Why do England keep shelling home Tests?

[Robert]

Weather conditions have certainly hampered England's pitch preparations as it does everywhere but that doesn't mean that pitches are not prepared with a specific objective in mind. Last 3 years have seen seaming pitches in tests whereas miraculously they turn into flat highways for ODI's and back to seamers when the tests begin.

Mate. Please. I’ve lived here all my life. Look at the WC final. The pitch suited NZ better than England. In the 2016 CT Pakistan got a wicket that helped them more than England in the quarter final. Murali got a dustbowl and took fifteen wickets. There is no grand scheme - the coque-up theory applies instead.

Broadly speaking, early summer wickets in England are green when there is more rain and drier in August. But the weather is changeable throughout. By September the pitches are usually dry but there will be dew in the last hour as the air cools, and the ball will swing.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Mate. Please. I’ve lived here all my life. Look at the WC final. The pitch suited NZ better than England. In the 2016 CT Pakistan got a wicket that helped them more than England in the quarter final. Murali got a dustbowl and took fifteen wickets. There is no grand scheme - the coque-up theory applies instead.

Broadly speaking, early summer wickets in England are green when there is more rain and drier in August. But the weather is changeable throughout. By September the pitches are usually dry but there will be dew in the last hour as the air cools, and the ball will swing.

World cup pitch preparations were hampered because of the weather and later the pitches had to be reused. There is no grand scheme. But pitches are prepared, weather permitting , to give england any advantage they can get in either format. Nothing wrong in that. But when even your own ex players and current players have defended it , it cost be without some truth in it.

 

[Robert]

But pitches are prepared, weather permitting , to give england any advantage they can get in either format. Nothing wrong in that.

Seventy years ago, Sir Len Hutton called for English groundsmen to make bad wickets for the tests, as English batters had the best defence and would hang in and score while overseas players would be exposed.

But he didn’t get them and neither has anyone else since.

It would be more true to say that England bowlers of certain types tend to advance in England because of the type of pitches. Seam and swing medium pacers and accurate off spinners. Then the likes of Anderson get exposed in India and Australia.

This also makes the emergence of fast bowlers and wrist spinners unlikely as the English wickets do not suit them.

 

[Hasan123]

England have some good young players. I'm sure it will click for them but it is going to take a while due to a lot of inexperienced players in the team such as Pope,Archer,Crawley, and Sibley. Potentially Buttler could come out of the team for an inexperienced player, Anderson and Broad don't have long left. So more inconsistent results await.

 

[Amjid Javed]

The sporting wickets are good in england. The bowlers always get assistance early on and usually day 2 or 3 are good for batting. The more worrying thing for england would be the woeful technics of a lot of their young batsmen. I think most touring bowlers will fancy their chances against them.

 

[Mamoon]

England are a hugely overrated team across all formats. Anytime they slightly well, they’re overhyped to a ridiculous level. They are nowhere near Australia or India.

That is an interesting statement to make about a team that won the World Cup last year. They are a better ODI side than both Australia and India.

 

[Forum363]

That is an interesting statement to make about a team that won the World Cup last year. They are a better ODI side than both Australia and India.

An ODI World Cup which was tied against an average New Zealand side and England just happened to have more boundaries. Even the tie was only possible due to a superhuman effort from Ben Stokes. So basically, it took a ATG performance from their best player to tie at home.

Under certain conditions they have an explosive batting lineup but they just do not have the all round players that Australia or India have. They’re a good side but overrated as if they’re the Aussie side of the 00’s.

 

[HitWicket]

An ODI World Cup which was tied against an average New Zealand side and England just happened to have more boundaries. Even the tie was only possible due to a superhuman effort from Ben Stokes. So basically, it took a ATG performance from their best player to tie at home.

Under certain conditions they have an explosive batting lineup but they just do not have the all round players that Australia or India have. They’re a good side but overrated as if they’re the Aussie side of the 00’s.

Please... Both teams only have/had 3 maybe 4 players that would get in that England XI.

 

[Pakhs]

England home advantage is dependent on weather gods which are not in their control. It seems they also don't necessarily want to use out of choice batting first when the weather forecast was overcast for first 2 days only.

 

[Mamoon]

An ODI World Cup which was tied against an average New Zealand side and England just happened to have more boundaries. Even the tie was only possible due to a superhuman effort from Ben Stokes. So basically, it took a ATG performance from their best player to tie at home.

Under certain conditions they have an explosive batting lineup but they just do not have the all round players that Australia or India have. They’re a good side but overrated as if they’re the Aussie side of the 00’s.

The World Cup final is irrelevant as far as the comparison with Australia and India is concerned.

Both of those sides had the opportunity to eliminate England but they got crushed.

England proved themselves to be the better side and rightfully won the World Cup.

No one compares them to the Australians of the 2000s so I am not sure why you brought that up.

Apart from that Australian side and the West Indies of the 70s and 80s, all great sides have been pretty much conditions dependent.

India and Australia wouldn’t have won the World Cups in 2011 and 2015 if they weren’t playing at home.

 

[Forum363]

The World Cup final is irrelevant as far as the comparison with Australia and India is concerned.

Both of those sides had the opportunity to eliminate England but they got crushed.

England proved themselves to be the better side and rightfully won the World Cup.

No one compares them to the Australians of the 2000s so I am not sure why you brought that up.

Apart from that Australian side and the West Indies of the 70s and 80s, all great sides have been pretty much conditions dependent.

India and Australia wouldn’t have won the World Cups in 2011 and 2015 if they weren’t playing at home.

Anything can happen in a knockout match as we know. Just because India and Australia didn’t win their matches doesn’t mean they’re not as good as England (in fact they’re clearly better ODI sides).

The Australian side of the 00’s was the last side to be so clearly better than the competition that they could comfortably be called the number one team - winning both bilateral and multiple world cups. England won a few bilateral series and got extremely lucky to tie a World Cup and so people like yourself started to call them unequivocally the best team. That isn’t the case. Both India and Australia are better but neither are dominant enough to be called the best.

We don’t know what India or Australia would have done outside their own countries, but at least in their countries they comfortably won the final not creeped to a tie due to one player’s super human efforts. One little blip from Stokes and ‘the best team in the world’ would have not won the World Cup at home against a mid ranked side.

 

[Forum363]

Please... Both teams only have/had 3 maybe 4 players that would get in that England XI.

Yes because England have 15 squad members that would walk into every team in the world.

It’s not just about individual players, but how they play as a team. Australia have a killer spirit that England will never posses, although Stokes alone seems to come close. India have possibly the greatest ODI player of all time as their captain. On top of that they each have multiple ATG ODI player such as Sharma, Starc, Warner etc. Who do England have? Bairstow? Morgan? Butler? Plunkett?

 

[HitWicket]

Yes because England have 15 squad members that would walk into every team in the world.

Solid strawman argument. Of course not all 15 squad members would get in every team in the world, 8 or 9 of them would in isolation though.

 

[Forum363]

Solid strawman argument. Of course not all 15 squad members would get in every team in the world, 8 or 9 of them would in isolation though.

Just to humour you, which 8 or 9 would walk into every team?

 

[HitWicket]

Just to humour you, which 8 or 9 would walk into every team?

The normal top 6 are the obvious ones then chuck in Archer and Woakes and assuming we're considering the state of affairs as of the world cup you can probably add in Plunkett as well

 

[Mamoon]

Anything can happen in a knockout match as we know. Just because India and Australia didn’t win their matches doesn’t mean they’re not as good as England (in fact they’re clearly better ODI sides).

The Australian side of the 00’s was the last side to be so clearly better than the competition that they could comfortably be called the number one team - winning both bilateral and multiple world cups. England won a few bilateral series and got extremely lucky to tie a World Cup and so people like yourself started to call them unequivocally the best team. That isn’t the case. Both India and Australia are better but neither are dominant enough to be called the best.

We don’t know what India or Australia would have done outside their own countries, but at least in their countries they comfortably won the final not creeped to a tie due to one player’s super human efforts. One little blip from Stokes and ‘the best team in the world’ would have not won the World Cup at home against a mid ranked side.

England have been the best ODI since the 2015 World Cup and they have beaten every side comprehensively. Australia in particular were obliterated by England home and away during this period, and they validated their bilateral success by winning the World Cup.

England’s critics called them bottlers before they won the World Cup and now discredit them by saying that they got lucky and were saved by Stokes.

You are no different. Had Australia won the semifinal you would have called England overrated chokers, but now you are dismissing them because anything can happen in a knockout game.

England is a better ODI team than Australia because if these two sides play 10 matches home and away, England will win more games.

Cricket is game of fine margins. Plenty of matches have been decided by little blips either way, but people don’t discredit these wins. It only happens when everyone’s least favorite side England and India win.

To be the best side you do not have to be invincible; you only have to be relatively better than the rest.

England (ODIs) and India (Tests) are the best in the world not because they are unbeatable but because they are relatively better than the rest, and no other side has a stronger claim at the best in the world tag.

 

[Pakhs]

England have been the best ODI since the 2015 World Cup and they have beaten every side comprehensively. Australia in particular were obliterated by England home and away during this period, and they validated their bilateral success by winning the World Cup.

England’s critics called them bottlers before they won the World Cup and now discredit them by saying that they got lucky and were saved by Stokes.

You are no different. Had Australia won the semifinal you would have called England overrated chokers, but now you are dismissing them because anything can happen in a knockout game.

England is a better ODI team than Australia because if these two sides play 10 matches home and away, England will win more games.

Cricket is game of fine margins. Plenty of matches have been decided by little blips either way, but people don’t discredit these wins. It only happens when everyone’s least favorite side England and India win.

To be the best side you do not have to be invincible; you only have to be relatively better than the rest.

England (ODIs) and India (Tests) are the best in the world not because they are unbeatable but because they are relatively better than the rest, and no other side has a stronger claim at the best in the world tag.

England is nobody's least favorite site though.

 

[Forum363]

The normal top 6 are the obvious ones then chuck in Archer and Woakes and assuming we're considering the state of affairs as of the world cup you can probably add in Plunkett as well

Ah yes you’re right. India would definitely swap their top 6 for England. I’m sure Bairstow and Root would walk in and replace Sharma and Kohli. Ofcourse they would replace Warner and Smith easily too. And Australia would jump at the chance of replacing Starc / Cummins with Woakes/ Archer and Plunkett.

 

[Forum363]

England have been the best ODI since the 2015 World Cup and they have beaten every side comprehensively. Australia in particular were obliterated by England home and away during this period, and they validated their bilateral success by winning the World Cup.

England’s critics called them bottlers before they won the World Cup and now discredit them by saying that they got lucky and were saved by Stokes.

You are no different. Had Australia won the semifinal you would have called England overrated chokers, but now you are dismissing them because anything can happen in a knockout game.

England is a better ODI team than Australia because if these two sides play 10 matches home and away, England will win more games.

Cricket is game of fine margins. Plenty of matches have been decided by little blips either way, but people don’t discredit these wins. It only happens when everyone’s least favorite side England and India win.

To be the best side you do not have to be invincible; you only have to be relatively better than the rest.

England (ODIs) and India (Tests) are the best in the world not because they are unbeatable but because they are relatively better than the rest, and no other side has a stronger claim at the best in the world tag.

England had everything set up leading to this World Cup. In home conditions with ideal preparations, the cup was theirs. Ofcourse they did well to tie it in the end, but it’s not some amazing feat.

We will have to disagree on who would win ten matches. England have won a good number of games under Morgan but they are just clearly not a superior side to Australia or India. They are not far off and under the right conditions they could even be in the same group as them. But they certainly are not relatively better than them. They don’t have a single ATG in their lineup apart from Stokes. Before Archer who is still new and unproven, they had a very average bowling attack with the likes of Wiley and Plunkett. Their formula was to let the opposition get as many runs as they wanted and just blast them out with their robotic batsmen who could hit through the line on flat pitches.

Anytime there was a slight change to the formula like CT semi final against Pakistan the whole team crumpled, were resoundingly smashed and then proceeded to complain about the pitch conditions not suiting them. For a ‘relatively better’ side it was hilarious hearing them crying.

 

[HitWicket]

Ah yes you’re right. India would definitely swap their top 6 for England. I’m sure Bairstow and Root would walk in and replace Sharma and Kohli. Ofcourse they would replace Warner and Smith easily too. And Australia would jump at the chance of replacing Starc / Cummins with Woakes/ Archer and Plunkett.

Yet another strawman argument, the fact that every time I respond to you you keep having to make up your own nonsense argument against a claim I've never even made is very telling.

I very clearly stated that these 7 or 8 players would walk into any team in the world in isolation i.e individually. Clearly if you make a combined England-India top 6 there's only going to be space to slot in 4 Englishman at the moment.

 

[Forum363]

Yet another strawman argument, the fact that every time I respond to you you keep having to make up your own nonsense argument against a claim I've never even made is very telling.

I very clearly stated that these 7 or 8 players would walk into any team in the world in isolation i.e individually. Clearly if you make a combined England-India top 6 there's only going to be space to slot in 4 Englishman at the moment.

Okay so individually each of those 7/8 players would walk into any team in the world. So Bairstow would walk into India and Australia? He would replace Dhawan or Finch?

And Woakes would walk into the Indian team when Shami who is a superior bowler barely made it into India’s side and when he did he almost took the same number of wickets in 4 games, that Woakes managed in 11.

But even using that isolation criteria is useless because you essentially compare each player with the weakest member of the team.

England do have a great batting lineup for flat tracks- I’ll give you that. Best in the world when all the conditions are ideal and just how they like them.

 

[HitWicket]

Okay so individually each of those 7/8 players would walk into any team in the world. So Bairstow would walk into India and Australia? He would replace Dhawan or Finch?

Yes, Bairstow comfortably walks in ahead of Dhawan with no questions asked right now. The Australian team top pair is a little tougher but he's still a better batsman than Finch on the whole and even if arguments were made otherwise easily slots into the middle order or keeping slot.

And Woakes would walk into the Indian team when Shami who is a superior bowler barely made it into India’s side and when he did he almost took the same number of wickets in 4 games, that Woakes managed in 11.

I'd pick him over Pandya before you even start considering the specialists bowlers where it becomes clear he's a more valuable player than someone like Bhuvneshwar Kumar.

But even using that isolation criteria is useless because you essentially compare each player with the weakest member of the team.

Perhaps you shouldn't use that criteria in the future then? After all, I began discussing how many players would get in a combined XI (eliminating that issue) and it was your own strawman argument of a post that brought up how many of the squad would get into every other team in the world.

 

[Forum363]

Yes, Bairstow comfortably walks in ahead of Dhawan with no questions asked right now. The Australian team top pair is a little tougher but he's still a better batsman than Finch on the whole and even if arguments were made otherwise easily slots into the middle order or keeping slot.

I'd pick him over Pandya before you even start considering the specialists bowlers where it becomes clear he's a more valuable player than someone like Bhuvneshwar Kumar.



Perhaps you shouldn't use that criteria in the future then? After all, I began discussing how many players would get in a combined XI (eliminating that issue) and it was your own strawman argument of a post that brought up how many of the squad would get into every other team in the world.

We will have to agree to disagree on Bairstow then. He wouldn’t even be playing if Hales hadn’t had his issues.

You can argue it however you like I guess. England is ultimately made up of talented batsmen who are dangerous under the right conditions. Only Stokes is their real elite player.

And well done, I’m glad strawman came up on your word of the day, but you don’t have to use it in every post..

 

[sweep_shot]

England have put too much emphasize on LOI (specially ODI). It resulted in them overlooking Test format.

It has gotten to a point where they don't have many great Test candidates. It is why they are losing Test matches both home and away.

 

[HitWicket]

We will have to agree to disagree on Bairstow then. He wouldn’t even be playing if Hales hadn’t had his issues.

You can argue it however you like I guess. England is ultimately made up of talented batsmen who are dangerous under the right conditions. Only Stokes is their real elite player.

Bairstow was England's leading ODI run scorer in the year prior to Hales' final game before he got kicked out, averaging 48.84 at an insane strike rate of 128.53. Hales averaged 46.20 at a strike rate of 96.85. Bairstow was a sure starter, Roy was the vulnerable one of the partnership (but ultimately went on to an outstanding year) if Hales was going to play, especially given his injury.

I'd argue anyone who would get in any team in the world is a real elite player

And well done, I’m glad strawman came up on your word of the day, but you don’t have to use it in every post..

I wouldn't have to if didn't regularly make and use them...

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Bairstow was England's leading ODI run scorer in the year prior to Hales' final game before he got kicked out, averaging 48.84 at an insane strike rate of 128.53. Hales averaged 46.20 at a strike rate of 96.85. Bairstow was a sure starter, Roy was the vulnerable one of the partnership (but ultimately went on to an outstanding year) if Hales was going to play, especially given his injury.

I'd argue anyone who would get in any team in the world is a real elite player



I wouldn't have to if didn't regularly make and use them...

Hales should have been in the squad ahead of james vince though

 

[Bhaijaan]

This could be another one.

Given they are going to be chasing anything over 200 is going to put them under immense pressure and anything over 250 will be highly unlikely. There is no team that can chase 280+ vs Pakistan in England or anywhere except Australia in Australia

 

[shamaan]

This could be another one.

Given they are going to be chasing anything over 200 is going to put them under immense pressure and anything over 250 will be highly unlikely. There is no team that can chase 280+ vs Pakistan in England or anywhere except Australia in Australia

Agreed

 

[Varun]

This could be another one.

Given they are going to be chasing anything over 200 is going to put them under immense pressure and anything over 250 will be highly unlikely. There is no team that can chase 280+ vs Pakistan in England or anywhere except Australia in Australia

How far can you go in test cricket when you can't win any significant series away, and shell a test apiece from every home series you play?

PS: Don't write-off Pakistan collapsing in a heap in the 3rd innings - it's what they're capable of also.

 

[Bhaijaan]

How far can you go in test cricket when you can't win any significant series away, and shell a test apiece from every home series you play?

PS: Don't write-off Pakistan collapsing in a heap in the 3rd innings - it's what they're capable of also.

England has also earned reputation of come back kings, let's see how they fare in this game and whether they are able to pull back. Most likely a Pakistani ein is on the cards though, this a is a perfect start for the greens

 

[Ab Fan]

England have produced many legends of the game in last 20 years. They play the game to give everyone a good chance so they shell home matches. Just look at their list of legends, it's huge.

Cook
Root
Stokes
Anderson
Broad
KP
Vaughan
Hussain
Flintoff
Swann

 

[Bhaijaan]

England have produced many legends of the game in last 20 years. They play the game to give everyone a good chance so they shell home matches. Just look at their list of legends, it's huge.

Cook
Root
Stokes
Anderson
Broad
KP
Vaughan
Hussain
Flintoff
Swann

Vaughan, Swann, Hussein, legendary? How/When ?

 

[Varun]

England have produced many legends of the game in last 20 years. They play the game to give everyone a good chance so they shell home matches. Just look at their list of legends, it's huge.

Cook
Root
Stokes
Anderson
Broad
KP
Vaughan
Hussain
Flintoff
Swann

Cook and Anderson and perhaps KP make the cut, the rest are 2-series wonders at best.

 

[Ab Fan]

Cook and Anderson and perhaps KP make the cut, the rest are 2-series wonders at best.

Benjamin Stokes.

 

[Ab Fan]

Vaughan, Swann, Hussein, legendary? How/When ?

Yes, cricket is not a game that is played on spreadsheets. The influence and contribution that Hussain and Vaughan have made for England cricket is legendary.

 

[therealAB]

Cook and Anderson and perhaps KP make the cut, the rest are 2-series wonders at best.

If they are all legends, Aus/Ind/Sa have produced 30 each

 

[James]

The pitches are generally quite sporting. Unlike most other countries they dont doctor them to favour the home team too much.

Obviously this game was played in empty stands but the crowds are genuinley the most sporting in cricket also.

The combination of sporting pitches, sporting home crowds and the number of immigrants that come to support the away team is why a test series in England is the pinnacle of test cricket.

They might shell a few tests here and there but overall whenever a test is played in England, cricket is the winner.

I like this post.

As for OP, I guess the most brutal answer is because England aren’t all that good a team. lol

Although on a more serious note, the pitches here are generally quite sporting, which ensures that many Test matches played in English conditions have the potential to exist outside of ranking tables and the form book.

Plus there is a less tangible aspect, which is that psychologically the English are not as obsessed as some others with winning. Different to, say, the Aussies for one. There is a characteristic shoulder-shrug mentality of English people towards sport, “it’s only a game” / “taking part is what matters” etc, which is just an odd part of our culture and has seen us “play a role“ in many a great sporting contest — although, often on the losing side!!

 

[Varun]

Another test loss, and a series loss too.

 

[AMSS]

Doctored pitches with the goal of attritional cricket in Ashes later this year. Are we going to see this experiment being aborted now that NZ have made ENG taste it?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

New Zealand are a fine side, given sporting conditions they would have a good chance of beating anyone.

 

[hitthestump]

England aren't even that big a deal. They've been carried at home by a bunch of questionably English players, as well as an admittedly GOAT pairing of Anderson and Broad.

It depends on how many more foreign players England can poach, but don't be surprised to see them return to mediocre levels of cricket within 5-10 years.

England were rubbish in the 90's and they'll be rubbish again soon.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

England's batting is awful, only good/great batsman is Root.

 

[Bhaijaan]

England were rubbish in the 90's and they'll be rubbish again soon.

NZ just replaced India as world #1 ranked test team.

No need to overreact.

Let's also appreciate the fact that England remains a place a well rounded quality opposition always has a fair chance to perform.

England also believe on result oriented cricket and although they have lost a lot of tests, but they haven't still list many test series.

If they lose 1 test, they usually balance it out with 3 wins as they did with India last time around. India competed in all tests and still lost 1-4 as England takes it right till the day 5 to force a result.

 

[pakistani pride]

Isnt this the first loss (series) in 7 or 8 years at home for England?

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Why is England so weak at home?

From 2011-2018 at least, England had their one punching boy in India, who they used to bully at home. Now England can't even do that, they are potentially about to lose a series against India.

As a big fan of late 00s and early 2010s England team, I am beyond disappointed.

 

[IMMY69]

Simple answer:

England's Top 3 is extremely poor on par with Pakistan and that's bad.
Plus they're really missing Stokes especially in these conditions.

They've chopped and changed their lower order too which doesn't help

 

[MP2011]

Now England can't even do that, they are potentially about to lose a series against India.

Not so soon! We have 3 more tests to play in this series. Considering England are playing at home, they have very high probability to come back in this series. Also, we've flattered to deceive too many times to believe that we are about to win this series.

 

[Varun]

+2 more vs India, with another test to go.

This after losing to New Zealand earlier in the summer.

About time fans stop writing posts like "Let's see him play well against Aus, Eng, Ind, NZ" etc.

 

[Amjid Javed]

its taken england most of the series to get there top order right. Add to that you pick white ball hacks like bairstow/buttler and moeen and its no shock that englands test team had declined.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Losing a test series to India must sting after dominating India for 10 years at home. England has regressed immensely in test cricket. Never seen a 'top' team being so poor at home.

At this point, the only team England is guaranteed to beat at home is Bangladesh.

 

[Bhaijaan]

They’re about to lose another to Sri Lanka

 

[DeadlyVenom]

All the entertaining teams shell a few matches ( or series) at home.

You want cricket to be played on a spreadsheet where you can predict home team is going to win 99percent of the time.

Or you want it to be played by men who aren't afraid to lose at home as long as it grows the sport.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

SL can still lose this.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

All the entertaining teams shell a few matches ( or series) at home.

You want cricket to be played on a spreadsheet where you can predict home team is going to win 99percent of the time.

Or you want it to be played by men who aren't afraid to lose at home as long as it grows the sport.

Bangladesh whitewashing Pakistan in front of empty Pindi ground is certainly not growing the sport.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Bangladesh whitewashing Pakistan in front of empty Pindi ground is certainly not growing the sport.

It has motivated the next generation of Bangladeshis and got the attention of the world.

 

[Ab Fan]

All the entertaining teams shell a few matches ( or series) at home.

You want cricket to be played on a spreadsheet where you can predict home team is going to win 99percent of the time.

Or you want it to be played by men who aren't afraid to lose at home as long as it grows the sport.

Any home team who can put up a side that is going to win 99% of time will play that way only.

There is a reason why England adopted Bazball, this is to ensure they dominate weaker opponents at home the way India and Australia does and stay competitive vs top teams. Let's see if they are able to do it tomorrow vs SL.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

It has motivated the next generation of Bangladeshis and got the attention of the world.

SL whitewashed South Africa 5 years ago. Kusal Perera played, arguably, the greatest Test knock of all time.

Nobody remembers it and it did absolutely nothing for the sport.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

SL whitewashed South Africa 5 years ago. Kusal Perera played, arguably, the greatest Test knock of all time.

Nobody remembers it and it did absolutely nothing for the sport.

You remember and here you are 5 years later still giving us your insights into the game.

A future Nikhil may have been born after Banglawash.

 

[gibsyhesperis]

They lose because they don’t play sensible cricket.
They believe their own hype, believe you should play Test matches like a T20 which is why they remain below India and Australia.
Lawrence was a disgrace today and in English conditions (we’ve not exactly had dry sunny weather during this Test) they could lose to a subcontinental team that’s isn’t India.
No wonder both Cook and Vaughan laid into them today and they sent out Collingwood for the presser.

I know there are many fans of so-called Bazball on this site, but usually those people are the one who don’t like Test cricket anyway.
You don’t need to “grow” Test cricket in England — most English fans prioritise it over all other formats

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

SL whitewashed South Africa 5 years ago. Kusal Perera played, arguably, the greatest Test knock of all time.

Nobody remembers it and it did absolutely nothing for the sport.

A lot of people do remember that.
It looks like you want cricket to die just so that you can prove yourself right.

 

[James]

+2 more vs India, with another test to go.

This after losing to New Zealand earlier in the summer.

About time fans stop writing posts like "Let's see him play well against Aus, Eng, Ind, NZ" etc.

Losing a test series to India must sting after dominating India for 10 years at home. England has regressed immensely in test cricket. Never seen a 'top' team being so poor at home.

At this point, the only team England is guaranteed to beat at home is Bangladesh.

These posts from September 2021 are revealing. England have certainly improved under McCullum and Stokes. They’ve whitewashed New Zealand and West Indies at home, beaten Sri Lanka and South Africa at home, and they won the “one off” Test v India to draw that series.

As @DeadlyVenom says, they will still lose a home Test occasionally because of the way they play. I would add about the playing style that it is still a bit of a work in progress, as is the team which has moved on Bairstow and Jimmy Anderson & is trying out younger players - they are not at all the finished article tactically and there is a minor period of transition in terms of personnel.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

A lot of people do remember that.
It looks like you want cricket to die just so that you can prove yourself rig

And the sport has grown since then?

 

[Cricket Warrior]

still they are doing way better than Pakistan at their home ground.

 

[Amjid Javed]

English conditions will always allow for competitive tests for touring sides. It's always a case of can touring sides put runs on the board in England, as seamers / quick bowlers will always get assistance so taking wickets shouldn't be an issue.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

English conditions will always allow for competitive tests for touring sides. It's always a case of can touring sides put runs on the board in England, as seamers / quick bowlers will always get assistance so taking wickets shouldn't be an issue.

And how is that different from any other country?

The reason of competition is not the pitch .it’s Englands inability to dominate that allows visiting teams to compete.

 

[Amjid Javed]

And how is that different from any other country?

The reason of competition is not the pitch .it’s Englands inability to dominate that allows visiting teams to compete.

English pitches are usually sporting. Not every other country provide sporting wickets.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Sporting pitches have little to do with it. They often don't have the best bowling attack on any particular kind of surface.

Only 2 teams do. It is very difficult to out reverse or outspin India in India.


Difficult to outmatch Australia in Australia for pace and bounce.

That's why these 2 teams are extremely dominant at home unlike others.

 

[RidiculousMan]

Sporting pitches have little to do with it. They often don't have the best bowling attack on any particular kind of surface.

Only 2 teams do. It is very difficult to out reverse or outspin India in India.


Difficult to outmatch Australia in Australia for pace and bounce.

That's why these 2 teams are extremely dominant at home unlike others.

Yea. I don't ever remember them having the strongest bowling attack in a season against all opponents. Even with Broad and Anderson they looked 2nd tier compared to the Australian trio

 

[Buffet]

They don't have a team to dominate that heavily at home to not drop tests regularly. Still a pretty good team performace at home.