Why are England's "best seven" batsmen so weak?

embee wrote:

Growler wrote:Of your current bats, Hayden will surely be the next to retire - but who's likely go after him?

Who in that list are openers, and which one is most likely to replace MtB?

Rogers

Thanks embee. Had a look athis profile on cricinfo, he looks more than useful

Dont ask Danny for a reference on him though ....

Seems like most of Australia's promising young batsmen all average around about 38-39 in first class cricket, which is pretty much the same as England's promising young batsmen.

Maybe it's just possible that winning the Ashes in 05, and then being lauded as heroes was just about the worst thing that could have happened for English cricket.

Or the fact that only 1 member of that Ashes 05 winning pace attack played in this last Test?

.....and he was crocked for half the match.

Henry wrote:Or the fact that only 1 member of that Ashes 05 winning pace attack played in this last Test?

Does that explain the poor batting? Coz that's what this thread is about, Trev.

Careful taccy ...Trev's allergic to facts

tac wrote:

Henry wrote:Or the fact that only 1 member of that Ashes 05 winning pace attack played in this last Test?

Does that explain the poor batting? Coz that's what this thread is about, Trev.

YESGOTHIMHESGAWN!

Henry wrote:Or the fact that only 1 member of that Ashes 05 winning pace attack played in this last Test?

Mudge with a valid point shock!!!

Mick Sawyer wrote:

Henry wrote:Or the fact that only 1 member of that Ashes 05 winning pace attack played in this last Test?

Mudge with a valid point shock!!!

So Mick hasn't read the thread . . .

tac wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:

Henry wrote:Or the fact that only 1 member of that Ashes 05 winning pace attack played in this last Test?

Mudge with a valid point shock!!!

So Mick hasn't read the thread . . .

Pants downed!

Well we have a completely different opening combination for a start. England's opening partnerships between Strauss and Trescothick were crucial to England's success in 05.

How many times have England put on an opening partnership of 50+ since trescothick went?

Trev in "on topic" shock!!!!!

One glimpse at the stats prompts the question as to how Ravi Bopara has been given the nod as the promising youngster for the future ahead of Hildreth, Godleman and Denly?

THICKEDGE wrote:One glimpse at the stats prompts the question as to how Ravi Bopara has been given the nod as the promising youngster for the future ahead of Hildreth, Godleman and Denly?

Check his averages for the last 2 seasons. Prior to that he was an 18yr old making his way in the game.

Godleman only broke into FC cricket this year, Denly doesn't really look much when i've seen him on TV and Hildreth has had a poor run the previous 2 years.

Aye, it was only Godleman's first season and he's only about 18.

Denly and Hildreth have been around a couple of seasons but only really made their mark last year.

All three are away with the Acadamy Formally Known As The Academy at the minute, so at least someone has an eye on the future.

Henry wrote:Well we have a completely different opening combination for a start. England's opening partnerships between Strauss and Trescothick were crucial to England's success in 05.

How many times have England put on an opening partnership of 50+ since trescothick went?

Oh, "05 this", "05 that", "remember when it was 05?"

To quote Homer Simpson: "Before, before... Quit living in the past, Marge."

Trescothick's over. 05 is history. The Ashes are gone. Move on.

Damn. You guys should just burn a few effigies like I do.

More satisfying; helps the local economy unless I burn something else with it; great bonding if done together.

Dello wrote:There's always quirks, of course, but if a guy like Paul Collingwood, with a FC average of 35 can scrape over 40 at Test level, you have to wonder what a guy who averages ten more than him in FC cricket could achieve.

Don't know, but someone with an FC average 18 higher can average 27.32 in Tests...

There's a lot to consider in terms of how much a county average means. Does their home ground generally have a flat pitch, or one that produces two-day results? Do they destroy crap bowlers then fall apart the moment they come up against someone world-class? Are their stats skewed by one or two particularly good or bad seasons that were some time ago? Do they tend to make their big scores in lost causes or stone-cold draws? Do they have that touch of class that separates an international player from a decent county pro?

If we picked based only on county average we would have missed out on plenty of players who have done an excellent job for England, had long careers and won matches for us. And that applies to both batsmen and bowlers.

Spot on.

If we'd just gone on county performances think of some of the dross that would've been picked amongst the bowlers.

Think Martin Saggers,Jimmy '5 Bellies' Ormond etc....

Oh,wait!

There's a lot of destroying of relatively crap bowlers in county cricket. There's players like Hick and Ramps who will cash in against certain types of bowling like nobody else in the world can. As long as the bowling isn't too quick or classy and the situation isn't too pressured they will score obscene amounts of runs like no-one in the England top six probably can.

Test cricket's about facing a different type of bowler and if you don't have the game all the run monkeying in CC is painfully irrelevant.

Looking again, seeing Ramps, Hick and Crawley in the top six torpedoes Dello's argument spectacularly.

JKLever wrote:Spot on.

If we'd just gone on county performances think of some of the dross that would've been picked amongst the bowlers.

Think Martin Saggers,Jimmy '5 Bellies' Ormond etc....

Oh,wait!

Exactly. When someone has an exceptional season or couple of seasons there's always lots of people calling for them to be picked, and claiming it's an injustice if they don't. And when such players do get a chance they often turn out not to be up to it, as most of us had predicted all along.

Of course the selectors get it wrong sometimes, but they see a lot more domestic cricket than any of us and are the people best placed to judge who has that "X factor" that makes a Test player. A team picked purely on county averages would be an ageing, constantly changing and no doubt constantly losing side.

England's batsmen dont seem able to grind out a result anymore. In short they have forgotten how to win ugly. They are fine when its going well and they can play their shots but when things start to go wrong they panic and no one seems capable of providing a cool head and leading by example in the way that a Graham Thorpe or Nasser Hussain did, at least not with any regularity.
How many times over the last two years have England fans watched a player gift his wicket away flashing at a ball not there to be hit only moments after a wicket had fallen, or a batsman well set caught on the boundary trying to hit the ball out of the ground in the last over of a session?
Englands batsmen just dont seem to be up for the challenge when they are taken outside their comfort zone. It is particuarly apparent in the difference between the current top orders home and away averages.
Vaughan 48.88/37.75
Cook 49.95/30.86
Bell 48.46/38.83
KP 58.55/41.56
Collingwood 41.32/45.39

For a player to be more successful at home than away is not so unusual, but for a player to be 10 or 15 (or even more) runs less productive away from home suggests that they are either not capable or at least have not yet developed their abilites to adjust for different occasions and conditions.