Are England The Real Deal?

[chasingthedon]

Guest feature writer Martyn Corrin looks at England's push to become number one world Test-playing nation and asks the question, are they the real deal?

Cricket Web - Features: Are England The Real Deal?

 

[GotSpin]

Guest feature writer Martyn Corrin looks at England's push to become number one world Test-playing nation and asks the question, are they the real deal?

Cricket Web - Features: Are England The Real Deal?

That's enough for me not to read it

 

[Uppercut]

That's enough for me not to read it

Um.. thanks for letting us know?

 

[vcs]

Hopefully not.

 

[GotSpin]

Um.. thanks for letting us know?

only a joke tbh. I did read it

 

[vcs]

Good article though. Well done GIMH.

 

[Spikey]

Guest feature writer Stephen King looks at Martyn Corrin's push to become a well respected writer and asks the question, is he the real deal?

 

[Teja.]

Guest feature writer Stephen King looks at Martyn Corrin's push to become a well respected writer and asks the question, is he the real deal?

His article on Flintoff was the best CW article ever tbh.

 

[Spikey]

"flintoff is no 1 aussies can suck it"?

 

[Blaze 18]

"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.

 

[keeper]

England are organised, fit and well planned and have great depth across their squad in terms of batting and bowling. They field well also. They have a lot of very good cricketers

What they lack is genius, a true great in batting and bowling. Layer one or two of the highest tier on this team and they would be seriously good.

 

[ankitj]

I think England has in general been short of explosive or unorthodox players. They need such players to remain a top team for long IMHO. Pietersen, Harmison, Flintoff all showed promise but fell short eventually (Pietersen can still do a lot though). Too much orthodoxy prevails in English cricket, which is also why their ODI cricket team hasn't been a real force.

 

[Bun]

England are organised, fit and well planned and have great depth across their squad in terms of batting and bowling. They field well also. They have a lot of very good cricketers

What they lack is genius, a true great in batting and bowling. Layer one or two of the highest tier on this team and they would be seriously good.

This.

England lacks "great" players. And all no.1 teams have had an ATG or two in them. WI had Richards, Marshall, and a plethora of others, Aus had McGrath, Warne, Ind have Tendulkar.

England lacks such players.

 

[hang on]

the genius point brought up by keeper is a good one.

but what worries me about the team is the lack of bowling depth. now this might seem weird or nonintuitive given that the bowling stocks are enviable but it seems that without an attack leader - and sometimes even with - the bowling is not particularly effective. the cardiff second innings being a complete anomaly. the fact that the lankans managed to get to 400 in reasonably helpful conditions, with their two main batsmen undercooked and out of sorts, playing only 5 batsmen, in 2 innings out of 3 was strange. the batting was good enough but the bowling was rather inept.

perhaps it is because of the youth and inexperience of the attack, the fixation with giant bowlers, the false understanding that broad is actually a good bowler etc.

good to get it off my chest! feel much better now.

 

[Howe_zat]

The fact that the last five occasions of a team being bowled out for under 100 have all come against England suggests that Cardiff isn't a total anomaly. Of those five occasions, none of England's bowlers have bowled in all of them.

 

[hang on]

i know. it does seem unintuitive but i get the feeling that the bowling will struggle to bowl out really strong batting lineups like that of the saffers and the indians on a regular basis.

 

[hang on]

bresnan in the team would be much better. and perhaps even onions.

 

[Howe_zat]

Okay. I tend to think that this happy knack they've picked up of repeadtedly bowling sides out for sod all is rather convincing. But if you don't agree then fair enough. I agree that Bresnan would be a good man to have in the side, but whether or not it's fair to drop Broad yet is something I'm unsure on right now.

For the record, skittling a team for less than 100 is not typically done on a daily basis.

The West indies only did it 7 times in the entire of the 1980s, and Australia have only done it 6 times since 2000. England meanwhile have got 10 wickets for double figures 5 times in the last year.

 

[Daemon]

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.

 

[Howe_zat]

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.

As though the West Indies never faced a dodgy batting lineup on a helpful wicket in the 80s? That stuff's besides the point when you're looking at these kinds of totals. It's a case of utterly wrecking the opposition.