Why do England struggle to produce undisputedly great players?

[listento_me]

I most certainly would not describe someone with over 250 wickets at a sub 30 average as mediocre.

would you think of picking him an all time ODI XI? Or even a 21st century international XI? Plus, if you're giving away almost 30 runs a wickets in ODI cricket, it doesn't exactly make you great.

maybe mediocre was harsh but that doesn't change any of the above.

 

[Furball]

No I wouldn't but that still doesn't make him mediocre.

 

[listento_me]

No I wouldn't but that still doesn't make him mediocre.

still not a top level ODI operator then.

 

[Furball]

Oh for **** sake.

I haven't said that at any stage.

Since Anderson debuted, only 3 bowlers have taken more ODI wickets than he has. He's taken in excess of 250 wickets at a fairly respectable average.

All of this points to Anderson being a pretty good ODI bowler. He walks into an England all time XI, although that probably says as much about England's options for an all time team as it does for Anderson's prowess. But he's been a largely good ODI bowler, with the odd period of excellence thrown in (he was the outstanding new ball bowler for 2 years immediately after the 2 new balls rule was introduced.)

Now this doesn't mean I'm rushing to pick him in my all time ODI XI or anything like that, but it's a long way removed from Anderson being a mediocre ODI bowler as you've claimed.

 

[grecian]

still not a top level ODI operator then.

You seem very insistent to rule out Jimmeh on an average record in OdI's, but not so much on Kp/ As I say i don't think either is a great. Kp's record in ODI's just doesn't cut it compared to greats of this era, Amla, ABVD, Kohli, Smith, it's worse than his Test career.

I suppose if you care that much for limited-overs it does strengthen Freddies case, perhaps Swann to, but meh. Are we counting t20 too?

 

[listento_me]

You seem very insistent to rule out Jimmeh on an average record in OdI's, but not so much on Kp/ As I say i don't think either is a great. Kp's record in ODI's just doesn't cut it compared to greats of this era, Amla, ABVD, Kohli, Smith, it's worse than his Test career.

I suppose if you care that much for limited-overs it does strengthen Freddies case, perhaps Swann to, but meh. Are we counting t20 too?

I wouldn't count t20 and neither would any serious lover of the game but ODI cricket has been counted as part of a great cricketers career for a long time. It forms about 40% of Tendulkars legacy and a similar chunk of Wasim and Waqars legacies. I don't see how this is even up for debate.

Now, onto the rest of the discussion. Jimmys turn in ODI cricket is respectable and like I said, saying mediocre was probably harsh but he is far from great in ODIs. His number of wickets is testament to his time in the ODI game, spanning some 13 years (I know a few were spent out of the team). Once again, Jimmy has grafted in terms of longevity to achieve those numbers, which have not come through greatness. It's very much like Bernard Hopkins and his legacy as opposed to Ray Leonard.

In terms of Freddy, he averages less than 25 with the ball and consistently bowled at 90 or more mph. If only his test career was stronger and his batting better, he'd be a lock as a great all rounder. Certainly a more valuable English player imo than Jimmy. The same goes for Swann, especially to average under 30, as a spinner. Oh and England can't have won their only ICC tournament if it wasnt for a certain KP.

Look, none of this is to say Jimmy is bad, in fact, he has been one of my favourites for years now. A very skilled operator, a fine swinger of the ball and a terrific example of fitness and longevity in sport. But if I take my personal opinions out of it, he doesnt isn't an atg. An English great certainly, maybe even a 21st century great if I'm pushing it but not all time.

 

[grecian]

I wouldn't count t20 and neither would any serious lover of the game but ODI cricket has been counted as part of a great cricketers career for a long time. It forms about 40% of Tendulkars legacy and a similar chunk of Wasim and Waqars legacies. I don't see how this is even up for debate.

Now, onto the rest of the discussion. Jimmys turn in ODI cricket is respectable and like I said, saying mediocre was probably harsh but he is far from great in ODIs. His number of wickets is testament to his time in the ODI game, spanning some 13 years (I know a few were spent out of the team). Once again, Jimmy has grafted in terms of longevity to achieve those numbers, which have not come through greatness. It's very much like Bernard Hopkins and his legacy as opposed to Ray Leonard.

In terms of Freddy, he averages less than 25 with the ball and consistently bowled at 90 or more mph. If only his test career was stronger and his batting better, he'd be a lock as a great all rounder. Certainly a more valuable English player imo than Jimmy. The same goes for Swann, especially to average under 30, as a spinner. Oh and England can't have won their only ICC tournament if it wasnt for a certain KP.

Look, none of this is to say Jimmy is bad, in fact, he has been one of my favourites for years now. A very skilled operator, a fine swinger of the ball and a terrific example of fitness and longevity in sport. But if I take my personal opinions out of it, he doesnt isn't an atg. An English great certainly, maybe even a 21st century great if I'm pushing it but not all time.

I thought we weren't counting T20, oh but we are now, all that whilst ignoring KP's ODI record, well done.

As I say i don't rate Jimmeh as a great either, but it's just because he was poor for an huge part of his Test career, and you can't ignore that, he's possibly been great for a part of his career, but that's the same with all these England players mentioned. Hence why it's an interesting question.

 

[CapeTown Guy]

hahaha

I've gone to England tests and made fun of Broady but he's always taken it with a bit of a smile. Good lad.



I can see the comparison, although I don't agree with the last sentence.

Having said that, it's important to understand atg have to be good in all forms of cricket, tests and ODIs. Jimmy is pretty mediocre in ODIs.

You mind elaborating on why you disagree? Like I said, I regard Anderson = Ntini.

Obviously stylistically they are not the same at all, but in terms of record they are quite similar, which you agree with seemingly.

Both, even at their best, was never even close to being the best in the world, whilst being clearly the best seamer in their own team for several years. Although both have taken a whole host of wickets internationally, and anyone with over 400 Test scalps has to be pretty good. When compared to the contemporary best bowlers, they are nowhere close. Steyn>Anderson, McGrath>Ntini.

Admittedly that is comparing them with two genuine ATGs, but Ntini, for instance, would struggle to make SA's third ATG XI. While the Poms obviously love him, I cant imagine Anderson would be regarded as one of England's best.

Number of wickets taken over a long career aside, neither's record in terms of SR or Ave are that great in the bigger scheme of things.

I am talking purely of Tests though. ODI talk is a completely different discussion.

 

[marc71178]

You can definitely not say that Anderson has never been close to being the best in the world. Pure unadulterated bollocks.

 

[weldone]

Cook thinks Anderson is the best bowler from England ever. He also thinks Fidel Edwards is as good a bowler as the WI greats from 80s (a roundabout way of saying that he's better than Gavaskar).

So, this thread doesn't make sense according to Cook

 

[Coronis]

You can definitely not say that Anderson has never been close to being the best in the world. Pure unadulterated bollocks.

Nah.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Depends on your definition of 'close to being the best' really.

If you define it as being in the top few in the world then Marc is right because Anderson has definitely been in the top few in the world for a good few years. On the other hand, if you define it as being close, ability wise, to the person who is the best in the world then (IMO) it's absolutely fair to say Anderson has never been that close. There has always been daylight between Steyn and him AFAIC.

 

[Scaly piscine]

To get back to the original question, I'd say it is partly a cultural thing. In other countries players have to fight hard every step of the way just to scrape a living out of the game, the alternative to *not* making it at cricket can be pretty desperate. So there's not that same drive. This is exacerbated by it being a posh boys club in England, with the ECB rejuvenating this spirit of utter scumbaggery with their **** job of Durham, there has always been politics and ****ing over of northerners which has somewhat diminished the careers of guys like Trueman and Boycott. Essentially to become a great I think you need a bit of that grit and steel, that hunger to keep working harder and harder even when you're near the top. While the old boy network excels at providing high class facilities and technically sound players, you need that bit extra something to be great. An over my dead body stubbornness, never being satisfied and striving for more.

I think the lack of class in Australia and their drive to not just be the best but to dominate is what would separate them from England in terms of producing great cricketers. Australia is much more straight-talking and less political too. England in the past couple of decades have generally been satisfied whenever they win a series or reach number 1. That sort of thing filters through to players.

 

[Furball]

Depends on your definition of 'close to being the best' really.

If you define it as being in the top few in the world then Marc is right because Anderson has definitely been in the top few in the world for a good few years. On the other hand, if you define it as being close, ability wise, to the person who is the best in the world then (IMO) it's absolutely fair to say Anderson has never been that close. There has always been daylight between Steyn and him AFAIC.

There have been times where they have been as good as each other. 2010/11 immediately springs to mind as a period where there was nothing between them, and Anderson has arguably been the best quick in the world over the last year.

The difference between them has been that Steyn has rarely relented from his standards, whereas Anderson has had his periods where he has been less effective.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Not buying it. Steyn in 2010-11 was insane. Anderson was awesome too, but I don't think anyone thought he was better, even on form back then.

 

[Furball]

On form between 2010 and 2011 there was nothing to choose between them. Steyn was number 1 as he'd been awesome for longer but if you're only considering those 2 years then it's very close.

 

[Daemon]

Poor diets imo.

Some 542,000 people aged 15 or over have adopted a plant-based diet. According to the Vegan Society, the survey proves that veganism is now one of Britain's “fastest growing lifestyle movements”

 

[CapeTown Guy]

On form between 2010 and 2011 there was nothing to choose between them. Steyn was number 1 as he'd been awesome for longer but if you're only considering those 2 years then it's very close.

So Anderson had roughly one or two peak seasons where he was comparable with Steyn?

Steyn: All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Anderson: All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Don't mean to derail the thread, but frankly, only an Englishman would regard Anderson higher.

 

[grecian]

So Anderson had roughly one or two peak seasons where he was comparable with Steyn?

Steyn: All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Anderson: All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Don't mean to derail the thread, but frankly, only an Englishman would regard Anderson higher.

Epic

 

[91Jmay]

So if Anderson was the second best seamer in the world, that kind of blows the argument he was never nearly one of the worlds best out of the water doesn't it?