Even with less focus on cricket, you’d still expect England to produce at least a few bonafide ATG batsmen/bowlers but they haven’t debuted even one player since 1960 that would fit into all time test xi. Even New Zealand and Sri Lanka have produced one in that time. It’s quite shocking tbh.
What type of pitch will Swann go hard on that Maharaj won't? They are really similar bowlers.
This is just for players that have debuted since 1990 (so no Gooch) as SA weren’t playing test cricket in the 80s and 70s
Original post said nothing about them debuting in 90s. Only including Gooch for his 90s performances should be fair as 45 games is a decent sample.
They only similarities is that they are spinners. One as far better than the other
Oops forgot to mention it in this thread, my bad. Meant for it to be for players that have debuted since the date mentioned like the other threads so I guess Stewart comes in for Gooch.
They are both finger spinners who relied mainly on flight and turning the ball big in one direction. Very similar bowlers.
How exactly does Maharaj face much more competition for wickets?
I thought he was joking but maybe he isn’t…
For batting:
What do those stats have to do with competition for wickets? If anything they’d favour his point, not yours.
Two questionable choices.
He doesn't have a point was my first point.
That's insane
Not at. That England team is full of big match players who performed when they played the very best. The SA only have a handful.
Gough, Flintoff and Swann cannot stand to the attack of Donald, Pollock and Maharaj, England might win a match but SA would win 95 out of 100 matches
Pretty sure a team including Flintoff and 2 or 3 other England players from my XI won a series in SA where SA team included 5 or 6 from my XI
Then why is SA better if England have a lot more big match players?
Because one relies more on quality and one relies more on freak performances. Over time, quality wins.