English Cricket going down hill?

[Ernest]

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

I think the India fans where not that chuffed about that rain ruined match Beny, I would have put India as slight favourites to have won that, because they had the time to do it in, without taking risks.

My point Beny is England are undefeated for the last 12 months, Australia are not, we have beat all comers, including the Kiwi's who I know you think are not a strong team, but they came full of hype, and where expected to beat us,by some, what happened is a matter of history.

Ern

[Beny]

OHH COME ON ERN. What tours have we played.

1. Drew With India. We were lucky but we were also without. McGrath, Warne, Gillespie* and Lehman.

2. Won in Sri Lanka. Played on absoultue deserts in 35+ heat against a team of spinners who were suited to the conditions and won.

3. Beat Sri Lanka in Aus. Smashed them although they were without Murili.

4. Won In India. India were almost unbeatable at home and we went there and beat them playing on wickets that did not suit us in hot and humid conditions. I'd be surprised Id England could win a single test.

England have played against West Indies and New Zealand either at home or on wickets that still sutied them.
* Gillespie came back from injury later.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Beny

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

Beny never underestimate Anderson, he is one of those players like Caddick, who can seem to be playing ordinary, then will bag a pan full of wickets, remember when he was called raw from the acadamy to play in Australia, he did ok then.
He may not yet be of the standard of McGrath, but that is only because for some reason, England have not played him.I would by next year have him close to McGrath, on age, and age matters, Gough trying to come back, makes that all to clear, even McGrath can't go on forever.

Originally Posted by Beny

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.

I don't use stats as anyone on this board knows, but I have seen Harmison bowl, thats enough for me, and like you say, even the stats back me up.

Originally Posted by Beny

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.
.

Nothing personal about Australia here, he is the best all-rounder in the world, and probably the last.
Ern

Originally Posted by Rachael 23564

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).

Well Shri Lanka, we did as well as could be expected, and managed to come out with some self respect.

Australia, they where always digging themselves out of holes in Shri Lanka, the star of that series was Ricky Ponting for how he captained the side.

Originally Posted by Rachael

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.

Yes and that fact is known throughout the world, and we will start underdogs against the Aussies in 2005, and the spirit is what will worry Australia, they are not daft, they will know this is a different England, not the psychological ninnies we where.

Originally Posted by Rachael

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

I would say in that department we have caught up, maybe just a neck in front.

Ern

[Ernest]

We still won those matches Beny, at home and away, and against the fancied Kiwi's.

I am not saying Australia are rubbish, what I am saying, they will need a couple of key replacements "and soon", and I have said England have no depth, a couple of key injuries and we can kiss the ashes goodby.

This team will be a match for Australia, no injuries permitting, like the last time we played you in Australia, and an in form Simon Jones had that horrible injury, and Flintoff could not play.

Ern

[Beny]

Ern when Anderson has 400+ test wickets and blokes the like of Lara, Atherton and Tendualker as his bunnies then we can talk about this.

I don't use stats as anyone on this board knows, but I have seen Harmison bowl, thats enough for me, and like you say, even the stats back me up

Perhaps you need to watch Gillespie Bowl.

Nothing personal about Australia here, he is the best all-rounder in the world, and probably the last

Fine but I'd take someone like Ponting first.

Well Shri Lanka, we did as well as could be expected, and managed to come out with some self respect.

Australia, they where always digging themselves out of holes in Shri Lanka, the star of that series was Ricky Ponting for how he captained the side.

Ern, What ever the case is and I dont agree with you, we still won the series.

Lets do a little game here.

England take out Harmsion and Flintoff and Australia will take out Ponting and McGrath.
Australia would win. As I see it England are expecting these two guys to go out and win the series and yet they might not. Heck they might even be injured... Then what?

[Beny]

The Fancied Kiwi's were only fancied when England were mental wreaks. Australia demolished the same team in the champions trophey. We are playing them in a test match on the 18th so we will see how good they are.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Beny

Ern, What ever the case is and I dont agree with you, we still won the series.

You did win the series Beny, fair play, but think back, you had some bad days, but Australia, fair enough seemed to claw there way out, and I think that was down to Ponting.

Originally Posted by Beny

Lets do a little game here.

England take out Harmsion and Flintoff and Australia will take out Ponting and McGrath.
Australia would win. As I see it England are expecting these two guys to go out and win the series and yet they might not. Heck they might even be injured... Then what?

I think our posts must have crossed, I took this on board, I will answer your question though, if Harmison and Flintoff where to be injured, Australia would almost certainly win, I say this because of the hole left in the bowling.

Ern

[Beny]

I must have posted mine only a few seconds after you .


Here is my point though.

Australia have beaten India with Tendualker and Dravid. We've beaten Sri-lanka who have Murali, so flintoff and Harmison are nothing special.

Of course we had some bad day's in Sri Lanka playing on some of the worst fast bowling and bating pitches in the world. But the fact is that we won and Ponting's captincy was good but so was Martyn and Lehmans batting, Warne and gillespie's bowling and generaly the fantastic effort by the whole team in conditions that no English team could have won in. I would'nt argue that we had some tight situations there but that's cricket and in the conditions we were in, coming out with anything other than a loss was a great effort.To suggest that England are a better team because they have been siting back in perfect conditions and beating teams that are not the best in world cricket whilst we battle in the last frontier is just insane.

[Rachael]

Don't fret about Ernest's bluster here Beny: his own assesments (however curious) concede your point:

Originally Posted by 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

Sure, he understates EVERY Aussie player by at least half a point (more in some cases)... and basically takes every Englishman on what he possibly could deliver (rather than what they might typically deliver).. but even so.. he marks your side up on batting AND up on bowling!!!!

He's also just plain wrong on England's record over the past 12 months: that period includes a series loss in Sri Lanka... and however encouraging the performances of the past 12 months have been (mostly in terms of vindication of the Academy and reassurance of strength in depth).. the results do hide a multitude of at best mixed performances (notably Tresco, Vaughan, Giles and at times several others (including Harmison) in the WI)... and those results (as you menton) hardly rate as spectacularly impressive (especially given the rawness of the Wi attack, the serial capitulations of the WI batting and the injury problems carried by the NZ side).

Ernest is most impressed by the England Test performances of the past 12 months.. but I'd say that what have been more encouraging have been the performances of the 'A' / Academy sides, the debuts of some of the previously marginal players (notably Stauss and Bell) and the sudden (and rather unexpected) "form" of the likes of Giles and Flintoff (neither of whom looked deserving of a place this time last year, both of whom go to SA needing to show that their performances of the last 6 months are something other than a fortuitous blip, and one of whom has yet to show that he has the slightest clue when it comes to batting against classy slow bowlers).

Ernset would, of course, put the most positive spin possible on these developments.. and gets rather carried away with Harmison's recent exploits (not worrying that the good stuff has been interspersed with some pretty ordinary stuff, or worrying that he's yet to come through ANY very serious Test).

What I don't get is the gap between Ernest's enthusiasm for those we have in the squad today.. and his reticence about the spectacularly encouraging progress of the academy and the prospective players: for all the bold claims about England now being top dog... he's basically saying that England are merely staying good whilst Australia become abject... whereas I (called the sceptic) genuinly see us on the road to a long-term competitiveness (albeit one more likely to be realised in 2009 than 2007 or 2005).

[Beny]

I cant dissagree.

I dont think England have a hope in 2005 but Aussie cricket seems to (at this momment) going back to where it was early 90's or 80's. I can live with that. It all realy depends on weather guys like Hodge and the Hussy brothers are as good on the Interatnal stage as they are on the domestic one.

Dont misunderstand me here. I'm not suggesting that we will suck for the next 30 years, simply that we wont be the 'dominatiors' that we have been.

I still think that English cricket needs to sort it self out though. It's domestic comp is (as far as i'm concerned) too large and poorly handled whilst their youth system is gaining speed towards catching up with the 21st centuary.

Originally Posted by Kumble

"England's biggest challenge is to see off the new ball, it's as simple as that," he says. "McGrath is almost as good as he ever was. Physically I think he's in great shape. Some people say he's not as fast as he was, but maybe they're just looking at his age and making assumptions.

You hearing this Ern!!!

Actually it's a good article so here it is.
http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cricket/...347388,00.html