English Cricket going down hill?

[Milo]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Milo, I think you are like the other half of England supporters like myself, you have not enough belief in the team

Not really Ernest. I think England are in the group with a good claim to second place. You think England are now the best team in the world. You talk as if I think England are in the bottom 3.

You are an eternal optimist. Flintoff the pick of the 22, Tresco close to Hayden, Warne and Giles close and Anderson better than McGrath (Two blatantly Lancastrian calls if ever I've seen)???? Strauss and Ponting close???

I can only assume you are trying to wind everone up.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Milo

Not really Ernest. I think England are in the group with a good claim to second place. You think England are now the best team in the world. You talk as if I think England are in the bottom 3.

Milo a lot of supporters think like you, I am not saying you think England are in the bottom 3, what I am saying I dont think you have the same faith as the other half like me, believing Australia have had their day, they can.t go on for ever, it is an illussion, no more, it was the same with the great West Indian side, it seemed they would be at the top for ever, but then it happened, their top players either got old, or lost the hunger a younger player has.

Originally Posted by Miolo

You are an eternal optimist. Flintoff the pick of the 22, Tresco close to Hayden, Warne and Giles close and Anderson better than McGrath (Two blatantly Lancastrian calls if ever I've seen)???? Strauss and Ponting close???
I can only assume you are trying to wind everone up.

I never call on the basis that a player plays for Lancashire, if there is a better player than Flintoff in England, then bring him on, I would not mind.{I am just making a point here, I know you dont think that.)
A second point is, are Anderson or Flintoff Lancashire players, I would say they where England players, Flintoff never plays for Lancashire.
Strauss has put some good innings together, at one point in his career he has to be as good as Ponting, I rate Ponting as a captain first.and a player second.
Anderson is younger than McGrath, the time will tell when McGrath is ground into the pitch,with Butcher or Thorpe, or blasted out of the attack with the likes of Flintoff/Vaughan/Trescothick, and yes I believe that, he has lost his pace and venum.
He may be a handfull at Headingly, but he will be there to be clobbered at the Oval.

The teams are closer than a lot of people think, a lot depends on GO jones, 1st being able to keep well, and making runs, like he was put in the side to replace read for in the first place, a lot depends on Jones.IMHO.

Ern

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Actually disagree ern. If depends on the opening bowling and batting of both teams. If jones comes in at 100 odd for 5 we're in deep ****, if he comes in at 350 odd for 5 we aint. Like wise if we let hayden biff harmo out of the attack and be 200 without loss were buggered.

[Milo]

Australia can't go on for ever and they indeed will not. But with the players they currently have they are still clearly the best. You mention the West Indies but they didn't start losing series till three/four years after Marshall, Richards, Greenidge, Dujon retired and never lost immediatly after Lloyd, Holding, Garner made way. In fact IVA, Macco, Greenidge etcs last home series was a triumphant hammering of the up and coming Australians (their world championship - they even managed to win the next tour down under in 1992-3 without them). If we improve (and find replacements for our ageing players) then the next tour to England after 2005 should be very very interesting. We may actually stuff them. But not before.

Let's put this one away till next year (or at least till after the winter tour).

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Richie Benauds Love Child

Actually disagree ern. If depends on the opening bowling and batting of both teams. If jones comes in at 100 odd for 5 we're in deep ****, if he comes in at 350 odd for 5 we aint. Like wise if we let hayden biff harmo out of the attack and be 200 without loss were buggered.

I agree to a point Rich, Jones could come in at 350 say fo 6, and make a contribution, that takes the game away from Australia, likewise he could turn a game from 100 - 5, to a respectable 250/270.

I myself have little faith, but that is why the selectors chose him over Read.


Ern

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Milo (replying to Ernest)

You are an eternal optimist. Flintoff the pick of the 22, Tresco close to Hayden, Warne and Giles close and Anderson better than McGrath (Two blatantly Lancastrian calls if ever I've seen)???? Strauss and Ponting close???

I can only assume you are trying to wind everone up.

I have long suspected that Ernest is a terribly committed WUM... but am not convinced. Time to rate players though. Let's set the following scale:

1 - Not genuine Test class - perhaps not really applicable here
2 - Journeymen - the likes of Knight / Saggers / Croft
3 - Heavyweight - in the league of Chanderpaul / Kallis (bowling) / Vettori (bowling)
4 - Seriously Impressive - moving into the level of Kirsten / Vaas / Kumble
5 - Outstanding - up there with Lara / Marshall / Warne

The players may need to be rated for Batting, Bowling and / or "other" (wicket-keeping / fielding / captaincy)

Hayden (4-5 batting) vs Tresco (3 on a good day batting, 1 bowling)
Langer (3-4 batting) vs Strauss (too early to tell, but maybe 3-4 batting)
Ponting (4-5 batting, 4 as capt) vs Butcher (3+ batting, 1 bowling)
Martyn (4 batting) vs Vaughan (4 batting, 2 bowling, 3? captain)
Lehman (4 batting) vs Thorpe (4 batting)
Clarke (too soon to say, but 4+ batting) vs Flintoff (ditto, but maybe 3 batting, 2-3 bowling, 5 fielding / influence)
Gilchrist (4-5 batting, 3-4 keeping / vice-captain) vs Jones (too soon to say but at best 2 batting, 3 keeping)
Warne (5 bowling, 4 if allowing for decline, 1-2 batting) vs Giles (3 bowling, 1-2 batting)
Gillespie (4+ bowling) vs Hoggard (3-4 bowling)
Kasprowicz (3-4 bowling) vs Jones / Anderson (too soon to tell, but maybe 2-3 bowling)
McGrath (5 bowling, 4 if in decline) vs Harmison (4 bowling normally, definite 5 if he is having a good day)

By my reckoning that puts Aussies clearly ahead with Hayden vs Tresco, Ponting vs Butcher, Gilchrist vs Jones.. to the point where England are basicaly going to look a man short in the batting line up.

ON the bowling front? Aussies way ahead on class.. but England just about able to compete by virtue of playing 5 rather than 4 frontline bowlers.

[Beny]

Trescothick, Tresco on form, to close to call.
Vaughan has the edge over Langer.
Strauss,new but if he keeps his form, not a lot in it.
Thorpe has it over Lehman
Jones, duno, here is a time to prove himself, or get out.
Flintoff the pick of the 22
Giles, closer than you think on this one.
Harmison by a mile
kaspa, duno
Beny, Anderson, if he plays like he did the last time he played against Austraia, he gets the vote over the ageing one.
Living in what used to be Beny, History is against Australia, they have to begin to fail. no one team stays on top forever.

.....

A world player of the year nommine. A man who averages over 54 with the bat. A member of the (tiped to be) most sucsessfull opening patnership ever. A man who has a top score of 380. A guy who came off after his 200 in India and said to Dean Jones that he did not know what all the fuss was about (Dean Jones having to be rushed to hospital after the same feat). Against a guy who cant move his feet. ARE YOU NUTS!

Giles and Warne being close..... I'm choking to death here.

Anderson over McGrath.... Mabey if McGrath has a broken leg.

Strauss over Ponting..... Ponting with a batting average 53 and more than 6100 test runs so far. 20 Test tons. The man who not only made the world 11 but captined it.

Harmison by a mile... Well we could argue about this but I'll say this. Statisticly you're correct but Gillespie can 1. Do more with the ball. 2. Is more consistant. And as I've already said, Harmy still has a lot to prove and he can start by bowling well against some good nations like India, Pakistan or Aus.

Flintoff the pick of the 22.... Not yet Ern. I think that if we look back on the Clarke v Flintoff match in years to come it might be a very close compition.

I think Rachel is being a bit more sensible.

[Ernest]

Hayden 4 Vs Trescothick 3/4
Langer 3 Vs Strauss 3/4
Ponting 4/5 vs Butcher 3/4
Martyn 3/4 Vs Vaughan 3/4/5
Lehman 4 Vs Thorpe 4
Clarke ??? Vs Flintoff 3/4 batting 3/4 bowling 5 All-Rounder
Gilchrist 4 Vs jones 2/3
Warne 4/5 Vs Giles 3/4
Gillespie 4 Vs Hoggard 3
Kasprowicz 3 Vs Anderson 3/4 The 4 is on previous form against the Aussie's
McGrath 3/4 Vs Harmison 5

I have always said that we where a batter short, but different factors come into play in the 2005 ashes series, Vaughan playes his best against the Aussie's, as does Anderson.

We are younger on the up, not yet peaked, these are factors that matter just as much as skills, England are a very confident team, backed up by results, OK West indies are poor at the moment, but we made no slip ups, and New Zealand came full of bravo, and went home with their tails between their legs.
Australia on the other hand where lucky in India, saved by the rain, and well beaten in 2 days in the final test.

As I said earlier Jones could be the difference between the two sides, as he is outclassed both in batting, and keeping by Gilchrist.Fletcher picked him, now lets see what number in your scale he can attain.

Ern

[Beny]

What's you're point Ern about India?How many times have England won in india? It is one of if not the hardest places to tour in the world. Not even the Indian fans are harping on about the 2nd test which could have gone either way.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Beny

What's you're point Ern about India?How many times have England won in india? It is one of if not the hardest places to tour in the world. Not even the Indian fans are harping on about the 2nd test which could have gone either way.

What Ernest also (conveniently) overlooks is the recent English experience in Sri Lanka (which I actually found encouraging.. but which saw us on the back foot in virtually every session of play) and the Australian experience in Sri Lanka (which wasn't stunning, and saw Sri Lanka winning numerous sessions of play, but saw Australia come out on top).

You can argue that English fortunes would have been better with the current crop of players (but that's speculation).. but even that doesn't hide the fact that Butcher and Thorpe were the current 1st choice top order bats who consistently played the spinners with real authority... and even they were far, far less successful than the successful Aussie batsmen.

Ernest is right to say that there's a better spirit in the English camp than we're used to.. and that confidence is higher than we've seen in a generation.. but let's put this in perspective: at best that merely means we're not so psychologically handicapped as we used to be.

It's not like the Aussies are lacking in that department.. we're just catching up.

For the record... I don't suppose Australia's performance in winning the series in India deserves to go down as exceptional: previous Ausiie teams have played better and still come away without the magic series win. That's cricket. Doesn't alter the fact that McGrath, Gillespie and Warne bowled superbly.. and that Martyn, Katich and Clarke did likewise: that's not a level of sub-continetal performance you could expect froma n English team that stilllooks better suited to English / Australian conditions.

ps. I'd agree that Australia were slight favourites even in the rain-affected 2nd Test: India needed to post the biggest 4th innings total that's ever been posted on that track to win that game.. and they really didn't look capable of it.