Why Are England So W@nk?

You talk about it like it's a bad thing.

Rob I wrote:....which was why Tres was so important.

And why finding his natural successor is equally important.

I don't understand the question. They're 5th in the world and on their day have beaten just about everyone in recent years. What's he talking about?

ever hopeful wrote:I don't understand the question. They're 5th in the world and on their day have beaten just about everyone in recent years. What's he talking about?

Dello wrote:Joe Denly is looooose.

Quite a good player, though, when he get going.

Just has no sense of permanence at the crease. Even when he's well set, there's no expectation of him surviving beyond the next ball.

At least he's in some form, I guess. Three championship hundreds @ 68.

I recall someone saying exactly the same about Strauss during his "slump" in 2006/07.

Time for the comeback. Why are England so epic w@nk?

The batting is far too brittle, and we can't take wickets when the ball isn't swinging.

we have one huge batting collapse every series. Most teams have one big collapse every year. Once a series is unacceptable.

Henry wrote:The batting is far too brittle, and we can't take wickets when the ball isn't swinging.

I thought this thread was about England, not Australia in this series.

[excuse] We're missing our best 2 players who have played on one leg all series anyhow [/excuse]

I don't know about everyone else but I found today strangely reassuring- I honestly can't believe the top echelons of cricket in the country, so badly managed as they are, are capable of churning out anything but cricketing poo.

If England look like seriously competing against apparent world number ones Australia it undermines a big chunk of my world view.

Until the revolution comes, heads on poles, Shaun Udal beaten to death with the rigid corpse of an Npower girl etc. etc. I demand that our national team is savagely dissappointing. It's their raison d'etre. I'd hate to have to take them seriously...