What is wrong with the English ?

[Will_NA]

Firstly, Zorax, we're bad but we're not THAT bad. We've beaten twice out of the last 3 or 4 series methinks. No-one beats Sri Lanka at home but anywhere abroad, they'll get crushed. We've beaten SA away just as they beat us a home so the only teams we don't beat 'regularly' are Inda and Australia.

Also, not every in Africa is a tribesman! That's a massive generalisation.

 

[lightbulb]

It's because so many youngsters arehugely talented at cricket, but are even more so at football and therefore turn to football.

 

[evertonfan]

It's often the case that good schoolboy cricketers in this country are also good schoolboy footballers and football usually comes out on top. I know that when I was 10 I took my cricket very seriously and was playing for the town team and even attended a few Lancs coaching days, but as soon as Liverpool scouted me as a footballer and offered me a few trials it was only ever going to be football and my cricket career ended rather abruptly.

But then Liverpool didn't want me either so now i'm naffed.

 

[Skater]

There isn't enough cricket played in schools and when there is it isn't taken seriously enough. The Chance to Shine foundation is working hard, but there is a long way to go.

 

[Sureshot]

You have football, yet England couldn't qualify for the Euro Cup and haven't won a world cup in ages.

Because the Premiership is so strong most of the teams import foreigners, not giving much chances to young English players. We also struggled with an inept manager last time around.

And a handful of world-class players doesn't cover up the massive amounts of players who didn't acheive a lot in all forms of the game. Flintoff and KP are the current English players you could class as great, compared to Ponting, Hayden, Hussey, Marsh, etc. from Australia, Dravid, Sachin, Kumble, etc. from India, Murali, Mendis, Vaas, Sanga, Jaya from Sri Lanka, etc.
All countries, maybe barring WI, Bang and Zim, have more players capable of being classed world-class in their team than England does at the moment, despite that England has the best domestic sturcture (Maybe second to Aus).

The only country which England have beaten frequently are the Windies - just above Bang and Zim in the ICC table - and the Kiwis, that too only in tests, not their best format.

Other sports aren't so rosy either. What is the problem behind that?

Marsh and Vaas aren't world-class and Mendis is unproven. Our domestic structure isn't that great. It's been vilified by the Kolpak rule which stops young players from getting games. It's a farce to be frank. When most teams field only 7 (on average I reckon) England eligible players. We're not as bad as you are making out. South Africa are a very good side, as are India when they beat us last year. I'd say that many teams around the world are having a good time when we are having a bad time. It'll reverse around in a decade or so.

 

[lightbulb]

It's often the case that good schoolboy cricketers in this country are also good schoolboy footballers and football usually comes out on top. I know that when I was 10 I took my cricket very seriously and was playing for the town team and even attended a few Lancs coaching days, but as soon as Liverpool scouted me as a footballer and offered me a few trials it was only ever going to be football and my cricket career ended rather abruptly.

But then Liverpool didn't want me either so now i'm naffed.

Words out of my mouth mate.