England Will Never Be Successful...

...Unless they're prepared to put in the hard work.

A lot of the England players are trundling along at the level they're currently at, labouring contentedly under the English ethos where if things are alright, they're good enough.

There's talent in the counties, shame it never develops.

Even crap players can better themselves by becoming good fielders and obstinant batsman, but the current lot throw their wicket away and look like one-armed men trying to throw/catch the ball.

I said yesterday, all of them without exception lack gymwork. A bunch of softies.

Augustus wrote:...Unless they're prepared to put in the hard work.

How come they beat everyone between 2003 and 2005, then? Was the team trying then but not now?

The problem is not hard work but lack of experienced bowling talent.

Aye, Robby

Hard work, hard smchmerk. Just taking the bowling as an example

2003-5 Flintoff,Harmison,Hoggard,S Jones

2007 Hoggard,Harmison,Anderson,SideBottom

Difference obviously being quality of attack and confidence of the bowlers.

Yeah...Harmison and Hoggard were useful but Flintoff & Jones were the real strike bowlers.

Only serious pace now comes from Harmison and he's mostly gone in the head now.

I still think Harmi is a part of the solution, as third seamer.

We need a strike bowler from somewhere.

James Harris
Graham Onions

For England to succeed in Kiwi Country...this is the Squad/XI to take.

14 Man Squad

Batsmen

Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Peitersen
Collingwood
Shah
Compton
Bell

Keepers

Mustard

Bowlers
Broad
Panesar
Harmison
Sidebottom
Hoggard

My XI for the First Test...


Going against all thats happened before...

Cook
Compton
Vaughan*
Peitersen
Shah
Collingwood
Mustard+
Broad
Hoggard
Harmison
Panesar

I'd say:

Cook
Vawn*
Ace
KP
Dingdong
Wobbles
Prior
Son of Chris
Hoggsta
Harmi
Montay

Compton? FFS...

What is wrong with Compton?

If he was ever going to be picked it would've been the previous season when he got himself into the A squad.

Last season he had a shocker

Where the Dickens have you plucked Nick Compton from?

He's a decent enough player, sure. But he had an ordinary season last year and isn't even part of the Academy/back-up squad this time around.

Compton? There's hope for Steve Stubbings then!

Basil wrote:Compton? There's hope for Steve Stubbings then!

He's not quite that bad!

So, you guys really think that with a little determination we couldn't have bettered 81 a.o.? I suppose because we were in the field for five sessions, "we woz two knackered 2 bat, coach!"

Tell that to Ryan Sidebottom, the only one to put 100% in in every discipline on this tour. He runs in, no matter what the score, keeps going even though Prior couldn't catch something life threatening. Then, to rub it all in, he actually puts a price on his wicket! Imagine that, a tail-ender who acknowledges he has no talent but uses that to build upwards from. Why can't anyone else do that?

The immediate way forward is a vast improvement in fielding and catching skills.

A team that struggles to create chances when bowling cannot have a keeper selected for any reason other than keeping skills. Bowlers are picked for their bowling skills and yet they only bowl some of the time. Batsmen are picked to score runs, but must return to the shed when dismissed. Somehow teams such as England have lost the plot when it comes to keepers. A keeper in involved with every delivery. His "specialist" skills are the most frequently used in the team yet selectors somehow believe that a potential extra 20 runs in a match somehow outweigh the contribution a gloveman makes.

Mick Sawyer wrote:The immediate way forward is a vast improvement in fielding and catching skills.

A team that struggles to create chances when bowling cannot have a keeper selected for any reason other than keeping skills. Bowlers are picked for their bowling skills and yet they only bowl some of the time. Batsmen are picked to score runs, but must return to the shed when dismissed. Somehow teams such as England have lost the plot when it comes to keepers. A keeper in involved with every delivery. His "specialist" skills are the most frequently used in the team yet selectors somehow believe that a potential extra 20 runs in a match somehow outweigh the contribution a gloveman makes.

Testify!

A couple of dropped chances versus 20-30 runs is a no brainer.

"20-30"

............... and I reckon that's on the high side.

I knew England were fecked as a force in the game when Alec Stewart continued to be played as their keeper.

"A couple of dropped chances" and there goes the Test match.

Mick Sawyer wrote:"20-30"

............... and I reckon that's on the high side.

I knew England were fecked as a force in the game when Alec Stewart continued to be played as their keeper.

10-15 run difference in batting average, Mick.

tac wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:"20-30"

............... and I reckon that's on the high side.

I knew England were fecked as a force in the game when Alec Stewart continued to be played as their keeper.

10-15 run difference in batting average, Mick.

.............. your point being?..............

Mick Sawyer wrote:

tac wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:"20-30"

............... and I reckon that's on the high side.

I knew England were fecked as a force in the game when Alec Stewart continued to be played as their keeper.

10-15 run difference in batting average, Mick.

.............. your point being?..............

Is what the poms have been arguing about for the past few years, and that equates to 20-30 runs per match. So I don't think that it is "on the high side" . . .

DJ_Smerk wrote:
Graham Onions

You have to be having a laugh. His Durham team mate Davies is 10 times better.