• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

How come English can't bat?

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Lillian Thomson said:
Why do so many people start replies with "um" or "err". No one can help a speech impediment but there's no need to include it in the message.:wacko:

Ummm...because sometimes it adds to the 'meaning' of the sentence, its kind of like an emoticon.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
aussie tragic said:
Actually, I think I've just figured it out, if Warne can average 30 odd in county cricket and his test average is 16, then test cricket average = 1/2 county average, so as Ramprakash averaged 103.54 this year, he should be a 50+ average test player......oh wait, he only averaged 27 in tests :wacko:

County Cricket.......:D I used to watch Somerset a bit in the 70's early 80's and could turn up and see the likes of Richards, Garner and Botham on one side and people like Clive Lloyd and Colin Croft on the other side....or maybe Zaheer Abbas and Mike Proctor........or even Barry Richards, Gordon Greenidge and Andy Roberts.....not to mention Rohan Kanhai or Alvin Kallicharran..........if Kent were playing there would be Underwood, Knott, Asif Iqbal and Bernard Julian.
These days the England players don't play and the overseas stars are third rate journeymen and Kolpak players from Denmark...........County Cricket is no gauge at all of anything.
 

aussie tragic

International Captain
Lillian Thomson said:
I suppose now all the jokes will come out about why England can't field either.:)
Well we've established they can't bat (no batsmen ended career on 50+ since 1968), can't bowl (no bowler ended career with < 25 ave since 1965), so I'd say fielding would be next to analyse, but then I remember Derek Randall, so I won't go there :)
 
Last edited:

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
aussie tragic said:
No, England just likes clogging up the middle order with the following :)
aussie tragic said:
Fletcher (39.90)
Averaged 46.62 against teams other than Australia. Clearly he had a bogey team.
aussie tragic said:
Denness (39.69)
Mike Denness was never good enough to average 50+ in Test cricket. He didn't even average 40+ in FC cricket.
aussie tragic said:
Broad (39.54)
Averaged 46.50 against teams other than the West Indies. Understandable.
aussie tragic said:
Stewart (39.54)
Without the gloves to consider, I have no doubt that Stewart could have averaged 50+ or at least pretty damn close to it. Fine batsman and good batsman-wicketkeeper.
aussie tragic said:
Atherton (37.69)
Atherton averaged over 40 for most of his career and probably could have been a 50+ if not for various factos, not the least playing in a substandard England side that was almost unerringly overawed by Australia and the West Indies.
aussie tragic said:
Hussain (37.18)
Hussain played above his ability and I have immense respect for him. He was one of those fighting, hardworking cricketers with a brilliant cricketing brain. In essence, he was England's Steve Waugh, if a less talented version.

Hussain made the best of his ability and went further with it. Class cricketer for that reason alone.
aussie tragic said:
Lamb (36.09)
Had he retired after his 3rd Test, he would have averaged over 50. :p
aussie tragic said:
Gatting (35.55)
Averaged 26.90 after his first 33 matches. Over his next 46 he averaged 40+. Against teams other than the West Indies, he averaged 45+.
aussie tragic said:
Crawley (34.61)
Averaged 42.76 over his last 12 Tests before being dropped.
aussie tragic said:
Butcher (34.58)
Averaged 26.26 over his first 31 Tests. From then on he averaged a commendable 41.73.
aussie tragic said:
Botham (33.54)
An allrounder so immense that his impact was massive regardless of a sub-50 batting average. Botham was never a good enough batsman to average 50+, but he was still outstanding and a great allrounder. His bowling average at that time 18.69.
aussie tragic said:
Randall (33.37)
See Denness.
aussie tragic said:
Flintoff (33.08)
An allrounder. Not expected to average over 50 in this day and age. That said, he does average over 40 over his last 40 Tests. Yet his batting average was 40.97 after his 26th Test.
aussie tragic said:
Tavare (32.50)
See Randall.
aussie tragic said:
Hick (31.32)
Ramprakash (27.32)
Underachievers who blatantly can bat.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
Averaged 46.62 against teams other than Australia. Clearly he had a bogey team.

Mike Denness was never good enough to average 50+ in Test cricket. He didn't even average 40+ in FC cricket.

Averaged 46.50 against teams other than the West Indies. Understandable.

Without the gloves to consider, I have no doubt that Stewart could have averaged 50+ or at least pretty damn close to it. Fine batsman and good batsman-wicketkeeper.

Atherton averaged over 40 for most of his career and probably could have been a 50+ if not for various factos, not the least playing in a substandard England side that was almost unerringly overawed by Australia and the West Indies.

Hussain played above his ability and I have immense respect for him. He was one of those fighting, hardworking cricketers with a brilliant cricketing brain. In essence, he was England's Steve Waugh, if a less talented version.

Hussain made the best of his ability and went further with it. Class cricketer for that reason alone.

Had he retired after his 3rd Test, he would have averaged over 50. :p

Averaged 26.90 after his first 33 matches. Over his next 46 he averaged 40+. Against teams other than the West Indies, he averaged 45+.

Averaged 42.76 over his last 12 Tests before being dropped.

Averaged 26.26 over his first 31 Tests. From then on he averaged a commendable 41.73.

An allrounder so immense that his impact was massive regardless of a sub-50 batting average. Botham was never a good enough batsman to average 50+, but he was still outstanding and a great allrounder. His bowling average at that time 18.69.

See Denness.

An allrounder. Not expected to average over 50 in this day and age. That said, he does average over 40 over his last 40 Tests. Yet his batting average was 40.97 after his 26th Test.

See Randall.

Underachievers who blatantly can bat.
Nice things you say, yet most other international batsman also have a 'bogey' team and yet still manage to average more.
 

aussie tragic

International Captain
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
Without the gloves to consider, I have no doubt that Stewart could have averaged 50+ or at least pretty damn close to it. Fine batsman and good batsman-wicketkeeper.

An allrounder so immense that his impact was massive regardless of a sub-50 batting average. Botham was never a good enough batsman to average 50+, but he was still outstanding and a great allrounder. His bowling average at that time 18.69.

An allrounder [Flintoff]. Not expected to average over 50 in this day and age. That said, he does average over 40 over his last 40 Tests. Yet his batting average was 40.97 after his 26th .
I have utmost respect for Botham and Flintoff (I wish they were Australian) and Stewart was of course an excellent keeper/batsman. The only reason I included them in that list is that they were regulars in the top 6 despite only averaging in the 30's so IMO, it shows the english batting was weak as these three would be better suited as great # 7's (I acknowledge that they had the potential to average in the 40's at # 6, but they didn't).
 
Last edited:

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
silentstriker said:
Nice things you say, yet most other international batsman also have a 'bogey' team and yet still manage to average more.
Most international batsmen don't average over 50 in Test cricket.
 

aussie tragic

International Captain
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
Most international batsmen don't average over 50 in Test cricket.
No, but the thread is why have England not been able to produce any since 1968. The following are the ones from other countries (min 10 tests):

India: Gavaskar, Kambli, Dravid, Sehwag, Tendulkar

Australia: G. Chappell, Border, S Waugh, Hayden, Ponting

West Indies: Davis, Sobers, Richards, Lara

Pakistan: Miandad, Inzamam-ul-Haq, Yousif

South Africa: G. Pollock, Kallis, Smith

Zimbabwe: A. Flower
 

aussie tragic

International Captain
Dasa said:
His average is under 49.25 now.
That'll teach me to believe everything I read.

Cricinfo South Africa "Current Player" page has him averaging 50.37, while his player page has him at 49.25 :wacko:
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
silentstriker said:
But these ones don't even average 40.
As stated before, the majority of the players in question are from an era of mediocrity within English cricket. Almost exclusively, those players barely averaged 40 outside of international cricket, so they were hardly picked as top class batsmen. That, however, does not mean they cannot bat. Marvan Atapattu can bat, but he doesn't average 40 in Test cricket.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
aussie tragic said:
That'll teach me to believe everything I read.

Cricinfo South Africa "Current Player" page has him averaging 50.37, while his player page has him at 49.25 :wacko:
Because when he batted twice for the World XI, he wasn't representing South Africa.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
As stated before, the majority of the players in question are from an era of mediocrity within English cricket. Almost exclusively, those players barely averaged 40 outside of international cricket, so they were hardly picked as top class batsmen. That, however, does not mean they cannot bat. Marvan Atapattu can bat, but he doesn't average 40 in Test cricket.

Um, I "can bat" too. If you score a single international run, you can bat. That doesn't mean that you can bat 'well'. That is what the implication of the thread title is. Its not literal - obviously they "can" bat.

The question is "Why are there so many mediocre English batsman?" Thats like disputing the question, "Why can't the Indians bowl?"

That statement does not imply that Indians cannot bowl at all, it just implies that they cannot bowl all that "well", and the original post is asking for reasons to explain the lack of "good" English batsmen in the last forty years.

And no, Marvan Atapattu can't bat all that well or he would have averaged more. He was good for SL cricket because they didn't have other, better quality, players.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
silentstriker said:
Um, I "can bat" too. If you score a single international run, you can bat. That doesn't mean that you can bat 'well'. That is what the implication of the thread title is. Its not literal - obviously they "can" bat.

The question is "Why are there so many mediocre English batsman?" Thats like disputing the question, "Why can't the Indians bowl?"

That statement does not imply that Indians cannot bowl at all, it just implies that they cannot bowl all that "well", and the original post is asking for reasons to explain the lack of "good" English batsmen in the last forty years.

And no, Marvan Atapattu can't bat all that well or he would have averaged more. He was good for SL cricket because they didn't have other, better quality, players.
Clearly you miss my point ENTIRELY. If I'm less tired later on in the night, I'll restate it.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
Without the gloves to consider, I have no doubt that Stewart could have averaged 50+ or at least pretty damn close to it. Fine batsman and good batsman-wicketkeeper.
Not with his ability or rather inability to play quality spin bowlers. Stewart was always a fine player against pace bowlers when the ball came on to the bat, but on a sluggish wicket he rarely ever managed to perform anywhere near as well as he should have(and his record in the subcontinent bears testiment to that). I think the whole with and without gloves is a bit overrated, i dont think keeping should affect anyone's playing ability and his record without the gloves is merely down to coincidence. At best i think he would have averaged around 45.

Mr Mxyzptlk said:
Atherton averaged over 40 for most of his career and probably could have been a 50+ if not for various factos, not the least playing in a substandard England side that was almost unerringly overawed by Australia and the West Indies.
Not to mention playing with a bad back for a majority of his career.

Mr Mxyzptlk said:
Hussain played above his ability and I have immense respect for him. He was one of those fighting, hardworking cricketers with a brilliant cricketing brain. In essence, he was England's Steve Waugh, if a less talented version.

Hussain made the best of his ability and went further with it. Class cricketer for that reason alone.
I think when looking back at Hussain's career, one has to consider the period after the SA series in 2000 right until the Ashes series, where the rigours of captaincy not least the burden of having to remodel the English selection process as well as a lot of other factors clearly started to get to him at a time when he would have otherwise been in his prime. Would no doubt have averaged 40+ otherwise IMo.
 

Top