Lack of English Batting Talent

[Richard]

They are the guys he has to go after. Let them bowl and they will dominate and kill you. Go after them and take the attack and suddenly a teams best weapon is not only neutralised but becomes a weakness and suddenly their is doubt over a teams best bowler and that has a huge psychological impact.

Witness Hayden against Pollock this WC and off the top of my head, how Baby Ben took on McGrath on ODI debut.

Those, IMO, are just isolated instances. You can say it's best to attack them - well, maybe. And, of course, in a ODI you can't just go out there with the intention of letting someone bowl (except in excptional circumstances like if you're chasing a small score).

But I just can't see a batsman like Brown having much success against bowlers of that calibre.

 

[Goughy]

Those, IMO, are just isolated instances. You can say it's best to attack them - well, maybe. And, of course, in a ODI you can't just go out there with the intention of letting someone bowl (except in excptional circumstances like if you're chasing a small score).

But I just can't see a batsman like Brown having much success against bowlers of that calibre.

You do know he hit the fastest 50 in Texaco ODIs in England (off 31 balls) against an attack including Pollock, Donald and Klusener (was runout as well rather than 'got' out)

 

[Richard]

Oh, yes, certainly do - I watched that game, and have seen highlights of it more than once.

But I don't see it happening all that often.

 

[wpdavid]

Im not going to go into the current side and the rights and wrongs of certain selections.

I just wanted to have a look at what else was available.

What I did was set criteria based on Domestic List A performances that I would want English players to meet and tried to see how long the list of candidates that fulfilled the criteria would be.

I had no idea how many players would make the list.

1. Stats from the last 2 season used to show consistency
2. Strike rate min of 80 in both the last 2 seasons. Need to be able to score quickly off Domestic attacks if you want to do it at International level
3. At least 1 century in each season. Ability to play a big, matchwinning innings rather than just cameos.
4. Average of over 35 in both of the last 2 seasons. Showing consistency and I believe 35 should be a rough approx. of the min. International calibre players should achieve

In all honesty, I didnt think the qualifying targets were that difficult to meet. And they weren't for foreign players.

The English Players List
Ali Brown
Marcus Trescothick

Thats it, thats the list

Very poor.

Interesting, albeit depressing statistics. A couple of questions for you, if I may.

1. Who were the foreigners who hit the targets?
2. How many Englishmen managed to hit them in 2006 alone?

 

[steds]

Hyper-extending elbow != chucker.

 

[steds]

Completely OT, but thats true in other areas as well. Guys with British accents get naturally higher grades during presentations in US business schools.

Even the brummies?

 

[steds]

2. How many Englishmen managed to hit them in 2006 alone?

Name                Mat    I  NO  Runs   HS     Ave     SR 100 50   Ct St Team

JGE Benning          12   12   2   612  189*  61.20 118.37   1  5    3  - SURREY
OA Shah              16   16   4   732  125*  61.00  85.91   3  4   12  - MIDDX
CC Benham            11   10   1   487  158   54.11  93.29   2  3    4  - HANTS
MB Loye              16   16   2   751  127   53.64  92.71   2  5    1  - LANCS
MR Ramprakash        11   11   3   403  106*  50.37  85.74   1  2    3  - SURREY
ME Trescothick       10   10   0   485  158   48.50  91.16   2  1    3  - SOMERSET/ENG
CMW Read             14   10   2   356  135   44.50 106.26   1  2    9  - NOTTS/ENG
RC Irani             15   15   2   577  132*  44.38  81.26   2  3    4  - ESSEX
MJ Wood              18   17   1   690  116   43.12  88.91   1  6    2  - SOMERSET
RS Bopara            17   14   3   424  101*  38.54  82.65   1  4    6  - ESSEX
DL Maddy             16   16   1   565  167*  37.66  85.60   2  2   11  - LEICS
AD Brown             15   14   1   456  106   35.07 117.82   1  2    4  - SURREY

 

[Barney Rubble]

Name                Mat    I  NO  Runs   HS     Ave     SR 100 50   Ct St Team

JGE Benning          12   12   2   612  189*  61.20 118.37   1  5    3  - SURREY
OA Shah              16   16   4   732  125*  61.00  85.91   3  4   12  - MIDDX
CC Benham            11   10   1   487  158   54.11  93.29   2  3    4  - HANTS
MB Loye              16   16   2   751  127   53.64  92.71   2  5    1  - LANCS
MR Ramprakash        11   11   3   403  106*  50.37  85.74   1  2    3  - SURREY
[B]ME Trescothick       10   10   0   485  158   48.50  91.16   2  1    3  - SOMERSET/ENG[/B]
CMW Read             14   10   2   356  135   44.50 106.26   1  2    9  - NOTTS/ENG
RC Irani             15   15   2   577  132*  44.38  81.26   2  3    4  - ESSEX
[B]MJ Wood              18   17   1   690  116   43.12  88.91   1  6    2  - SOMERSET[/B]RS Bopara            17   14   3   424  101*  38.54  82.65   1  4    6  - ESSEX
DL Maddy             16   16   1   565  167*  37.66  85.60   2  2   11  - LEICS
AD Brown             15   14   1   456  106   35.07 117.82   1  2    4  - SURREY

 

[The Baconator]

Even the brummies?

Nowt wrong with a good brummie. It's the Geordies I'd worry about in that department.

 

[Richard]

?

 

[Richard]

Nowt wrong with a good brummie. It's the Geordies I'd worry about in that department.

 

[open365]

It's the way kids are brought up with cricket imo.

Kids don't play cricket on there own in the street like they do in other countries, they get taught and participate in organized competition and training, it's a case of orthodoxy produces orthodoxy and modern ODI cricket is a game that requires innovation and intuitiveness, the two things the English system doesn't produce.

I think it can be bracketed into two sections;

Technical
English players in general are orthodox, from an early age they are coached to play straight with high elbow, we are taught that technique is the ultimate factor in a players ability and as such loose focus on the end result. In countries where kids are less coached, young batsmen focuse less on the acctual shot and more on the intention of the shot.

For instance, some children in India are playing a game in the street, the batsman hits the ball to mid off, no runs. Next ball, the batsman remembers that hitting the ball straight won't bring him any runs, so he hits the ball to the left of mid off and runs to the other end. He doesn't think about the shot he's played as a stright drive or an on drive, he just hits it there.

In England, a player is more likely to hit the ball at mid off, admire the correctness of his off-drive and do the same thing next ball because he only has one shot to a half volley on off stump.

Classic examples of this are England's top 3, look at Ian Bell's innings against Ireland, countless times he hit the same delivery with the same straight bat to the same fielder at mid of for no runs, it was tedious and frustrating. When Bell finaly did mis the field, KP comes on strike. KP, being born and raised in South Africa, realises that to score runs of this slow bowler he must pick the gaps and instead of playing an orthodox straight drive, he stands tall and muscles it into a gap on the leg side, a shot which a young batsman in England wouldn't play because he only knows the straight drive.

Mental
I feel that England, as a country, lack match winners. I think that the system in England diminishes responsibility, again, it is too orthodox, the players we produce are too blinkered and narrow in their games. For instance, it is harder for Micheal Vaughan to increase the pace of his innings as he just doesn't have the shots. KP on the other hand, does it naturaly as his game is based around results, not the shot he played to get them.

Not commenting on whether it's right or wrong, but i get the feeling other countries place more emphasis on sport and winning in paticular. I get the feeling that more dad's in other countries are getting angry when their son under performs and rewarding him when he succeeds. I feel that in England we say "It's the taking part that counts" A lot more than any other country.


These two things are imo why England are better at tests than ODIs, players like Bell and Vaughan fair better in the test arena where there is less need for unorthodoxy or strokemaking, they can just bat and not have to consider how quickly they are doing so. Also in general test cricket doesn't produce as many pressure situations as ODIs because in a one day match the side who is chasing a target that is reasonably difficult to get is almost always under pressure to keep up with the rate(and hence play shots). In tests, the emphasis is nearly always on just being there instead of having to score, and Ian Bell is quite good at just being there.

 

[Richard]

There's no doubt that the British psyche as regards sport is different to many other places. And it's for that reason that I don't ever see British teams topping The World in any sport for long any more. Not since before the First World War have England ever been number-one at cricket, for instance, for long.

And TBH - if monumental one-offs like The Ashes 2005 keep us happy, then, well, why change? The British treat sport the way the British treat sport - it's neither right nor wrong. But I don't see it changing, and I'm not unhappy for it not to. Some may view that as a defeatist attitude - I disagree. As I say - things are what you make of them.

 

[open365]

For gods sake i spent half an hour writing that can somebody at least nominate me for an award?

Even a thanks for trying one would do

 

[Richard]

It's the way kids are brought up with cricket imo.

Kids don't play cricket on there own in the street like they do in other countries, they get taught and participate in organized competition and training, it's a case of orthodoxy produces orthodoxy and modern ODI cricket is a game that requires innovation and intuitiveness, the two things the English system doesn't produce.

I think it can be bracketed into two sections;

Technical
English players in general are orthodox, from an early age they are coached to play straight with high elbow, we are taught that technique is the ultimate factor in a players ability and as such loose focus on the end result. In countries where kids are less coached, young batsmen focuse less on the acctual shot and more on the intention of the shot.

For instance, some children in India are playing a game in the street, the batsman hits the ball to mid off, no runs. Next ball, the batsman remembers that hitting the ball straight won't bring him any runs, so he hits the ball to the left of mid off and runs to the other end. He doesn't think about the shot he's played as a stright drive or an on drive, he just hits it there.

In England, a player is more likely to hit the ball at mid off, admire the correctness of his off-drive and do the same thing next ball because he only has one shot to a half volley on off stump.

Classic examples of this are England's top 3, look at Ian Bell's innings against Ireland, countless times he hit the same delivery with the same straight bat to the same fielder at mid of for no runs, it was tedious and frustrating. When Bell finaly did mis the field, KP comes on strike. KP, being born and raised in South Africa, realises that to score runs of this slow bowler he must pick the gaps and instead of playing an orthodox straight drive, he stands tall and muscles it into a gap on the leg side, a shot which a young batsman in England wouldn't play because he only knows the straight drive.

Mental
I feel that England, as a country, lack match winners. I think that the system in England diminishes responsibility, again, it is too orthodox, the players we produce are too blinkered and narrow in their games. For instance, it is harder for Micheal Vaughan to increase the pace of his innings as he just doesn't have the shots. KP on the other hand, does it naturaly as his game is based around results, not the shot he played to get them.

Not commenting on whether it's right or wrong, but i get the feeling other countries place more emphasis on sport and winning in paticular. I get the feeling that more dad's in other countries are getting angry when their son under performs and rewarding him when he succeeds. I feel that in England we say "It's the taking part that counts" A lot more than any other country.


These two things are imo why England are better at tests than ODIs, players like Bell and Vaughan fair better in the test arena where there is less need for unorthodoxy or strokemaking, they can just bat and not have to consider how quickly they are doing so. Also in general test cricket doesn't produce as many pressure situations as ODIs because in a one day match the side who is chasing a target that is reasonably difficult to get is almost always under pressure to keep up with the rate(and hence play shots). In tests, the emphasis is nearly always on just being there instead of having to score, and Ian Bell is quite good at just being there.

An all-time Greigy methinks!

(That do ya? )

 

[thierry henry]

Im not going to go into the current side and the rights and wrongs of certain selections.

I just wanted to have a look at what else was available.

What I did was set criteria based on Domestic List A performances that I would want English players to meet and tried to see how long the list of candidates that fulfilled the criteria would be.

I had no idea how many players would make the list.

1. Stats from the last 2 season used to show consistency
2. Strike rate min of 80 in both the last 2 seasons. Need to be able to score quickly off Domestic attacks if you want to do it at International level
3. At least 1 century in each season. Ability to play a big, matchwinning innings rather than just cameos.
4. Average of over 35 in both of the last 2 seasons. Showing consistency and I believe 35 should be a rough approx. of the min. International calibre players should achieve

In all honesty, I didnt think the qualifying targets were that difficult to meet. And they weren't for foreign players.

The English Players List
Ali Brown
Marcus Trescothick

Thats it, thats the list

Very poor.

Those qualifications are tougher than you are making out. I don't think anyone in NZ would meet them, and only one Australian does! Yet apparently we are producing destructive batsmen.

 

[Richard]

Ross Taylor.

 

[FBU]

I've been saying it for, oh, 5 years at least.

For some reason, we just don't seem to produce many quality one-day batsmen. And the few we do produce (Usman Afzaal) don't get picked, with those of First-Class pedigree preferred.

The annoying thing is, that should mean loads of bowlers with good records - but it doesn't. There are only a small handful of bowlers with even reasonable one-day economy-rates, those being the like of Ealham, Gough, Mascarenhas, Martin-Jenkins and Killeen, and they get completely ignored in favour of "wicket-takers" (what utter nonsense) like Kirtley, Tudor, Harmison, Kabir Ali, Mahmood, Wharf, Simon Jones, Tremlett, Plunkett, Broad and Panesar. And heck, even those like Tim Bresnan who've done precisely nothing of note in their entire careers.

Bad domestic performance is compounded by bad selection. And yet there's no reason, at all, that there should be so few high-calibre cricketers at the limited-overs game. It's not like we don't play enough of it, at both club and county level.

Usman Afzaal. - reminds me of an amazing game. Notts v Sussex. Notts at about 90/5 with Sussex bowling like gods. Afzaal at the crease with Chris Cairns. Afzaal could not get a run to get Cairns to the strikers end although managed to get a single of a last over and pinch the strike. 8 runs from 5 overs. Finally he got out and Chris Read came to the crease with about 12 overs left.. A few quick singles and they were up and running and smashed the bowling to pieces Read getting about 80 runs and Cairns 90. I have never rated Afzaal. Shah is miles better.

 

[thierry henry]

NZ- THE LIST

J Marshall

 

[thierry henry]

Ross Taylor.

No, not this season....the 2 before, perhaps