Why do England's 'best' batsmen always fall short of being elite?

[Varun]

The rest of the world puts out Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Kallis and Sangakkara - all of them were multi-format stars and some have also captained their teams with success over a number of years.

On the other hand, we have guys like Root, Cook and Pietersen - who not only sport a step-motherly attitude to one or more formats, they end up averaging in the mid-40s in the so called premiere format with large swathes of failures interrupting the few highs.

The less said about their captaincy too, the better - and this is something that the other 3 contemporary greats have no issues with: Kohli, Smith (when he was captain) and Williamson.

What gives?

 

[Ab Fan]

Consistency is not their forte,maybe.

 

[MenInG]

Think the World Cup Fluke is being used to judge them as the world's best.

Fact is that they are good at home (sometimes) and struggle overseas.

The one good batsman Root cannot handle captaincy and is struggling.

 

[Bhaijaan]

The rest of the world puts out Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Kallis and Sangakkara - all of them were multi-format stars and some have also captained their teams with success over a number of years.

On the other hand, we have guys like Root, Cook and Pietersen - who not only sport a step-motherly attitude to one or more formats, they end up averaging in the mid-40s in the so called premiere format with large swathes of failures interrupting the few highs.

The less said about their captaincy too, the better - and this is something that the other 3 contemporary greats have no issues with: Kohli, Smith (when he was captain) and Williamson.

What gives?

1. Playing a lot in English conditions. Wickets could be flat as hell sometimes but from what we have seen they're mostly favourable for quality seamers. Tendulkar, Ponting, Sangakkara some of the players you mentioned have all suffered huge dip in their career averages from a couple of bad English tours.

2. Ashes being a regular high impact series in their schedule every 2 years. One bad series raises a lot of doubts and leaves mental scars which not all players are capable of overcoming. Remember how Pakistan series in 2005 resulted in Ganguly being kicked out for India. We don't play a lot of these Ind-Pak test series now to understand their impact. South Africa, Sri Lanka, WI, NZ, Pakistan do not have the pressure of featuring in highly pressure test series. For India, with their rise in stature, tour of England/Aus/RSA and the pressure that they bring has somewhat balanced out the luxury of not having to play a quality Pakistan often.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Think the World Cup Fluke is being used to judge them as the world's best.

Fact is that they are good at home (sometimes) and struggle overseas.

The one good batsman Root cannot handle captaincy and is struggling.

World cup wasn't a fluke, please show some respect. England has been world's best ODI team since a couple of years now.

 

[MenInG]

World cup wasn't a fluke, please show some respect. England has been world's best ODI team since a couple of years now.

Sorry? A fluke win based upon a dubious bunch of runs awarded. They did not deserve to win against NZ and the fact is that the expectations of English batsmen went sky high based on that win.

 

[ARK Rafay]

Because they aren't the best.
WC was a big fluke.

 

[Shazzam]

I feel like most English batsmen are mental midgets. They are not able to sustain consistency for long cause there mentally is not the best. Root is a average batsmen who is hyped cause he is English. Him being part of fab 4 says it all.

 

[barah_admi]

Think the World Cup Fluke is being used to judge them as the world's best.

Fact is that they are good at home (sometimes) and struggle overseas.

The one good batsman Root cannot handle captaincy and is struggling.

Comeo n, world cup fluke? England have been the premier ODI side for 4 years now.

 

[satheesh]

Sorry? A fluke win based upon a dubious bunch of runs awarded. They did not deserve to win against NZ and the fact is that the expectations of English batsmen went sky high based on that win.

you conveniently forget the fact that ENG won the final by chasing. Chasing a target becomes even harder depending on the importance of the match.That is a fact.Based on that ENG were the deserving winners. Despite getting a huge luck in the form of toss win NZL couldn't capitalize on that .

 

[Ab Fan]

Think the World Cup Fluke is being used to judge them as the world's best.

Fact is that they are good at home (sometimes) and struggle overseas.

The one good batsman Root cannot handle captaincy and is struggling.

England win in WC was not a fluke IMO.

I mean if the current England team plays current NZ team, England will win more number of times than NZ. So, it's not a fluke win.

What we can definitely say is on that particular day, NZ played better cricket than England but England had luck on their side. However, overall in general, current England are a superior team to the current NZ team.

 

[big_gamer007]

My theory which might be completely wrong, In tests they play in difficult conditions. Their system is county based (test focus) and pitches are difficult. So while growing up they do not get mammoth hundreds and don't get the hunger to score big runs.

 

[Robert]

The rest of the world puts out Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Kallis and Sangakkara - all of them were multi-format stars and some have also captained their teams with success over a number of years.

On the other hand, we have guys like Root, Cook and Pietersen - who not only sport a step-motherly attitude to one or more formats, they end up averaging in the mid-40s in the so called premiere format with large swathes of failures interrupting the few highs.

The less said about their captaincy too, the better - and this is something that the other 3 contemporary greats have no issues with: Kohli, Smith (when he was captain) and Williamson.

What gives?

Firstly, it’s a hard place to bat (like New Zealand which has produced one player averaging fifty in its history, and that at a time where the climate is changing and the wickets getting easier).

Secondly, the County Championship has not been fit for the purpose of producing test cricketers for decades.

Thirdly they are in the habit of making the best batsman skipper. This usually cripples his run making power - the only recent example where someone got better was Gooch. Aussies decide on a skipper and he just controls the team during matches and does press conferences. But the England skipper is a selector and a sometime diplomat too. They are overloaded with work outside the team.

Fourthly in Root’s case he is being put under extra pressure by the weak batting above him, constantly doing repair jobs instead of standing on a base of 100-2 and accelerating the scoring. When he came in behind Cook and KP he averaged 70 in tests.

 

[James]

Surprised and actually a bit disappointed to see some normally top-drawer PP users writing off the World Cup win as a fluke.

England had been the best team in the world for several years in the buildup to it, and the final was one of those momentous games between the two best sides in the tournament that could have gone either way.

Stokes averaged 66 with the bat, played heroically in the final and was amazingly consistent, Roy averaged 63 and made a huge impact, Root averaged 61 with 2 tons and was one of the highest scorers in the tournament, Bairstow averaged 48 with 2 match-winning tons in big games.

No fluke. Please all consider clarifying these disrespectful and inaccurate comments.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Surprised and actually a bit disappointed to see some normally top-drawer PP users writing off the World Cup win as a fluke.

England had been the best team in the world for several years in the buildup to it, and the final was one of those momentous games between the two best sides in the tournament that could have gone either way.

Stokes averaged 66 with the bat, played heroically in the final and was amazingly consistent, Roy averaged 63 and made a huge impact, Root averaged 61 with 2 tons and was one of the highest scorers in the tournament, Bairstow averaged 48 with 2 match-winning tons in big games.

No fluke. Please all consider clarifying these disrespectful and inaccurate comments.

Also, England won 4 must win games to qualify for the final. When it mattered the most, England showed remarkable character.

We all feel sorry for NZ in the final. Looking at it purely in isolation, they were as good a side or maybe better by a whisker on that given day.

But it is satisfactory as well to know the cup went to a team that dominated and defined ODI cricket in last few years. Had it gone to any side other than England or maybe India, it would have felt odd.

 

[wrongun]

Great question because this has been the case for 4 decades now.

None of Englands BEST batsmen have been ATG batsmen- with the possible exception of Peterson.

Gooch, Gower, Vaughan, Thorpe, Stewart, Root. All very good. But none are great.

One cannot argue conditions as England has a fair variety & SA has by far more hostile conditions for batsmen. SA have G Smith, AB, Amla to point at as great batsmen lately.

It must be pressure or social conditions. I cannot think els wise.

 

[Robert]

Surprised and actually a bit disappointed to see some normally top-drawer PP users writing off the World Cup win as a fluke.

England had been the best team in the world for several years in the buildup to it, and the final was one of those momentous games between the two best sides in the tournament that could have gone either way.

Stokes averaged 66 with the bat, played heroically in the final and was amazingly consistent, Roy averaged 63 and made a huge impact, Root averaged 61 with 2 tons and was one of the highest scorers in the tournament, Bairstow averaged 48 with 2 match-winning tons in big games.

No fluke. Please all consider clarifying these disrespectful and inaccurate comments.

It’s just envy, ignore it.

 

[Varun]

It must be pressure or social conditions. I cannot think els wise.

It can't be pressure - the England job is certainly no more taxing than the Australian / Indian / Pakistani jobs. Yet.

 

[Robert]

Great question because this has been the case for 4 decades now.

None of Englands BEST batsmen have been ATG batsmen- with the possible exception of Peterson.

Gooch, Gower, Vaughan, Thorpe, Stewart, Root. All very good. But none are great.

One cannot argue conditions as England has a fair variety & SA has by far more hostile conditions for batsmen. SA have G Smith, AB, Amla to point at as great batsmen lately.

It must be pressure or social conditions. I cannot think els wise.

What are the duties of the Australia captain?

 

[Robert]

It can't be pressure - the England job is certainly no more taxing than the Australian / Indian / Pakistani jobs. Yet.

What knowledge are you basing your certainty on?

 

[Varun]

What knowledge are you basing your certainty on?

The knowledge of obviousness.

Did Alastair Cook have it tougher than MS Dhoni?
Did Nasser Hussain have it tougher than Ricky Ponting?
Does Eoin Morgan have it tougher than Sarfraz Ahmed?

 

[Robert]

The knowledge of obviousness.

Did Alastair Cook have it tougher than MS Dhoni?
Did Nasser Hussain have it tougher than Ricky Ponting?
Does Eoin Morgan have it tougher than Sarfraz Ahmed?

From a purely playing perspective - yes because Cook was an opener not a #7, yes because Nasser had an average team while Ponting had an excellent team mostly, and the Morgan question is irrelevant as we are talking about test cricket.

So what actual knowledge are you basing certainty on?

 

[James]

There’s something about the ruthless brutality of the English media, also how Test cricket is held in the absolute highest honourable regard in England, and more generally there is our schadenfreude Shakespearian English culture of loving to watch a hero but then loving it even more when the hero falls.

 

[TestMatch]

Probably because English conditions are particularly tough, they play the Aussies a lot, and they're unaccustomed to the heat when traveling abroad.

 

[wrongun]

Toss coin.

Input into selection (the exact weight & nature of this changes every few years & sometimes by tour or home series as to whether actual selector or not).

Strategy.

Man management.

Media duties.

All shared to greater or lesser degree with coach & countless hangers on. But it depends on each regime.

Paine has also been tasked with cultural regeneration. Done ok at it too.

I don't have any more info than this, why do you ask?

 

[wrongun]

It can't be pressure - the England job is certainly no more taxing than the Australian / Indian / Pakistani jobs. Yet.

Everything I hear says it IS more pressure. The English press seem a bit earlier to criticise - it may be a chicken or egg with relative lack of success over the 30 years previous to this decade though as to whether the press are meaner or the team easier to pillory.

The Pakistan job is unique. There are threads enough on it. I can't begin to compare. But in general, Pakistan have produced a few world class batsmen, not many. Of course there are good batsmen but how many Pakistani batsmen would make an OZ 1990- present ATG test team? So I'm not sure that is a good counter.

India. Yes. Some great batsmen. But They have the support of a billion. Not vultures circling like England or Hyena rivals gnawing like in Pakistan.

 

[silentkiller187]

Englands world cup win was deserved 4 years in the making but it was still as much of a fluke as previous PP'ers called Pakistans win a fluke in the CT17. Stokes caught on the boundary of a six, the dubious runs etc. take nothing away from the win but some people acting like this team are the best thing since slice bread since the summer need to actually watch proper cricket.