English Cricket going down hill?

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Kirst Harris

Never mind, things are looking up again!!!

Looking forward to Aus v NZ - 1st test starts tonight/tomorrow morning on Sky !! Cricket at last, yeah!!![/quote]

Glad to here things are getting better, double for you, because there is cricket as well

Goatman came back on today, he has not been on for a while like yourself.

Ern

[Kirsty Harris]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Glad to here things are getting better, double for you, because there is cricket as well

Goatman came back on today, he has not been on for a while like yourself.

Ern

Since I don't have to work tomorrow, I shall be settle myself in front of the t.v and watch all of the 1st days play!!

I've missed the cricket chat here, so it's nice to be back!

Anyway, this thread title seems a bit illogical, doesn't it, given the year England have had, or is it just me?

[Paoli]

Beny, I just read your message now...Delledio was No.1 Draft pick AND....when a Cricket Victoria guy spoke to our wider interest school group this year he said that Delledio was offered a SENIOR contract at age 17 by DW Hookes.

[Beny]

Yes very true. Hooksy relised the potential and wanted to get in before the AFL did. Unfortunetly though Delideo chose not to take it up. Delideo was chosen for the u/17 state team that year although only got a game when another guy pulled out... He then went on to mak a 200. It would have made him one of only two u/18's in the Nation to have rookie contracts. The other being Moises Henriques from NSW-another all rounder. For those interested- He is the yougest player to take 10 wickets in a sydney first grade match and bats at number six. He dosent have to train on school nights and has been compared to Steve Waugh as a batsmen. He was born in Portagual and moved to Australia aged one.

[Zainub]

Certainly very interesting that. I'd look forward to seeing him some day then.

[Paoli]

Yep. Neva heard of him but could be a prospect

[theguvnor]

English cricket is very much on the up, look at the difference in players from the mid 90's compared to now. The class gap is amazing, so to is their performances and consistency (thus far). IT all has something to do with football, kids grow up in england wanting to play football, especially in the early 90's when the premier league was formed and such a huge deal of it was made. NOw though cricket is getting popular, exciting players like freddie and good advertising is encouraging the kids back to games. Cricket in england is now alive and well. Australia has, in the last 15 years, been a step or 5 ahead of us, now slowly their top top top team is ageing, our old weak team of the nineties has dispanded and young quality players are coming through. Australia has been the step ahead of us because they werent hat great in the 80's. We beat them alot back then but never in the 90's. It is just one big cycle, a team creates some world class players and dominate for a period of time - like the windies in the 70's and 80s'. Now it is oz in the 90's and 00's. Soon i think it will be england. Its not like football where you just buy the best players around, the teams have to develop a team, which takes time and once a top team gets old it is often the case the new players dont do as well, hence reshuffling and inconsistency is common. That is why the caps someone showed are so much higher for england, as we never had the quality consistent 11 that oz have. Soon oz will have to shuffle around looking for players good enough to replace the freaks that are warne and mcgrath. And believe me they wont be able to, hence, their standard will drop. At the same time england are replacing average players with top players meaning our standard grows, making the 2 teams very even, much more than the past 15 years.
Its all one big cycle, eventually england will dominate, then someone else will take over years after that. Whilst oz were average in the 80's they were developing good kids who came up to be the worlds best in the 90's. england have been doing that during the late 90's and now have a crop of young players who can make us the worlds best. You cannot argue with the talents of flintoff, strauss, pietersen, bell, harmison. Add that to the already solid tresco, vaughan and the experienced thorpe, we have a very good squad. The best we have had in decades.
The best england side ever??? We will wait and see.

[Zainub]

Originally Posted by The guvnor

Its all one big cycle, eventually england will dominate, then someone else will take over years after that.

England will dominate? Well, that is, to say the least, a brave prediction, a few other sides chiefly Aus and India might have to say something about that. England have shaped up a good side in last couple of years, but I don't think they are still anyway near building a side that can dominate world cricket in a sense in which Australia have done for the past decade and West Indies did before. That is still some way off.

[Milo]

Originally Posted by theguvnor

English cricket is very much on the up, look at the difference in players from the mid 90's compared to now. The class gap is amazing, so to is their performances and consistency (thus far).

Let's do just what you said. Atherton, Stewart - no real difference to Tres and Strauss (even Gooch was still banging about in 94). Thorpe and Smith - Vaughan and Thorpe (not much in it), Gough, Caddick and Fraser to Harmison, Hoggard and Jones - once again I'd actually favour the 90s players. The only real player now that does not have an equal is Flintoff. As for potential you name Pieterson and Bell - well the 90s had Ramprakash and Hick as potential. Same there again. In fact, under Atherton for two yers, Hick was our top batsman.

The main difference between England now and England then is the opposition they have to play against. The other sides (Pakistan, Sri Lanka, South Africa, the West Indies especially) are a lot worse now making it look like the England team are that much improved.

There is this great big myth going around that we did not have the talented personnel at our disposal. That is nonsense. What we didn't have was the good captain and quality management structure we now have in place.

Best England team ever? Do not make me laugh.

[yubeingfunny]

Originally Posted by Milo

The main difference between England now and England then is the opposition they have to play against. The other sides (Pakistan, Sri Lanka, South Africa, the West Indies especially) are a lot worse now making it look like the England team are that much improved.

I kinda agree and disagree with you, I agree that there is little difference in talent between England 90's and England Present, i dont however suscribe to the fact that the oposition are that much weaker, I personally think that the difference between the two teams is a more proffessional approach/system/coaching set up, The players are handled better now and consequently have learned to win, something the 90's team never really achieved on a regular basis

Picture the scene... England 90's vs England Present, The match is evenly poised going into the final session of the 4th day, in the 90's dressing room Ray Illingworth is launching into Gus Fraser/Devon Malcom/Caddick for failing to dismiss the oppostion tail cheaply... meanwhile in the present dressing room Duncan Fletcher is pinpointing exactly how each of the 90's team have weaknesses and outlining how they can be beaten... I know who i'd back to win the crucial match deciding session!!!!