Posts
Loading ...The batsmen think they’ve got to get more runs to make up for the tail, but they also think they’ve got to score more to give the insipid bowlers some room for manoeuvre.
England’s torpor
By Jonathan Liew 2 months ago Leave a comment on this post
It’s not just the long tail. But it is, to a large degree, the long tail.
When you’ve got Sidebottom, Hoggard, Harmison and Panesar propping the team up, the opposition know that six wickets are as good as ten. But England - and this is the thing - also know this. They know that if the top order doesn’t score the runs, it’s unlikely anybody else will.
And so they dig in. But this doesn’t actually help, as it’s not their natural game (with the possible exceptions of Bell and Collingwood). Pietersen nudging and blocking is half the player he is when he’s trying to score off every ball. As a result, I reckon, they’re not staying in any longer than usual, and of course they’re scoring a lot fewer.
In England’s first innings Vaughan faced 177 balls, Pietersen 131 and Collingwood 182. That should have been enough for a century for each of them.*
The lower order needs strengthening, and fast. Broad for Harmison seems to be the logical step.
*Pietersen’s ten Test centuries have come off an average of 130.5 balls. Only twice has he faced as many as 131 balls and not made a hundred.
Tags: batting, england, england in new zealand, kevin-pietersen, lower order, scoring rate, stuart-broad |
4 Responses to “England’s torpor”
March 9th, 2008 at 5.13 pm
March 9th, 2008 at 8.35 pm
England already play only four bowlers and select their wicket-keeper based on batting ability. What much more can they do? The top 6 simply have to get over their fearfulness. They all average over 40; being bowled out for 110 has nothing to do with the tail.
Heck, Panesar stuck around for more balls than Cook, Vaughan, Strauss and Pieterson did.
March 10th, 2008 at 8.19 pm
There’s been a dearth of all-rounders in the broader sense (the Bothams and Flintoffs are in a class apart) in English - and to some extent Australian - cricket for some time.
When did we last have a batsman whose bowling added something to the team, as Barrington, Dexter and d’Oliviera did in my youth? Or a bowler you could trust at No 8 (well, there was dear old Ashley…)?
I suspect it’s the county system. Most counties want to get the most cricket for their money from their overseas star, so they go for an all-rounder if they can. And, knowing this, the coaches tell the kids to specialise.
It’s noticeable that it’s the poorer Test countries (Pakistan, South Africa, New Zealand) which produce all-rounders these days.
March 11th, 2008 at 5.39 pm
Why is Andrew Flintoff playing cricket in India these days ?
Comments
« A deserved outcome | Main | Donald: Harmison was “scared” »
