The current England team

Compare the results in the 90s with the results SINCE the 2005 Ashes

in the 90s i remember England lost

- Both series to Pakistan
- All ashes(badly)
- Must have won all series against India at home and lost almost every game away

in late 1999 they were BEHIND literally every team in the world

Where is Tremlett these days?

Limbo.

Sans Souci wrote:Where is Tremlett these days?

Probably on a treatment table somewhere.

I never held him that high regard but the word on the county set was that he was a very difficult bowler to bat against with his bounce and everything.

Is it me or does Harmison look a few pounds too heavy round the middle ? I can't help but wonder how actually fit some of these guys are.

I don't think the midriff is the problem. It's the top.

Sans Souci wrote:
Is it me or does Harmison look a few pounds too heavy round the middle ? I can't help but wonder how actually fit some of these guys are.

Harmison said at the start of this tour that he was in better shape than he was in India before Christmas, which totally gave Atherton the shits as he, rightly, wondered aloud how a guy could have the audacity to turn up for a tour which he was given plenty of time to prepare for, unfit and out of shape.

What was he doing between the end of the English season and the start of the Indian tour? Why wasn't he self-motivated enough to get properly prepared?

Sans Souci wrote:Where is Tremlett these days?

Million dollar question. No-one seems to know. I saw a quote from him not too many weeks ago stating that he was working hard at his game and trying to put on a bit more pace, so I assume he must be in some kind of shape.

But it wouldn't surprise anyone if he was in traction as he was making those statements.

6' 8" is tough to run with.

Tremlett is a bang-it-in-back-of-a-length merchant. That spot is more than adequately covered by Fred and Broad. We're missing someone who bowls a fuller length and can swing the new ball without disappearing for six an over.

Basil wrote:Tremlett is a bang-it-in-back-of-a-length merchant. That spot is more than adequately covered by Fred and Broad. We're missing someone who bowls a fuller length and can swing the new ball without disappearing for six an over.

Hoggard.

horace wrote:

Henry wrote:Are they as funny now as the pap that we frequently put on the field in the 90's?

smirking

Did someone call for a Smerk?

Hoggard would be my pick for the Ashes.

Merlin wrote:

Basil wrote:Tremlett is a bang-it-in-back-of-a-length merchant. That spot is more than adequately covered by Fred and Broad. We're missing someone who bowls a fuller length and can swing the new ball without disappearing for six an over.

Hoggard.

He was supposed to have lost it - as opposed to Jimmykins who never had it in the first place.

I'm going to need a shower after saying this, but if we're moving on from the Hoggard era and are looking for a swingy skidder, isn't the best of the young-ish bunch *hates self* Kabir Ali?

Dello wrote:I'm going to need a shower after saying this, but if we're moving on from the Hoggard era and are looking for a swingy skidder, isn't the best of the young-ish bunch *hates self* Kabir Ali?

FFS. Saj & now Kabir Ali....

sadly you're probably right.

But all the same. FFS.

418 wickets @ 26. And he can bat. I quite like Kabir - I'm not sure he's international standard admittedly, but at least not sure is better than absolutely positive of irreversible shitness in the case of Harmison.

You'd think that one of Ali, Davies or Bresnan would have had a go by now though, seeing how shite our attack is.

I know he's a bit of a trundler, but 418 FC wickets @ 26 - he must be doing something right.

Hoggard's FC record: 622 wickets @ 27.

Am I really advocating the selection of Kabir Ali? Has it come to this?

Ah, you beat me to it Augs.

Dello wrote: Has it come to this?

When it comes to asking that question, can he really be any worse than Harmison given a run of 15 tests? It probably has come to this...

Only thing is we don't want to be left with all 82-6 mph bowlers - would have a bit of the 90's look about it.

That can only mean one thing: the triumphant return of Sajiddius Mahmoodius.

Knew you'd come around in the end.

*Putting on the things were better in my day hat*

Well the first thing is test cricket was much stronger in the 90s- Australia, SA & Pakistan were all strong, Windies were until the mid-90s, India were strong at home as were Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe were surprisingly good and even the Kiwis weren't that bad. So our test players were really being tested.

From the 90s crew Athers, Gooch, Stewart, Smith, Hussain, Thorpe, Russell, Fraser, Gough & Cork were all talented cricketers and good hardened competitors. Not all quite world class but to a man decent players. There was always a sense that there was half a team you were proud to see out there let down by ther other half frequently made of purest Chris Lewis and his drug crazed elks.

This current team- objectively Strauss, Collingwood, KP & Fred are in the same league as the above. I haven't got a clue how good or bad Bell and Cook are. I'm not sure if Monty's any better than Tufnell. The rest are just one big meh really. They're not shockingly bad but they don't inspire. I think the worst of the 90's crop is worse than this bunch (say what you like about Bell, but he's not Aftab Habib). But the best of 90's crop - far better, in England's darkest hour, the likes of Athers and his metal back kept you more interested and inspired than any tatooed South African ever will.

Dello wrote:That can only mean one thing: the triumphant return of Sajiddius Mahmoodius.

Knew you'd come around in the end.

I've gone over to the dark side for sure.... ( and yes photoshopping isn't my domain, obviously)

The Farce is strong with this one.

Eric Air Emu wrote:I think the worst of the 90's crop is worse than this bunch (say what you like about Bell, but he's not Aftab Habib).

That's one advantage of the recent consistency of selection, the likes of Habib don't get a go like they did in the days of "he's had a couple of games, not done much, who shall we try now?" selection policy.

Bell's equivalent from those days is clearly Ramprakash, or someone like John Crawley. Plenty of talent but the right temperament's not there. He would have had their kind of stop-start career under the 90's selection policy, and certainly would average nowhere near 40 if he was always worrying about being dropped again next game!

England's rugby team are now employing the approach favoured by the cricketers back then. Whatever the sport, we need a balance between the two approaches!