How come even the West Indies are more successful than England?

[Varun]

The West Indies are pretty abysmal and have been for years, but every now and then they can eke out a moment - be it a test win in the UAE or England, or some ODI successes, or even a World T20 win.

It's not a question of how the West Indies pull those off. It's how England fall short of the other teams. Countries like the West Indies and New Zealand have far fewer resources than England and still have relatively middling, if not successful sides. While England lurch from New Zealand to India to Australia to the UAE to even Bangldesh with defeat after defeat - what gives?

 

[Robert]

The CC now has the wrong structure to produce fast bowlers and attacking spinners.

Also the pitches have become homogenous and so young English batters do not learn how to bat on bouncy decks or turners, and get exposed overseas.

 

[shane]

I always thought that this argument about "resources" was a bit of a myth. If India has 1,000 excellent cricketers and NZ has only 20...well, you can only play 11 people in a cricket team so what does it matter how many you have? It goes some way to rationalising the fact that, at one time or another, some of the countries with fewer resources (such as Sri Lanka and the WI) have dominated cricket.

To answer the question though, England have never ever had that X factor which even the WI can occcasionally call upon to win a match.

 

[Adijazz1706]

WI lost series in all the places you mentioned, England have also won a World t20 and their ODI side has won most recent series. Can't understand the thread tbh

 

[AFM]

WI lost series in all the places you mentioned, England have also won a World t20 and their ODI side has won most recent series. Can't understand the thread tbh

He's talking about individual Tests. England have failed to win a single Test in their last tours to UAE, India, Australia and NZ.

 

[Varun]

He's talking about individual Tests. England have failed to win a single Test in their last tours to UAE, India, Australia and NZ.

The only place they have won in recently is South Africa in 2015 - and if you didn't see the series you wouldn't believe it looking at England before and after.

Of course, in ODIs they have been relatively successful but I'm talking only about the longer form - supposedly the most important to England.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

The only place they have won in recently is South Africa in 2015 - and if you didn't see the series you wouldn't believe it looking at England before and after.

Of course, in ODIs they have been relatively successful but I'm talking only about the longer form - supposedly the most important to England.

And that was s depleted SA too.

 

[AMSS]

I always thought that this argument about "resources" was a bit of a myth. If India has 1,000 excellent cricketers and NZ has only 20...well, you can only play 11 people in a cricket team so what does it matter how many you have? It goes some way to rationalising the fact that, at one time or another, some of the countries with fewer resources (such as Sri Lanka and the WI) have dominated cricket.

To answer the question though, England have never ever had that X factor which even the WI can occcasionally call upon to win a match.

By resources, do you mean population? if yes, the it does matter.

But what matters even more is facilities and opportunities. This is a direct function of economic development and money being pumped into sports.

This is why Mumbai has historically dominated the rest of India in domestic matches. They have had a better structure and access to vastly better facilities compared to places like UP and elsewhere in india.

It's not a surprise that Mumbai's dominance is on the wane now with BCCI's money making a difference in infrastructure in the rest of India.

 

[Corridor of Uncertainty]

English team's biggest problem is their mentality.

They are OK with losing.

Players like Cook, Anderson, Broad and management of Bayliss and Strauss - they are all shamefully 'meh' about losses. It doesn't even hurt them any more.

And ECB puts them under no accountability whatsoever.

That Anderson and Broad still take majority of the wickets is actually to the detriment of England (yes! same way as when Hafeez and Malik score runs.)

England will be better off dismantling the entire management and senior player structure. They have taken it as far as they can go. Do what they did to their LOI team.

If Strauss and Bayliss stay till India series, England will lose.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

England team has no pride. Well most of them don't except for a few like Stokes. They will either stay quite or complain about the pitch as excuse after losing. They do not feel sorrow after losing, and thus no joy after winning either.

I expect with to change soon when oldies like Cook, Anderson and Broad will retire. They carry over the gloomyness from the previous dead era.

 

[Ab Fan]

Very poor performance from England.

Root has carried them at home since 2015 but away they have failed to win a single test now in India, UAE, Australia and NZ. They only won in SA against a depleted SA attack(no Steyn, no Philander and Rabada was a newbie).

 

[Send1983]

I always thought that this argument about "resources" was a bit of a myth. If India has 1,000 excellent cricketers and NZ has only 20...well, you can only play 11 people in a cricket team so what does it matter how many you have? It goes some way to rationalising the fact that, at one time or another, some of the countries with fewer resources (such as Sri Lanka and the WI) have dominated cricket.

To answer the question though, England have never ever had that X factor which even the WI can occcasionally call upon to win a match.

People only talk about population, what’s is the point in having 1000 people to pick from when more than half are below poverty level and combined wealth of 20 in NZ is same as combined wealth of 1000 in India. People only talk about population, not about infrastructure. Western countries with less population, have been enjoying better infrastructure. Nobody talks about that advantage they have.

Anyway situation with India and BCCI is slightly different now. Got better with money and infrastructure compared to how it was in 90s.

 

[Robert]

English team's biggest problem is their mentality.

They are OK with losing.

Players like Cook, Anderson, Broad and management of Bayliss and Strauss - they are all shamefully 'meh' about losses. It doesn't even hurt them any more.

And ECB puts them under no accountability whatsoever.

England will be better off dismantling the entire management and senior player structure. They have taken it as far as they can go. Do what they did to their LOI team.

But Bayliss and Strauss run the successful ODI team too. They were instrumental in the improvement of the last three years.

The problem is that the CC is no longer fit for the purpose of producing test cricketers and that’s above Strausser’s pay grade to deal with.

 

[bujhee kom]

WI have huge talent. England don't.

 

[Rishta Aunty]

There's coaching that helps develop skills and there's coaching that loses skills in the pursuit of a standard template of success. England does a lot of the latter, as does India/Australia for that matter to a lesser extent. What that often means if that you have a very polished 6/10 product ready for international cricket, but you build some inhibitions to the natural game/talent of some players.

Sri Lanka is the complete opposite as are the WI and Pakistan to an extent. We have these raw unpolished gems that we throw into International cricket. Very much sink or swim. But often when it all comes together on some magical days, they can reach heights that products off a structured talent conveyor belt like Eng/Ind cannot.

Often teams in the former category are what you call in football as Great Goalscorers, players that will put away all the easy to medium chances while teams in the second category are Scorers of Great Goals, that are as capable of missing an open goal as scoring the goal of the season.

Just wanted to give a different take as I believe there are structural vagaries that influence how the game is played in different parts of the world.

 

[Varun]

England will be better off dismantling the entire management and senior player structure. They have taken it as far as they can go. Do what they did to their LOI team.

Don't underestimate the effect of Eoin Morgan on their ODI team. He has basically taken them by the bootstraps and out of their time warp they were stuck in for the better part of two decades.

They had a successful 2-3 year period as a test team under Flower, but his coaching was unsustainable and most of those players burnt out well before time.

 

[shane]

By resources, do you mean population? if yes, the it does matter.

But what matters even more is facilities and opportunities. This is a direct function of economic development and money being pumped into sports.

This is why Mumbai has historically dominated the rest of India in domestic matches. They have had a better structure and access to vastly better facilities compared to places like UP and elsewhere in india.

It's not a surprise that Mumbai's dominance is on the wane now with BCCI's money making a difference in infrastructure in the rest of India.

By "resources" I mean money for the most part. I don't think you can buy good cricketers. Even the poorer cricket countries have enough facilities that they can provide nets, grounds, coaching, cricket balls, the basics. After that, I think it is more a question of culture and how interested the people of that country are in playing the game. Obviously, more people will be interested if there are higher financial rewards.

 

[Syed1]

England play "proper", "mechanical", "by the book" cricket which might be good to win test series or ODI series here or there, but come to world tournaments it is teams who get rid of the book and play with flair and passion are the ones that succeed. Another reason why Pak and WI have consistently punched above their weight and why Eng, SA and NZ hardly have a major world tournament win between them.



We saw in the CT semi, when faced with a side that doesn't follow any of the traditional rules England had no answer and looked like minnows.

 

[Varun]

England play "proper", "mechanical", "by the book" cricket which might be good to win test series or ODI series here or there, but come to world tournaments it is teams who get rid of the book and play with flair and passion are the ones that succeed. Another reason why Pak and WI have consistently punched above their weight and why Eng, SA and NZ hardly have a major world tournament win between them.

You make it sound that 'proper', 'by the book', 'mechanical' cricket is a sure shot blueprint to win test series home or away - England have barely done that, even. In terms of holding bilateral test trophies, they have lost to every side away bar South Africa, and have shelled tests at home to every team as well, even if they have picked up the series overall. Occasionally, they haven't even done that: Lanka 2014, Pakistan 2016, etc.

 

[Robert]

We saw in the CT semi, when faced with a side that doesn't follow any of the traditional rules England had no answer and looked like minnows.

No you didn’t. England were presented with a strange wicket, and didn’t work out how to bat on it until too late. The same side had blasted Pakistan to bits the previous year, scoring 400 in one match.

 

[Sarfarazian92]

No you didn’t. England were presented with a strange wicket, and didn’t work out how to bat on it until too late. The same side had blasted Pakistan to bits the previous year, scoring 400 in one match.

Lol I get that people are being a bit too harsh on the England Limited Overs outfit, but you make it sound as if the pitch was prepared to favor Pakistan

You've blasted us to bits in the last 2 bilateral series, but we were the better team in the semi-final and won when it mattered.

England are the favorites for the 2019 WC and their fans should rightly be disappointed if they don't end up making the final.

 

[Robert]

Lol I get that people are being a bit too harsh on the England Limited Overs outfit, but you make it sound as if the pitch was prepared to favor Pakistan

Our groundsmen have a long history of sabotage - three of the five last Ashes decks had no grass, Surrey handing a dustbowl to Murali, dry wickets to India, instead of raging green mambas to Jimmy and Stuart!

 

[Rayyman]

No you didn’t. England were presented with a strange wicket, and didn’t work out how to bat on it until too late. The same side had blasted Pakistan to bits the previous year, scoring 400 in one match.

Yea a strange wicket in which Pakistan made England's target look like 150. We would've chased anything under 320 on that day.

Pakistan won the previous ODI vs England too. In the same series you mentioned. England have only declined after those first 4 ODIs. In the last two matchups we have seen who is really better now.

And you say England worked out how to bat on it until it was too late but they got worse as innings progressed. Started well, then collapsed purely due to pressure and good bowling.

 

[Robert]

England have only declined after those first 4 ODIs.

Eh? Just beat AUS and NZ away 1-4 and 2-3.