Can England ever be great??

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by Ernest

That's a good point John, but I wonder how good Australia are at the moment, a lot depends have they brought new blood in, are are they going to risk McGrath, breaking down.

Also on top of that there will be pressure on the Aussies to deliver after being shocked in 2005 when the Ashes went, that will compensate England some way for not having home advantage.

I agree there will be pressure on Australia, there always is. At the moment England have nothing to lose (apart from the ashes) because they are not expected to win. McGrath wont be Australia's worry the middle order could be a problem for Australia with inexperienced or out of form players like Martyn, Hussey, Gilchirst and either Watson, Clarke or Symonds. England's problem will be taking 22 Australian wickets because of there dominace with the bat at home. Hayden, Langer and Ponting at the top of the order are brilliant at home.

Hayden
In Australia
Mat Runs HS Bat 100 50
41 4145 380 63.76 17 15
Overseas
Mat Runs HS Bat 100 50
40 2935 203 42.53 8 100

Langer
In Australia
Mat Runs HS Bat 100 50
50 4125 250 49.10 14 12
Overseas
Mat Runs HS Bat 100 50
47 3130 166 41.73 8 16

Ponting
In Australia
Mat Runs HS Bat 100 50
57 4907 257 62.91 16 22
Overseas
Mat Runs HS Bat 100 50
45 3543 206 51.34 13 12

It was been a while where any good quality opening bowlers have come to Australia so things might be different than what we have seen in the past.

Im looking forward to watching Monty bowl as well as seeing how the English team is set up will they go with 5 bowlers which worked for them last year.

If England can destroy Australia at home they will go down with the greatest sides of all time. Due to Australia only losing two test matches at home in 15 years.

[Victor Frankenstein]

I think if this england side pull off a miracle and beat australia this winter then they will be a great england side, but they will still only be a good cricket team, not great like australia or the windies before them.

Imo you have to dominate for several years, and i mean dominate not just winning series (ie the only games australia have lost in recent years at their pomp have been dead rubbers where they lost focus, in any live game they destroyed the opposition) to be classed as a great side of all time.

I think if we hadn't had all the injuries and loss of form since the ashes then we could have had the potential to become a great side, but i think that time has passed as we'll never have that ashes winning team back together again and even if we did it will be nearly two years or more down the line by which time most will be coming to the end of their careers.

As an aside, i wish people would stop focusing on mcgrath's age, like it mattered last year at Lords? if brett lee was mid-30's then i'd agree as his main weapon is pace, but mcgrath's weapon is control and he's lost none of that and hasn't exactly been stretched by playing far too many one dayers or lots of domestic fixtures etc.. I strongly suspect him and warne will again be the top wicket takers and between them they're far far more likely to take 20 english wickets than our attack is to take 20 aussie ones. It seems monty will be the key for us, our only realistic chance of taking 20 aussie wickets relatively cheaply as flintoff is unlikely to be there and harmison will no doubt be injured so we have to rely on mahmood, hoggard and lewis for wickets... hmm... going to be some very short test matchs.

[John]

In the Aussies are ageing they still have enough good players. Despite last summers batting they are still up there with the best batting lineup in the world. Last summer any side would of struggled against Englands attack. It would be fool hardy to think the Aussies are going to bat like that on their home turf. The Aussie batting lineup can inflict serious damage on its own turf maybe we overated them last summer but it would be foolish to underate them.

[butchering lee]

Originally Posted by Victor Frankenstein

I think if this england side pull off a miracle and beat australia this winter then they will be a great england side, but they will still only be a good cricket team, not great like australia or the windies before them.

i agree... but "a great england Test side" - they truely are, they have some real talent but...


as mentioned by VicFrank, the 2005 ashes side is gone (stop thinking about the absentees!!). it is more evidence imo why England will never be a great cricketing outfit. from comments in this thread it seems the ashes is the measure of you as a test team

when you put all efforts on only one prize; failing to get it must be seen as absolute failure. so the ashes seemingly determines (from a number of posts) whether England are great* ("...with the greatest sides of all time" no less) or crap (as they've beaten few and far in between)

while you aim to win the ashes, australia continue their preparations to continue their dominance of world cricket.

if you use "pyjama" cricket as preparation (knowing it will be little more than soul-destroying) surely you can only expect your soul to be fittingly destroyed.



*that "great" is in an Englishmans eyes - a few of us non-english would like to see more dominant performances against a few other teams before we're willing to accept the handing over of the title.

[butchering lee]

Originally Posted by Victor Frankenstein

As an aside, i wish people would stop focusing on mcgrath's age, like it mattered last year at Lords? if brett lee was mid-30's then i'd agree as his main weapon is pace, but mcgrath's weapon is control and he's lost none of that .

i think the lord's test was one wracked with nerves - the build up was ridiculous, aus were bowled out for nothing and responded well it was over in a few days.

what might be a better benchmark would be his return in the fifth test (athough the pressures there were almost as great) - an "on-the-ball" analysis showed england to be in control of 90% (actually i believe it was 96 but i dn't remember) of mcgrath's balls - more than any other bowler. i think his age is a factor but he'll still be influential

control is not enugh - mcgrath still had a bit of pace and it was vital i think i mean pollock still has control but he's no threat anymore.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by butchering lee

i think the lord's test was one wracked with nerves.

As one commentator noted at the time, the number of wickets to fall on that good batting wicket was ridiculous... but it'simportant to distinguish between the England top-order wickets taken by McGrath (in which perfectly playable deliveries exposed appalling technique) and the Aussie wickets taken by the England seamers (in which atrocious shot selection saw a glut of ludicrous exits to perfectly playable deliveries).

The Aussie batsmen have gone away and worked on applying themselves better... but England's technical failings don't appear to have been addressed (anyone seen Tresco's footwork praised lately?) and whilst England continue to field suspect players, McGrath's ability to exploit such vulnerabilities will ensure he remains the side's most formidable adversary.

[Mr Hutt]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Playing the Aussies in their own back yard in a Test series is to cricket what the World Cup is to International soccer and what the Champions League is to domestic soccer: it's so big that everything else pales in comparison. Get it right, in a fashion that doesn't seem flukey, and really... the team has got what matters.

I'd agree that any side wanting to be considered 'great' also has to beat the best of the rest in away Test series... and in particular manage well in alien conditions (sub-continental teams in the UK and NZ, and vice-versa)... but really - pyjama cricket success (or lack of it) ain't going to change anything.

And england winning or losing the ashes does not mean anything to the rest of the world. The two tournaments you have mentioned the world cup for football is called the world cup because the world participates in it, the champions trophy also has teams playing fromm different countries albeit from their leagues, point im trying to make here is the ashes might be englands world cup but for the rest of the world its another series, a good one but just a test series. I wonder if england lose the ashes, will they then think that test matches arent that great? just because you are not good at something you cant knock it down. ODI cricket is the mainstay and the future of cricket, whether people in england like it or not is their own preference.

To me no team England pakistan india or otherwise will be deserving to be called great unless they can show us performences like team australia for the last couple of years. till then its all just a load of hot air!!

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

The Aussie batsmen have gone away and worked on applying themselves better... but England's technical failings don't appear to have been addressed (anyone seen Tresco's footwork praised lately?) and whilst England continue to field suspect players, McGrath's ability to exploit such vulnerabilities will ensure he remains the side's most formidable adversary.

Rachael - the England players have not had time to address there failings - which by the way are no was as bad as the PJ cricket makes them appear.

While England have been slogging away ay yet more useless forms of cricket 20/20 = 50/50 Australia have been putting their collective feet up at Boot Hill it seems.

I though even thought you are one of McGraths greatest fans ( and he has been great) I though even you might have realised he is year older - look at Gough.

[gibbs_fan]

Ernest, I think that you are underestimating McGrath. I remember before the ashes last year everyone said that McGrath is too old. He destroyed the English top order before getting injured. I am not a fan of the man but I tell you whenever SA play Australia he is a man that I worry about. He averages 21.55 overall and 20.57 against England. I dont think that age affects him. Age affects some players ie. Pollock but some players are not affected by age.

Underestimate McGrath at your own peril. If McGrath plays the whole ashes series, I would put my money on him getting more wickets than Lee.

[greg]

Originally Posted by gibbs_fan

I would put my money on him getting more wickets than Lee.

I think you would be lucky to find a bookie willing to take that bet.They aren't all rich for nothing you know.