What do you think is the reason that English team has never been able to dominate international cricket scene?

Question

What do you think is the reason that English team has never been able to dominate international cricket scene?

Answer 1

Forgot 1992 Wc? Had ball not been tampered,  England should have been the champions

Answer 2

Other teams are stronger. England is unable to assemble 11 great players to become a world champion team.

Answer 3

Well there is a new saying going around:

'England invented cricket, and they forgot how to play it'

England are a good team filled with talented players - no doubt about that. They don't show a lot of spirit when playing cricket. They work well as a team but i don't think they work well enough. It dosen't seem to me they enjoy thier cricket and hopefully now with KP captain, this can change. England can only prove themselves to the world if they can somehow manage to win the ashes in 2009 under captain KP. If they can do this, they will be a force to be reckoned with!

Answer 4

Firstly I should point you in the direction of Retrospective ICC Ratings:

http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Articles/...

which shows that England would have been ranked as the best side in the world on five occasions had rankings existed.

Firstly in the 1880s and 1890s, they had a score of 127 in 1890 a seventy point gap ahead of second placed Australia. With the likes of WG Grace, Arthur Shrewsbury, George Lohmann, Johnny Briggs and Robert Peel in the team they won a total of 30 Tests out of 43 between 1883 and 1897.

Secondly in the late 1920s, culminating in a 4-1 victory in Australia in 1928/29 and a 2-0 over South Africa in 1929 the success was mainly due to the greatest opening partnership ever - Herbert Sutcliffe and Sir Jack Hobbs - as well as all-round exploits Wally Hammond and Maurice Tate. They had a rating of 121 in 28/29, 34 clear of Australia.

Thirdly in the mid 1950s, they had a score of 122 having completed successive Ashes victories under the leadership of Peter May, the success was down to England's greatest collection of bowling resources ever - the pace of Statham, Tyson and Trueman and the spin of Laker, Lock and Wardle.

The fourth period was between 1968 and 1972 (although briefly interrupted by South Africa), in 1971 they had a rating of 122, a 19 point advantage over Australia. In a sequence of 38 Tests between 1967 and 1971 they lost just a single match. The main players were Geoff Boycott, Alan Knott, Ray Illingworth, John Snow and Derek Underwood.

The fifth period came in the late 70s as Packer picked the best players from Australia and the Windies for the WSC. After beating Australia 5-1 in 1978/79 England had a rating of 119, 15 clear of the Windies.

Whether any of these periods could be classed as dominance depends on your opinion of the term. None could be classed as an equal to the Windies in the 80s or the Australians of recent years but both teams have been so special that a similar supremacy is unlikely to be seen in my lifetime.

Answer 5

lack of fighting spirit and lack of talent

Answer 6

they never had greats , all teams had greats but they always lacked it , may be Ian Botham and David Gower are their most recognised players ~

Answer 7

lack of team wprk

Answer 8

Simple, the other teams are better than they are.

Ironic don't you think? Since they taught the countries how to play Cricket.

Answer 9

they're actually an awesome team...pietersen,flintoff r world-class players...collingwood and panesar r decent players....i think the main reason is their inconsistency,fighting spirit when things r not goin well...u just look at harmison n u'll know wat i mean...he was one of the best before..he's partly the reason england won so many games in 2005.

injuries/loss of form have played their part...flintoff,simon jones,mathew hoggard,geraint jones,trescothick,bell

Answer 10

Dear CJ

English cricket team dominated international cricket from 1876 to 1899, when WG Grace retired as captain. All except 1 match was played against Australia, the one match was played against SA, when Walter Reed was the cap for England, SA lost that match.

Lesson learned: You  have to run twice as fast to stay where you are.

Rehman of Multan

Answer 11

I think besides for the West Indies and Australia no team has actually dominated world cricket for a long period of time so to say only England have never been able to dominate world cricket is unfair they had a run leading up to the 2005 ashes where they were quite dominant in test cricket more success than most teams have had in the Australian dominant era with time who knows which team may take the ascendancy from Australia if any and will be able to dominate international cricket it may be a case of more competition if most international teams reach the same level and games can swing both ways which would be more entertaining but by no means are England the only team who haven't been able to dominate world cricket which could be put down to many reasons but mainly West Indies and Australia in the prime of their domination have had fantastic teams hard for any team to challenge