Adarsh
Lv 6
Adarsh asked in SportsCricket · 7 years ago

England found cricket but why don't they dominate it?

Looking back at the history of cricket,cricket has been played in England since the 16th century.But yet they haven't really dominated the sport.Here r few areas where england have failed to dominate:

•They r yet to win a major ODI ICC tournament.

•Ashes-Although competition has been equally competitive,stats show that Australia have dominated the tournament more,having won 31 ashes tournaments over England's 30.

•Have failed to make a mark in the sub-continent.

•They r yet to have a major cricketer in the elite league-I don't find any English cricketer in the 10000 runs club or someone so in the bowling department as well.Considering the modern era,England have failed to produce a Sachin tendulkar or a Ricky ponting or Kallis or sangakkara or Jayawardene or Dravid or ganguly or McGrath or Warne or Muralidharan or Wasim Akram or Kumble or Allan Donald or Richard Hadlee or so..

What has been the reason behind this?

And when can we see the English dominating this sport?Can they win a ODI World Cup for the first Time atleast by 2019?

Update:

@ JB,India have atleast produced some legends like Sachin,Dravid,Gavaskar,Ganguly,Kumble,etc & also won 2 ODI world cups something which England has failed to do.I was not criticising England here,just was wondering why England haven't topped the records chart.

Update 2:

@ JB,yeah Cook has got all his chances to beat Tendulkar in tests & hopefully for u guys he can also lead his team for wins in ICC Champions trophy 2013 & ICC World Cup 2019 both of which they play at home.

10 Answers

Relevance
  • 7 years ago
    Best Answer

    Well yeah its a puzzle isnt it, firstly I gotta say that just because cricket originated in England doesnt give the team or its players any special advantage.

    As you say they are yet to win a major ODI tournament, in the first 5 World Cups they always at least reached the semi-finals but after that I can only suggest that the limited overs format never reached the kind of popularity in England that it has in Australia and sub-continent countries?, England always seem to be among the top 4 or 5 teams but thats about the best they can do these days and I dont see it changing much in the future.

    Failed to make a mark in the sub-continent? I cant disagree with that but that applies to pretty much every team!

    Not one member in the 10K club, yet they have heaps in the 7-8k club, my explanation for this curious anomaly is that it seems like England has a much different culture of selecting their players, they have a higher turnover of players than other countries, its much harder for England players to get past 120 Test matches, usually they have to play at least 3-4 seasons of county cricket before moving up to internationals, and its very rare to see players older than 35 in the England team these days, look at all the players who got to about age 35 and caved in to pressure to retire, Botham, Greig, Gatting,Gower, Vaughan, Hussain, Atherton, Thorpe, Strauss...., if those guys played for Australia or India they would have hung around for a few more years or until the selectors booted them out.

    There is a guy on cricinfo who produces some amazing lists of stats like which batsmen and bowlers scored the highest percentage of their runs and wickets against the best opposition, these lists can be massive I have printed some of them up to 40 pages and take a week to read! but in summary they are completely dominated by English players, probably due to the scheduling of the matches playing better opposition more often and longer series.

    Is it going to change in future? No I dont think so, England will probably dominate occasionally for a short time but I doubt they will ever get on top and stay there for very long, only 168 more days until the Ashes - I'm tipping England to win 3-1

  • 7 years ago

    because England`s no 1 sport is football

    now u`ll ask why they do`nt dominate football - the answer is that other teams are better

    but for a country with a population of only 70 m . they do well to be right up there with the best in cricket , football and in rugby

  • Its a simple theory. Founders don't usually dominate what they found.

    Greece doesn't dominate in Olympics. They r not even among the top 25 nations of the medals tables.

    Jeff Jarrett the pro wrestler found the wrestling promotion TNA. But now it is dominated by superstars like Hulk Hogan, AJ styles and Kurt Angle. Jarrett is nowhere to be found.

    I agree with all your points.

  • 7 years ago

    Almost all modern sports were created by the English, it is impossible for us to dominate all of them as such a small country.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 7 years ago

    Practically, Aussies are actually the Poms.

    May be the influence of Football is a reason.

    I don't care as long as Australia lead that Ashes chart.

    Regards.

  • Albert
    Lv 6
    7 years ago

    TIME'S MAKE ALL DIFFERENCE.

    Still "ASHES" Is Well Respected Trophy.

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    Its a simple theory

  • 7 years ago

    Practically, Aussies are actually the Poms.

  • 7 years ago

    if you are saying dominate by playing then yeah i think they should give more focus on cricket

  • 7 years ago

    Not a big issue.......

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.