Why do England struggle to produce undisputedly great players?

[Adders]

It's a pointless argument in the end, unless you have a mathematical definition of "great", there'll never be a definitive answer.

Same goes for just about every discussion on CW.......may as well just shut the site now and be done with it.

 

[Howe_zat]

Some possible reasons England have produced fewer top-tier players than other good teams in the last 30 years

1. England happened to be pretty **** for a while. 1985-2000 we won 10 out of 39 series, and the only side we beat away from home was NZ. That doesn't help. Bit chicken/egg but you can argue that great players need a stable base to come out of.

2. England players play more red ball cricket than anyone else, especially at first class level. Then at international level they never have an off season. It might contribute to an early burnout and might be why you get basically no players carrying on past their mid thirties like the best modern batsmen from other nations. The last England player still playing well in his late 30s was Boycott, probably the last 'great' England batsman, who himself took a famous mid-career break.

3. English pitches tend to have a lot of variety in them. Some favour seam movement, some don't, some take turn, most don't, some have good baounce and carry, sometimes they don't. They aren't particularly consistent even at the same ground, compare the 2014 and 2015 Tests at Trent Bridge for example. Great modern players from Australia, India and especially Sri Lanka build their records (and job security) on thumping home records and maybe the irregular pitches make that harder for England players.

 

[Coronis]

Ok heres a question, is Craig McDermott great? 71 tests, 291 wickets @ 28.63, SR 56.9 Compared to Anderson... 119 tests, 463 wickets @ 28.28, SR 56.9

 

[Red]

I'd say Gooch and KP are greats. Probably Anderson and Flintoff too. Root will be.

 

[Howe_zat]

Ok heres a question, is Craig McDermott great? 71 tests, 291 wickets @ 28.63, SR 56.9 Compared to Anderson... 119 tests, 463 wickets @ 28.28, SR 56.9

He's great if you want him to be, I'm not a fan of policing adjectives.

But I'm pretty sure Anderson's a better bowler and not just because taking 450 wickets is ****ing hard. Anderson's average doesn't quite tell the story on its own and his last 300 wickets have come at 24.

 

[Red]

You are a "great" if you'd make (almost) any test side in history.

There's my definition.

 

[morgieb]

Ok heres a question, is Craig McDermott great? 71 tests, 291 wickets @ 28.63, SR 56.9 Compared to Anderson... 119 tests, 463 wickets @ 28.28, SR 56.9

Meh, think Anderson's wicket tally has to give him some brownie points. Plus he's doing it in a tougher era for bowling than McDermott.

Post-Botham greats for England? I'd say Anderson is, Gooch probably (remember he was probably the best batsman in the world for about 3 years), Broad, KP, Flintoff and Cook borderline. And Root will be as long as his back doesn't cause him too much strife.

Even so that's still a fair bit less than Australia, South Africa, India, West Indies, etc..... (and they aren't quite of the same calibre). As for why, Howe has some very good points, especially 1 and 2 (less certain of 3, as worldwide wickets have only really become homogenised in the last 15 years, which tbf kinda leads into Howe's point 1)

 

[Howe_zat]

You are a "great" if you'd make (almost) any test side in history.

There's my definition.

Does this mean there's only one great keeper-batsman?

At the other end, it's a bit lenient on middle order players. The strongest batting lineup I can think of is the 2006 Australian team of Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Martyn, Hussey and Clarke. But at that time Clarke was newly recalled to the side and didn't inspire much confidence among Australians. I think if Australia could have picked a proven Test player with some high-quality hundreds and an average in the high 40s they would, which means that there are around 10 great middle-order players knocking around at any one time.

 

[Coronis]

Does this mean there's only one great keeper-batsman?

At the other end, it's a bit lenient on middle order players. The strongest batting lineup I can think of is the 2006 Australian team of Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Martyn, Hussey and Clarke. But at that time Clarke was newly recalled to the side and didn't inspire much confidence among Australians. I think if Australia could have picked a proven Test player with some high-quality hundreds and an average in the high 40s they would, which means that there are around 10 great middle-order players knocking around at any one time.

Think he means more like Knott would be great since he would walk into any side as a keeper besides the Aussies from 99-08.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

We haven't had any undisputedly great players like Australia, India and South Africa have but we have had some bloody good ones or we wouldn't have reached number 1 in the rankings for a time. I think you can legitimately say Swann is our best player since Botham given he was head and shoulders above any spinner we have had since Underwood who is regarded our greatest one ever and was easily the best in the world for a long time too. No other player has dominated like he did for a long period. Cook has to be close as does Anderson, Broad, Flintoff and KP but they are all a level just below being an ATG. If we picked England sides from history then all would probably make the 2nd XI or go very close.

It may well be that history will be kinder to them and in 20 years time we will all look back and regard them as a lot better than we do now but who knows the likes of Root and the youngsters we have coming along at present may surpass the players of the last 10-15 years but only time will tell.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Meh, think Anderson's wicket tally has to give him some brownie points. Plus he's doing it in a tougher era for bowling than McDermott.

Post-Botham greats for England? I'd say Anderson is, Gooch probably (remember he was probably the best batsman in the world for about 3 years), Broad, KP, Flintoff and Cook borderline. And Root will be as long as his back doesn't cause him too much strife.

Even so that's still a fair bit less than Australia, South Africa, India, West Indies, etc..... (and they aren't quite of the same calibre). As for why, Howe has some very good points, especially 1 and 2 (less certain of 3, as worldwide wickets have only really become homogenised in the last 15 years, which tbf kinda leads into Howe's point 1)

Cook borderline? If Cook isn't a great then I don't know who is.

 

[AndrewB]

Meh, think Anderson's wicket tally has to give him some brownie points. Plus he's doing it in a tougher era for bowling than McDermott.

Post-Botham greats for England? I'd say Anderson is, Gooch probably (remember he was probably the best batsman in the world for about 3 years), Broad, KP, Flintoff and Cook borderline. And Root will be as long as his back doesn't cause him too much strife.

Even so that's still a fair bit less than Australia, South Africa, India, West Indies, etc..... (and they aren't quite of the same calibre). As for why, Howe has some very good points, especially 1 and 2 (less certain of 3, as worldwide wickets have only really become homogenised in the last 15 years, which tbf kinda leads into Howe's point 1)

Who do you regard as great from those other countries "post-Botham" - from, say, 1990 - bearing in mind that you haven't included Thorpe, Trescothick, Bell, Vaughan, Stewart, Gough, Caddick, Swann, Harmison as even borderline? (If you're regarding "post-Botham" as from 1980, the gap between England and Aus/SA/Ind/WI is probably more clear-cut, since England were rubbish for most of the 80s... note that all but one of your England list could be regarded as "post-2000").

 

[Daemon]

Cook borderline? If Cook isn't a great then I don't know who is.

I'm not sure people quite grasp how hard opening the batting is and how important a position it is. That slump in 2013/14 seems to really have affected how he's viewed by fans.

 

[Burgey]

Once again, the list on the previous page criminally omits Davo.

 

[AndrewB]

Following on from that and other posts, I would say it's at the "Platinum" level of great (as mentioned earlier) where England (at least recently) are lacking - the level where since 1990 you'd have, say, Lara + Ambrose for WI, Kallis + Steyn for SA, Tendulkar + Dravid for India.... England seem to have players who play at that level for a year or two (Gatting, Vaughan, Harmison, Flintoff) but don't really sustain it (no doubt other countries do as well, but I'm less likely to notice them).

 

[TheJediBrah]

Who do you regard as great from those other countries "post-Botham" - from, say, 1990 - bearing in mind that you haven't included Thorpe, Trescothick, Bell, Vaughan, Stewart, Gough, Caddick, Swann, Harmison as even borderline? (If you're regarding "post-Botham" as from 1980, the gap between England and Aus/SA/Ind/WI is probably more clear-cut, since England were rubbish for most of the 80s... note that all but one of your England list could be regarded as "post-2000").

I'd hazard that you're greatly overrating those players if you think any of them deserve to be in this conversation

I'm not sure people quite grasp how hard opening the batting is and how important a position it is. That slump in 2013/14 seems to really have affected how he's viewed by fans.

Especially opening the batting in England

 

[Burgey]

Meh, think Anderson's wicket tally has to give him some brownie points. Plus he's doing it in a tougher era for bowling than McDermott.

Post-Botham greats for England? I'd say Anderson is, Gooch probably (remember he was probably the best batsman in the world for about 3 years), Broad, KP, Flintoff and Cook borderline. And Root will be as long as his back doesn't cause him too much strife.

Even so that's still a fair bit less than Australia, South Africa, India, West Indies, etc..... (and they aren't quite of the same calibre). As for why, Howe has some very good points, especially 1 and 2 (less certain of 3, as worldwide wickets have only really become homogenised in the last 15 years, which tbf kinda leads into Howe's point 1)

It's not as tough to be a bowler now as it was ten years ago IMO. But I think Anderson > McDermott

 

[Howe_zat]

We haven't had any undisputedly great players like Australia, India and South Africa have but we have had some bloody good ones or we wouldn't have reached number 1 in the rankings for a time. I think you can legitimately say Swann is our best player since Botham given he was head and shoulders above any spinner we have had since Underwood who is regarded our greatest one ever and was easily the best in the world for a long time too. No other player has dominated like he did for a long period. Cook has to be close as does Anderson, Broad, Flintoff and KP but they are all a level just below being an ATG. If we picked England sides from history then all would probably make the 2nd XI or go very close.

It may well be that history will be kinder to them and in 20 years time we will all look back and regard them as a lot better than we do now but who knows the likes of Root and the youngsters we have coming along at present may surpass the players of the last 10-15 years but only time will tell.

I think this thread does highlight some sort of point though. England have had a couple of very good sides but haven't built them around outright stars. Sri Lanka for example have been mostly a weaker side than England in the 21st century but England haven't had players as excellent as Murali or Sangakkara, instead they have had teams full of Test-quality players that have from time to time come together as a top quality team. Equally you could say that a lack of players as consistently top tier like Kallis, Pollock/Steyn, Dravid or Tendulkar has been the missing bit that's stopped us from being as formidable a side as South Africa or India.

 

[Adders]

Following on from that and other posts, I would say it's at the "Platinum" level of great (as mentioned earlier) where England (at least recently) are lacking - the level where since 1990 you'd have, say, Lara + Ambrose for WI, Kallis + Steyn for SA, Tendulkar + Dravid for India.... England seem to have players who play at that level for a year or two (Gatting, Vaughan, Harmison, Flintoff) but don't really sustain it (no doubt other countries do as well, but I'm less likely to notice them).

I really like the Australia snub in this post.......intentional??

 

[Adders]

Equally you could say that a lack of players as consistently top tier like Kallis, Pollock/Steyn, Dravid or Tendulkar has been the missing bit that's stopped us from being as formidable a side as South Africa or India.

And yet another Aus diss..........this conversation is getting me horny!!