the 90s; despite his poor record, he then played another 14 Tests in the 00s).

Well what he said was there was a myth that we had bad players during the 90s, which is what caused the discussion,if he'd said what you said there would be no discussion. He did then make a lot of qualifications, but they seem to be all about how he jizzed his pants at 90s players, and that the ones who played a lot were good, I disagree fundamentally.

Possibly why I over-rate Blewett and Elliott is they averaged 48 and 55 against England, which rather proves my point, England weren't very good.

I'm not sure what we're arguing about here, I'll admit I was wrong about Blewett didn't remember he'd played so much. Years apart may have been wrong too, hey I admit it, but ya know having guys average 27 and and in the 30s when that is your entire batting line-up is a bit different then having a few of them, whilst the likes of Steve Waugh and others were much better. Ramps, Crawley, Hick, of course not all fit neatly into the 90s, but how many Test was all that. .

I don't actually deny they were decent sides posted, but for the vast majority of the times the sides were weak and yes did have bad cricketers in. Devon Malcolm would be a classic example of this, seemingly only remembered for one spell now, yet even with that 9-57 he played 40 matches at an average of 37 on more bowler friendly pitches than now, we've had players play less with a much better record over the last 15 years or so. He was Appallingly bad for much of his career.

The fact is all these aussies would have played a lot more if they were English IMHO.

 

[AndrewB]

Well what he said was there was a myth that we had bad players during the 90s, which is what caused the discussion,if he'd said what you said there would be no discussion. He did then make a lot of qualifications, but they seem to be all about how he jizzed his pants at 90s players, and that the ones who played a lot were good, I disagree fundamentally.

I'm not sure what we're arguing about here, I'll admit I was wrong about Blewett didn't remember he'd played so much. Years apart may have been wrong too, hey I admit it, but ya know having guys average 27 and and in the 30s when that is your entire batting line-up is a bit different then having a few of them, whilst the likes of Steve Waugh and others were much better. Ramps, Crawley, Hick, of course not all fit neatly into the 90s, but how many Test was all that. .

I don't actually deny they were decent sides posted, but for the vast majority of the times the sides were weak and yes did have bad cricketers in. Devon Malcolm would be a classic example of this, seemingly only remembered for one spell now, yet even with that 9-57 he played 40 matches at an average of 37 on more bowler friendly pitches than now, we've had players play less with a much better record over the last 15 years or so. He was Appallingly bad for much of his career.

The fact is all these aussies would have played a lot more if they were English IMHO.

I think FWIW we probably agree on the main point (England weren't very good in the 90s and were a lot better in the 00s), and are arguing about minor points.

I probably overrate England in the 90s to some extent because supporting them was so much less grim that it had been in the late 80s; they had some decent players who every now and then would surprise you with an unexpected win, and had some competitive home series most years (they won at least one home Test every year, unlike 1984, 1986, 1987 and 1989).

Regarding, say, Blewett and Elliott - who knows? If they were playing for England they wouldn't have had the "easy" runs they actually scored against England, which would make Blewett's average 31 and Elliott's 24 (and that's without having to face the Aussie attack).

 

[grecian]

I think FWIW we probably agree on the main point (England weren't very good in the 90s and were a lot better in the 00s), and are arguing about minor points.

I probably overrate England in the 90s to some extent because supporting them was so much less grim that it had been in the late 80s; they had some decent players who every now and then would surprise you with an unexpected win, and had some competitive home series most years (they won at least one home Test every year, unlike 1984, 1986, 1987 and 1989).

Regarding, say, Blewett and Elliott - who knows? If they were playing for England they wouldn't have had the "easy" runs they actually scored against England, which would make Blewett's average 31 and Elliott's 24 (and that's without having to face the Aussie attack).

I actually edited that point in, but as I say it just shows we often bowled appallingly.

Yes the late-80s were probably the nadir, agreed, but ya know we had to face the Windies at their best, This Pakistan side weren't bad, even before Waqar. Hadlee was incredible for the Kiwis, Kapil great for Indiattoo with Sunny around for India when we lost to them.

In the end I think the false narrative here is that the 90s was so great over-all. Yet as I said I agree with you totally that our 80s side was hideously over-rated because of Headingley and all that. Yet you can almost understand it, for His first 5 years (which was a lot in the 70s) he was just incredible, but was just a pale-shadow after back/fat issues.

 

[Burgey]

Good point that the 90s is generally over rated on here, probably because it's the decade most posters here began watching.

With no sense of irony at all, those posters revere 90s players but like to say players from earlier eras get romanticized too much.

Those posters do that because they're imbeciles, btw.

 

[Shri]

Lara > Border (Not AB, Border.)