Is this the most overrated England Cricket Team Ever?

Since Test Cricket began in the late Victorian Era of the 1880's, is this current England Test Team the most overrated Team to have represented England in Test Cricket?

In more modern times (since the 1980's), I can think of only 2 other England Test Teams - the 1985 Test Team led by Lord Gower, and the 1987 England led by Mike Gatting - as candidates for being the most overrated England Test Team.

Overrated by whom?  And what exactly is your definition of "overrated"?  And what would your criteria be for comparing one "overrated" team with another?

Since the 80's , eh ?

1985. And 1987.

So any England team which wins an Ashes series is deemed to be over rated ?


Nice try , GBN:) 

Galted wrote:Overrated by whom?  And what exactly is your definition of "overrated"?  And what would your criteria be for comparing one "overrated" team with another?

Overrated in terms of Media Pundits saying that players in this team are some of the greatest ever to have played the game. Last week, Wasim Akram said something along the lines that Jimmy Anderson is currently the best fast bowler in the world at present!

Probably yes then but with all the varieties of media open to punditry we're inflicted with more supposed pundits than anyone's ever had to endure before, all reliant on exaggeration to keep themselves in the spotlight.

gboycottnut wrote:

Galted wrote:Overrated by whom?  And what exactly is your definition of "overrated"?  And what would your criteria be for comparing one "overrated" team with another?

Overrated in terms of Media Pundits saying that players in this team are some of the greatest ever to have played the game. Last week, Wasim Akram said something along the lines that Jimmy Anderson is currently the best fast bowler in the world at present!

Facts;

This "overrated" England team has;

1) A batsman with the most test centuries ever
2) The youngest player to pass 7000 runs
3) A bowler who has only just turned 27, is already in the Top 15
4) A spinner who is one of the best ever produced
5) The most successful bowler ever produced by Lancashire

And I haven't even mentioned KP, Trott or Prior

Strangely, I'm with Wasim on this one - but I do love outrageous articles that can back up the daft theory put forward  

gboycottnut wrote:In more modern times (since the 1980's), I can think of only 2 other England Test Teams - the 1985 Test Team led by Lord Gower, and the 1987 England led by Mike Gatting - as candidates for being the most overrated England Test Team.

     And of course in that golden period of 1988 to 2000, they were so many great England teams that were 'underrated'  

As others have implied this is a difficult question.  It's one thing arguing about the actual merits of any team.  That is often hard enough when you look at the varying quality of the opponents.  But here what we are being asked to assess is mainly the judgement of undefined pundits.  It's hardly the fault of the team itself if a particular set of critics perform are not very good at making accurate ratings!

It is possible that rating a team is subjective.

So if you are an Englishmen, you might rate this team higher than what someone outside England will.

Cook I believe will become a great.

There are several players such as KP, Anderson and Swann that will end up as standout players for England at the end of their careers.

And possibly a few more.

The problem is often people get swept up by emotion and media etc. to join in the hype about their team and the confidence and ability of their team can be over estimated, but isn't that human natute?

It's hard to have a neutral point of view on your own team, as Biltong says, either England are overrated or horribly underrated by their own fans. My own view is that at the moment they are the second best side in the world, Test wise, with a string of players such as Cook, KP, Swann and Anderson nailed on to go down as English greats if not world greats.

Their batting at the moment is slightly frail which is to be expected when you have two inexperienced players in Root and Bairstow in the line up and their bowling attack is consistently one of the best in the world (they are allowed to have off days occasionally) with two top class bowlers, one with the ability to run through any side on his day and some debate over who the best choice third seamer is.

Well I never overrate or underrate people. I rate them just the right amount.

This England team is good, and when they play to the best of their ability very good. They are not quite great, but they are not that far off. They are comfortably the best England team I have seen in my lifetime but that isn't saying much.

They have one of the great young talents in Root; consistent and solid performers in Trott and Cook; the class of Bell; the sheer potential amazingness of KP. In Prior they have the best keeper-bat in the world ATM (although in time ABdV may beat him - ATM AB hasn't kept for long enough for me to rate him above Prior) albeit going through a rough patch - you could argue he is the 2nd best number 7 in history. Bowling wise they have a genuine world class performer in all conditions in Anderson (although he is the 2nd best fast bowler in the world after Steyn) and a very fine spinner in Swann (just how good he ends up being rated will be interesting; he is certainly England's best since Underwood and possible since Laker; he may end up rating alongside or even above the great Lance Gibbs, with the caveat that the game couldn't be much more different for spin bowlers now compared with when Gibbs was playing).

They have a few weaknesses.

There is no settled number 6 yet. Bairstow is still finding his feet, but I'm not sure he's suited to number 6 anyway, he strikes me as more of a top order player. Taylor is also more top order, and I'm not sure whether there are any real genuine middle-order options hanging around. Morgan I thought could have cut it, but he had his chance and never really convinced.

Root is as yet unproven as an opener, but the signs are very good.

The bowling at times relies a bit too much on Anderson. Broad can be a bit hit and miss - when he gets it right he's very very good - which would be fine if he was the 3rd seamer behind two seamers of Anderson's quality, but that's not (yet? how good could Finn be?) the case. Bresnan is an honest bowler who gets a lot of unfair flak on here and elsewhere, but he wouldn't ever make a truly great team. Finn could be very good indeed, but England have frankly messed him around this year.

Finally, I believe that in a great team Trott wouldn't bat 3. He is reliable, but he isn't the type of player who grabs a game by the scruff of the neck. The great Aussie side had Ponting at 3, and the great West Indies the likes of Kallicharan, Richie Richardson and... a certain Viv Richards. I believe that were England a great team, KP would bat at 3 and Trott at 4 or even 5 (in the Mike Hussey/Steve Waugh role, someone who can dig you out of a hole if you have a poor start). That's not to say I think Trott should bat 5, in this England team with their gameplan he is well suited to bat at 3. But if England had a great bowling attack and/or a great opening partnership and/or a very good number 6, then KP at 3 would IMO enhance their credentials.

It amazes me in all these positive discussions about the team, Broad is never mentioned

Years ago, I stated he would be our answer to Shaun Pollock and then he goes on to be a fair impression, but still some don't appear to rate him

Why?

banbrotam wrote:It amazes me in all these positive discussions about the team, Broad is never mentioned

Years ago, I stated he would be our answer to Shaun Pollock and then he goes on to be a fair impression, but still some don't appear to rate him

Why?

Perhaps that's your answer.  Shaun Pollock was under -rated by many.

He is a very different type of bowler from Pollock.

I suspect a lot of people were put off by his perceived petulance (which has much improved in recent times, a few exceptions not withstanding) and old habits die hard. I think he's the type of person a lot of people like to dislike, and they let their feelings regarding his personality affect their ratings of his playing ability (much like people still won't rate Ponting as a captain, despite the fact that statistically he's the best of all time - they are obliged to give him respect as a batsman, but as a captain they let their dislike of him cloud their judgement, IMO).

My opinion is that Broad is a good bowler, but he can be a bit hit and miss. Sometimes when Anderson's struggling (as in this test) I would like to see him take on a bit more responsibility and lead the attack. However on his day he is very good, no doubt about it. He is also hardworking, and has improved beyond measure since integrating this England team.

Mike Selig wrote:He is a very different type of bowler from Pollock.

I suspect a lot of people were put off by his perceived petulance (which has much improved in recent times, a few exceptions not withstanding) and old habits die hard. I think he's the type of person a lot of people like to dislike, and they let their feelings regarding his personality affect their ratings of his playing ability (much like people still won't rate Ponting as a captain, despite the fact that statistically he's the best of all time - they are obliged to give him respect as a batsman, but as a captain they let their dislike of him cloud their judgement, IMO).

My opinion is that Broad is a good bowler, but he can be a bit hit and miss. Sometimes when Anderson's struggling (as in this test) I would like to see him take on a bit more responsibility and lead the attack. However on his day he is very good, no doubt about it. He is also hardworking, and has improved beyond measure since integrating this England team.

Mine was a rhetorical question as I know the reasons why and you've alluded to it. Why we have this ridiculous British attitude, where we don't like someone who's a got a bit of an attitude is beyond me (next it will be Root, following on from Hamilton, Murray, Cavendish - anyone else who only wants to win)

And of course he is different to Pollock and like all bowlers a bit hit and miss

200 wickets in 5 years and only just gone 27 - not even McGrath had those stats

banbrotam wrote:

Mine was a rhetorical question as I know the reasons why and you've alluded to it. Why we have this ridiculous British attitude, where we don't like someone who's a got a bit of an attitude is beyond me (next it will be Root, following on from Hamilton, Murray, Cavendish - anyone else who only wants to win)

And of course he is different to Pollock and like all bowlers a bit hit and miss

200 wickets in 5 years and only just gone 27 - not even McGrath had those stats

In the same period McGrath played only 49 (Broad 59 tests) tests and took 232 wickets (Broad 201) at an average of 22.6 (Broad 31.19) and a strike rate of 51.5 (Broad 61.2)

Broad is vital as an enforcer. We need someone who can do that as a bowler. And say what you like about him, but his batting this series has been vital and he has bowled (not for the first time) better than his stats imply

banbrotam wrote:

Mine was a rhetorical question as I know the reasons why and you've alluded to it. Why we have this ridiculous British attitude, where we don't like someone who's a got a bit of an attitude is beyond me (next it will be Root, following on from Hamilton, Murray, Cavendish - anyone else who only wants to win)

I don't get it either banbrotam

These guys only have an attitude because they are so passionate about their respective sports and have that huge desire to win/do well. Sometimes they like to speak their minds (all the time in Cav's case!), but I quite like that. Shows they're normality, rather than just flat batting media questions with the standard answer

Stuart Broad is much needed for England. He's Andy Carroll, whilst Anderson is Wayne Rooney. We need both of them together to maximise each others potential. We'd be lost without Broad.

As well as that, Broad is virtually a double of Tom Felton (drooooooool).

Biltong wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

Mine was a rhetorical question as I know the reasons why and you've alluded to it. Why we have this ridiculous British attitude, where we don't like someone who's a got a bit of an attitude is beyond me (next it will be Root, following on from Hamilton, Murray, Cavendish - anyone else who only wants to win)

And of course he is different to Pollock and like all bowlers a bit hit and miss

200 wickets in 5 years and only just gone 27 - not even McGrath had those stats

In the same period McGrath played only 49 (Broad 59 tests) tests and took 232 wickets (Broad 201) at an average of 22.6 (Broad 31.19) and a strike rate of 51.5 (Broad 61.2)

But not at the same age. I'm not a big fan, but those who take his stats with a pinch of salt, given his age are doing him a great disservice. Anderson, at a year younger had barely got going and now look at him

Olly wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

Mine was a rhetorical question as I know the reasons why and you've alluded to it. Why we have this ridiculous British attitude, where we don't like someone who's a got a bit of an attitude is beyond me (next it will be Root, following on from Hamilton, Murray, Cavendish - anyone else who only wants to win)

I don't get it either banbrotam

These guys only have an attitude because they are so passionate about their respective sports and have that huge desire to win/do well. Sometimes they like to speak their minds (all the time in Cav's case!), but I quite like that. Shows they're normality, rather than just flat batting media questions with the standard answer

Show's they only care about winning as well  

Oh and for those who think that being nice and not getting annoyed when things don't go our top sportsman way, should go look at McGrath in the 1998/99 series, down under. He looked like someone about to explode, when things weren't going his way / or he wasn't getting a bowl or a fielder dared misfield during his spell

An incredible will to win - some over here at the time though was little bit than cheating at cards!!!

Note, that - like past greats like McEnroe, Connors, Faldo etc, the is quite an nice guy. But not at the time when he was at 'work'

Maybe we could afford Broad the same respect

I love Stuart Broad, better than Hoggard or Harmy for any money

banbrotam wrote:

Biltong wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

Mine was a rhetorical question as I know the reasons why and you've alluded to it. Why we have this ridiculous British attitude, where we don't like someone who's a got a bit of an attitude is beyond me (next it will be Root, following on from Hamilton, Murray, Cavendish - anyone else who only wants to win)

And of course he is different to Pollock and like all bowlers a bit hit and miss

200 wickets in 5 years and only just gone 27 - not even McGrath had those stats

In the same period McGrath played only 49 (Broad 59 tests) tests and took 232 wickets (Broad 201) at an average of 22.6 (Broad 31.19) and a strike rate of 51.5 (Broad 61.2)

But not at the same age. I'm not a big fan, but those who take his stats with a pinch of salt, given his age are doing him a great disservice. Anderson, at a year younger had barely got going and now look at him

who is taking his stats with a pinch of salt?

You compared the two, I simply gave you the facts.

Broad is a decent strike bowler, nothing like Pollock or McGrath, and certainly not as good.

Pollock was a World Class bowler and sustained that level of performance over a long period of time, who averaged in the low 20s with the ball.

Broad is a good bowler, but in my opinion is not in that class yet. He has talent with the bat, but even in that department he falls short of Pollock.

I did say that Broad gives a "fair impression" of Pollock  

I don't know how anyone can comment on whether Broad is or will be "nothing like Pollock or McGrath" when he might be only one-third of the way through his test career, certainly less than half

i.e. barring injury he could go on to make quite a lot of history

I suspect that back in 2008 when Jimmy was cementing his promise, lots laughed at him been compared to McGrath - now look at him

ban

Broad is a different type of bowler to McGrath and Pollock. Them two were mostly about line and length, and making batsmen play.

I do know that  I'm talking about stats at relative ages. Slice it whichever way you want, Broad is grossly underrated by most England fans and he'll get the usual "isn't he lovely" when his career in his twiight

Broad may get better, but I have my reservations. He'll no doubt get 300 wickets, but will never be classed as a great bowler, like the mentioned two.

Aren't you "great" if you get 300?

Don't you think the problem is that we've watched Broad grow up in public, when normally such young players are in the background finishing off the rough edges?

Hence we then remember all the poor inconsistent stuff, forgetting that he was quite young - particularly for a bowler

banbrotam wrote:Aren't you "great" if you get 300?

Don't you think the problem is that we've watched Broad grow up in public, when normally such young players  are in the background finishing off the rough edges?

Hence we then remember all the poor inconsistent stuff, forgetting that he was quite young - particularly for a bowler

Not imo. You can be great if you don't get 300 (Garner, Holding) but not if you do (Dev, Harby). That's just me.

banbrotam wrote: Slice it whichever way you want, Broad is grossly underrated by most England fans and he'll get the usual "isn't he lovely" when his career in his twiight

I disagree that most fans "grossly" underrate Broad. Most think he is a good bowler and he is an important part of the team. If that is grossly underrating him then I think your opinion of him is way off. But hey its all about opinions.

If Broad wants to emulate the stats of Pollock or McGrath he is going to have to take his next 200 wickets at an average of 12 and a strike rate of 40.

I think Mike almost nailed it - a good to very good team a tad short of real greatness. I'd only disagree slightly in saying that we were probably a better team in 2009 than now (and the 2005 team played closer to their peak level in that series).

A number 6 and a 3rd seamer away from being a great team, although an all rounder of Flintoff's calibre would also be helpful (but then that's true for all teams, as having a top 6 batsman who is also a front line bowler just gives so much opportunity to balance the side).

gboycottnut wrote:Since Test Cricket began in the late Victorian Era of the 1880's, is this current England Test Team the most overrated Team to have represented England in Test Cricket?

In more modern times (since the 1980's), I can think of only 2 other England Test Teams - the 1985 Test Team led by Lord Gower, and the 1987 England led by Mike Gatting - as candidates for being the most overrated England Test Team.

Ehhh....no.

I can fully understand this post being a knee jerk reaction to players not being at their best in this series and so will take this post as that.

Alastair Cook has mighty impressive career stats (but has been patchy this series), Root likewise has impressive stats (again been patchy this series), Trott has great career stats but has had a poor series by his standards, Pietersen another with top notch career stats and has had some high spots this summer, Ian Bell has set or equalled records this series and has been very solid, Prior has been solid enough keeping wicket and steay if unspectacular with the bat this series, Bresnan is yet to cement a place in the side but has been competent, Broad has been good with the bat and chipped in with wickets, Anderson has blown hot and cold and not been so consistent but is one of the top seam bowlers in the world and Swann is recognised as the best spinner around at the mo.

I don't see who is over-rating England in any case and as far as this series has gone England have lacked top consistency from key players yet still lead 2-0 - make of that what you will.

I personally think the pulling apart of a teams dynamics, strengths and weaknesses in deciding whether a team is great is fruitless.

Every team has a weakness somewhere, whether the fact that they don't have a spinner (SA) whether they have a new middle order (Like England) or whatever else.

Greatness comes with a legacy that has been built over a fair number of years.

You can't measure greatness now, even the Proteas on a six year run of superb performances can't be measured as great now.

It is only after reflection of an era gone by, when you compare it to the history of other, can a team truly claim greatness.

And that is my philosophy lesson for today.  

Biltong wrote:I personally think the pulling apart of a teams dynamics, strengths and weaknesses in deciding whether a team is great is fruitless.

Every team has a weakness somewhere, whether the fact that they don't have a spinner (SA) whether they have a new middle order (Like England) or whatever else.

Greatness comes with a legacy that has been built over a fair number of years.

You can't measure greatness now, even the Proteas on a six year run of superb performances can't be measured as great now.

It is only after reflection of an era gone by, when you compare it to the history of other, can a team truly claim greatness.

And that is my philosophy lesson for today.  

Very true. England are missing a good third seamer, but they are also missing a very good second one, as well as batting line up that consistently scores runs.

Didn't they score runs in the last test?

Isn't Broad a very good second seamer? He averages 29 in the last year?

I know in an ideal world it's annoying when not all 11 players play well at the same time, but as only the Windies team of the mid to late 80's or the Aus team of 2007 have ever achieved this, maybe we should give praise for that fact we're 2-0

I'm just pleased that some on these boards aren't in the dressing room. Could you imagine the interviews after the last test -"yes it was good to win, but Trott let us down"!!!

I've always found the cricket boards to be the most pessimistic, beyond reason, of any of the sporting boards

Consistently!

No, he's a decent/good bowler.

banbrotam, what do you think of Morne Morkel?

Overated I dunno.
but a defensive team......a rather timid, defensive team and hence will never be remebered as a great side inpsite of being a very good side

banbrotam wrote:

I've always found the cricket boards to be the most pessimistic, beyond reason, of any of the sporting boards

That's pleasing and good to know.  

Never like the term over rated because it assumes somebody rates them ridiculously highly and am not too sure that is the case with the current England team. Think most are of the opinion they are a decent solid unit with a couple of outstanding individuals who are perhaps a little fortunate to have run into one of the most abject Aussie teams in living memory (certainly mine)

Think in Swann and Anderson they have two top tier cricketers who would have been pushing for selection in most England teams you would care to mention. Pietersen, whilst mercurial is obviously a special talent and Bell seems to have matured into a very fine test batsman, obviously not one of the all time greats but no dummy either. Add Trott and Cook into the mix and don’t think it is a bad side by any stretch

Would agree that the likes of Bresnan, Bairstow and Finn are perhaps not right out of the top drawer but they are a good measure short of being liabilities either. Over rated depends very much on how highly you choose to rate them but for me they are a good solid unit who work well together, perhaps a little flattered by Australia’s deficiencies.

Behind South Africa, but ahead of the rest. That's where England are. I haven't seen a single poster go ahead of that view, so overrated? Not a bit.

No.

Considering how many useless teams there were, I'm enjoying having a team that can at least be overrated.

As for whether they're overrated. If you consider them as good as a couple of years ago, no they've regressed. But they're still a pretty good team.