Why England are good now and were bad in the past

I've alluded to this topic on another thread but want to put forward reasons why England have risen to the top in Test cricket.
I always argued in the 80s and the 90s when we were regularly getting well beaten that we really were not that bad. This is why England have become the number one team:
1. CENTRAL CONTRACTS - Some thrive on playing regularly (think Gooch, Caddick) but too often England would go into Tests with their top players exhausted. Darren Gough, for one, was a new player once he didn't have to slog his futs out for Yorkshire. His injury record improved enormously.
The contracts also led to much more consistency in selection and much more faith placed in players. Ian Bell is now one of the best Test batsman in the world, but in the bad old days he would have been dropped after the 05 Ashes tour never to resurface.
2. GOOD COACHES - Flower is good and Fletcher was brilliant. It was Fletcher who spotted that temperament was as important as class. Two of his best picks were Vaughan and Trescothick who had not exactly set the world alight at county level but were considered to have the right temperament for Test cricket.
3. TEST SCHEDULES - For how many years did England constantly shoot themselves in the foot by playing ultra-long series against the top teams (six Tests sometimes) and hardly ever playing against the weaker ones. Sri Lanka would be played for about one Test every three years.
The May Lord's Test has been a real boon. England have had to put up with Brisbane early in the Ashes series or Galle in sticky weather in Sri Lanka. Now teams have to come to early-season, ball-swinging Lord's early on.
Shoter series, too, have helped England in their home matches. Gone are the days when the tourists would have match after match before the Firtst Test had even started in England.
4. PLAYING STRENGTH - No, this is not about the England players being head and shoulders over everyone else at the moment. It's about at the very least those chosen for England at least playing up to their ability and sometimes beyond.
The struggles of past decades were down to players being picked who did not play anywhere NEAR up to their ability. It was totally galling to see a side like, say, South Africa in the 1990s, with few great players, playing out of their skin every match and the likes of Hick and Ramps not producing anything like what they were capable of.
5. ER THAT'S ENOUGH FOR NOW.
Thoughts?

I think the answer to this one is simple, England has a whole host of players that are in great form, not just a few.

By last check there were 4 bowlers in the toop ten rankings and 4 batsmen in the top 12 which indicates great form for almost the whole team.

Sir Fred - I agree central contracts has made the most difference. also along with the supporting structure in which players are developed consistently at the next level down. Good coaching and consistent selection policy are also vital. There have been very few test selections in the last few years where it's turned out a failure. And in nearly every case where there has been a groundswell of opinion - eg to drop Broad, or Pieterson, or Cook, the selectors have turned out to be right to resist. Maybe Collingwood was kept for a test or two too long - but even that is debatable. I suppose Bopara is a case where the jury is out....

Sir Fred - a major factor that you highlight and the Corporal emphasises is undoubtedly central contracts. Allied to the success of that has been the support and goodwill of the counties. This shouldn't be overlooked by the England hierarchy if we are to stay good in the future. As a keen follower of the county game, I do have some concerns and wonder where it will all lead.

Guildford indeed - goodwill is dependent on common sense. I'm sure the sensible England selectors will recognise for the upcoming season the need to keep KP fresh for the tests while ensuring that the likes of Tremlett, Dernbach and Meaker work hard with their county to establish a really good rhythm in their bowling. Plenty of goodwill if that happens

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Guildford indeed - goodwill is dependent on common sense. I'm sure the sensible England selectors will recognise for the upcoming season the need to keep KP fresh for the tests while ensuring that the likes of Tremlett, Dernbach and Meaker work hard with their county to establish a really good rhythm in their bowling. Plenty of goodwill if that happens

Corporal - that wasn't intended to be my main point but I'm sure that you, I and absent friends only on a summer contract with 606 v2 would welcome it!

I agree that central contracts have helped England. I also feel that for the 1st time in a while that we have not just a good test 11, but also good back up as well, and with some good quality young players coming through i believe this could continue for a while.
We also have more players stepping up to the plate when someone has a bad game, than before when we tended to rely on a couple of players only, batting collapse happen less often now for example.

I think that is key, and the most important part of this England setup is the word CONSISTENCY.

Not only in the performances of the players, i.e. less batting collapses as tigerrobins says, but in the selection, the game plan, just everything about the whole management and playing staff. Consistency in selection and policy has led to the players feeling more comfortable in their roles, no doubt in my mind, and as we know - success breeds success. Greater freedom is afforded to the players under this regime, Broad and Cook for example, who had horrid patches only to turn it around in emphatic fashion after being given a lifeline. Would such a lifeline have been offered under past regimes? I have my doubts.

Each of the points in the OP have been essential to the success of the current England side, but none more so than consistency, in my book.