Problems with English Batting?

[Beny]

I was checking out the PWC rankings today (test) and noticed, to my surprise that the highest ranked English batsmen was Thorpe at 16. None of the English Batsmen have any stats to rave about and Flintoff seems to be still finding his feet in Test cricket. On top of that there seems to be a lack of clarity about the batting order.

On the positive side you do have some good talent coming through. Bell, Pieterson and the newly crowned Strauss.

So what's the verdict? Does the English test match batting let the team down?

[Zainub]

I wouldn't say the English batting has let the team down, that would be a little harsh considering England are just coming of the back of winning 7 test matches in a row, albeit against two, well, let's say un-extraordinary teams. But they were test teams alright, and they took a beating. So some credit is due.

What I would say though is that there always is room for improvement, Strauss as you say has done well in recent times, but so far he's only played on home soil, and so he must prove him self away from home, the South African tour will be a big one for him. Trescothick, Thorpe, Vaughan and Butcher are all experienced, and are proven performers for England, they all can, though, still look for more consistency, especially away from home. Flintoff on the other hand, I think has changed from the Flintoff of old, and is now, a reliable, consistent, and proper test number 6. Jones also hasn't disgraced him self so far, and he too should improve from here on in.

That would bring me to the over all verdict. I''d say the English batting has been good without being spectacular. But like in every thing else in life, there is always room for improvement. Certainly wouldn't say they've let their fans or team down. They've done reasonably well enough, but can do even better.

[Rachael]

No question:compared to the Aussies we're a man light... and possibly two men light.

Tresco and Butcher (a personal favourite of mine) are the sort of callibre of player who should be pushing the Test regulars from the county scene not on tour.

The bright not is the prospects: Strauss is settling well.. Bell looks like the best prospect ina long time.. Key is showing some signs of promise.. Flintoff looks capable of being at least a good no 7.. we've a stack of 'keepers who look capable of also being no 7s... and England have still got the largely untested but much hyped Pietersen to throw into the mix.

Sadly though.. right now.. the batting of Giles and Hoggard are still looking crictical to passable England totals.. and that's not a reassuring thought.

[Maranello]

hmm that's all very well...but should we really be comparing to the Aussies? The current Aussie batting line-up (alongwith the support cast, the Blewetts, Katichs, Laws, and Hussys of this world) is one of the strongest post-war batting line-ups, and all current teams in comparison, even India, are a man or two light.

Hence a better comparison for England would be with all the other Test playing nations, excluding Australia. In that, they do rather well, in fact I would go as far as to say England have the strongest batting line-up after India, and probably have a better pipeline of young talent (Strauss, Key, Bell, Pieterson etc) than anyone else.

[Milo]

The jury is still out on this batting line up. New Zealand have shown this week that they really are not a bowling attack to judge batsmen against; they couldn't even stop McGrath getting a 50. The West Indies are horrendous. The likes of Strauss, Key, Bell, Flintoff (as a 6) still have a lot to prove. We know Trescothick isn't any better than adequate - likewise Butch. This time next year we really could be back at square one. Only Vaughan and Thorpe would have chances of being automatic in other teams' top 6 (Flintoff at 7).

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael 24750

Flintoff looks capable of being at least a good no 7.. we've a stack of 'keepers who look capable of also being no 7s... and England have still got the largely untested but much hyped Pietersen to throw into the mix.

Sadly though.. right now.. the batting of Giles and Hoggard are still looking crictical to passable England totals.. and that's not a reassuring thought.

Rachael you are always telling me how good Fletcher is, and how he knows his job, he moved Flintoff from 7 to 6, because he was being wasted at 7, batting with the tail, in fact batting at 7, makes him prt of the tail.

Who would bat at 6 Rachael, who is BETTER, than Flintoff,

And is it not true, that Flintoff was better than the other England bats this year, ot thereabouts.

Beny Flintoff is not figuring in the ratings yet, what he has acheaved as not got in the pipeline, that is why ratings are a waste of time, they never tell you what is happening NOW., when it matters.

Ern

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Milo

The jury is still out on this batting line up. New Zealand have shown this week that they really are not a bowling attack to judge batsmen against; The West Indies are horrendous. The likes of Strauss, Key, Bell, Flintoff (as a 6) still have a lot to prove. We know Trescothick isn't any better than adequate - likewise Butch. This time next year we really could be back at square one. Only Vaughan and Thorpe would have chances of being automatic in other teams' top 6 (Flintoff at 7).

England have a lot to prove as batsmen, all improving teams have, is it Englands fault that they had to face the West Indies twice, and New Zealand, who arrived on these shores with a lot of hype, they have beaten all that has come before them, 10 out of 11 Test Matches, cant ask for more.

I disagree with your Flintoff at 7, he would walk into any team at 6, if you are going to play him at 7, you may as well leave him out, it is a thankless tail end possition, best left to the best tail ender,Jones or Giles.

Ern

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Beny Flintoff is not figuring in the ratings yet, what he has acheaved as not got in the pipeline, that is why ratings are a waste of time, they never tell you what is happening NOW., when it matters.

Ern

Afraid I disagree. Ratings are excellent at telling a player's class over their career to date, though I agree they are useless about the future prospects!

Unlike averages, ratings are adjusted to give precedence to recent performances, hence they definitely do tell us what is happening NOW, when it matters :-)

Flintoff is no.28 in the Test batting ratings with 618 points, this is his highest ever rating and ranking. He is currently the fourth best English batsman, after Thorpe (709), Tresco (694) and Vaughan (648). These ratings are very much based in the here and now Ernest.

England have 10 players in the Top 100 World batsmen, and six in the Top 50. Sadly, as Beny pointed out, none in the Top 15.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Maranello

Afraid I disagree. Ratings are excellent at telling a player's class over their career to date, though I agree they are useless about the future prospects!

Unlike averages, ratings are adjusted to give precedence to recent performances, hence they definitely do tell us what is happening NOW, when it matters :-)

yes but the key thing you said ther was "give precedence to", so it is giving us an insight as to what is happening now, but it would seem some data from the past is also used.

I have seen retired players rated.

ern

I am mow way an expert with stats.

[Milo]

Number 7 is not a tail end position (especially with Jones at 8 and Giles at 9 and Hoggard at 10). Gilchrist seems to manage it even though he has been better than players higher up the order than him. Why does he not bat at 5? It's not like school cricket where the best player goes in 1, next 2, next 3..........It is about the make up of the team.

If the England bowling is as good as you keep telling everyone Ernest, we should play four bowlers (Giles, Harmison, Flintoff and Hoggard) with Bell batting at 6 providing bowling support.

As for the original question - you miss the point. I am not blaming England for playing NZ and WI, what I am saying is that just because they scored against NZ and WI does not mean they are going to hack it against proper test attacks. Just ask Robert Key about that. All your figures show is that England are better than NZ and WI. Nobody would argue with you on that. But does that mean all of the England batsmen are test class. No it doesn't. The likes of Strauss, Key and Flintoff clearly have nothing to prove to you Ernest - this is why you mention our top 6 in the same breath as the Aussies. Even on another thread you claim that Warne in the England team would make them unbeatable. That seems to be a large indictment of England's top 6 to me.

I'm willing to bet England won't make 600 from both innings in more than two of the five Ashes tests next year. NZ did twice against us in 3 tests (580 odd in the 2nd test) and still lost the series 3-0. What odds 5-0 Australia Ern???