England's backbone *UPDATED*

(I'll give this its own thread, seeing as how even I'm surprised at how terrible the facts were when I looked them up)

ever hopeful wrote:England may occasionally collapse still, but for me it's not like before. They've real backbone now.

Eng/Aus, Cardiff, 2009: 57-5, top order shot out in an instant, leaving Panesar to try and save the first Test.

Eng/Aus, Headingley, 2009: 91-10 in a miserable first innings effort of 102. 62-7 in a miserable attempt to salvage the game in the second.

SA/Eng, Centurion, 2009: 46-6 as England pray to the God of Onions for salvation.

SA/Eng, Newlands, 2010: 131-5 as the top order go missing again in the first innings. 59-5 as the second innings is set up for another Onions intervention.

SA/Eng, the Wanderers, 2010: a/o for 180 in 47 overs. Followed up with an even more impressive a/o for 169 in 42 overs.

Eng/Pak, Trent Bridge, 2010: From 337 for 4 to 354 a/o in a flurry of crap. That's 17-6, if you're keeping score. Second innings started with a breezy 96-6.

Eng/Pak, Edgbaston, 2010: 46-7 in the first knock. Or 74-8, if you wanted to be more cruel.

Eng/Pak, Oval, 2010: Top order and all hope gone, 85-7. Final eight wickets muster f/a in attempting to save the game second innings: 66-8.

Eng/Pak, Lord's, 2010: 71-7 before Trott and Broad paper over the cracks.

Eng/Aus, Brisbane, 2010: 80-5 as England decide to take pity on Peter Dribble.

Eng/Aus, Perth, 2010: 67-6 an another of those rare top order implosions. 58-5 and counting in the second innings.

That's some seventeen eighteen collapses in their last sixteen Tests*. Good going.

* They did escape four games against Bangladesh without any catastrophic collapses during this time-frame, but I've discounted them on account of it being Bangladesh, a side that couldn't run through short grass. Eighteen collapses in twenty games, then. Progress.

That does make grim reading. Whilst I realized we are capable of such spectacular craptitude, I didn't realize we achieved it on such a regular basis.

LOL.

Collingwood and KP have been part of the problem in the last two years. KP hasn't been consistent, and Colly struggles to cash in when conditions are in his favour. He struggles, and struggles, then produces a gritty innings of 60 when his spot starts to be questioned, and then he struggles again.

Graham Gooch might've done a good job with Alastair Cook's game, but he must be pretty embarrassed to be the batting coach of these dominos.

Bell was save us, mark my words. Match and ashes winning double ton coming up.

vilkrang wrote:Bell was save us, mark my words.

WTAAS.

Haha ooops.

He will save us though. Cower in fear, Aussies.

Thanks for that, Dello. Because of the matches in your list which were saved it nicely proves my point that "it's not like before" which is what I felt, but hadn't actually bothered to check statistically. In the old days, all those matches would've have been lost. Like I say, they've got real backbone these days, but thanks for providing the evidence. If the top order falls cheaply, someone in the lower order digs deep. Of course any idiot can cherry pick instances when parts of a team have slipped up, but to demonstrate lack of backbone, he'd need to consider the team as a whole and also list the times they've scored over 400 (which would need to be very few) and, for comparison, the batting failures of all the other test sides over the same period. Then, once he'd compiled these extra lists and his "All-England-players-failed-and-match-lost" list, he'd still need need to show which England batsmen got out playing weak shots, rather than slightly misjudged ones, over confident ones, or simply by getting beaten by a good ball. Then he might possibly have a genuine no-backbone case.
I can't see anyone being bothered to do all that though. Can you?

Barking up the wrong tree with the jellyfish, Dells!

The batting unit does seem to be fragile as a whole, when things start to go wrong - although if you look at the stats you could probably say the same of most of the other Test nations.

One question it raises, is it really worth picking extra batsmen, i.e. how often does number 6 save you when 1-5 fail? Is there actually more chance of a slogging keeper/bowler-who-can-bat taking you to a respectable score, as they have nothing much to lose, rather than that sixth or seventh specialist?

Well it's not about backbone so much as collective skill and technique which if you take KP and Collingwood inparticular seems to be lacking. When the pitch is a bit lively and the oppo bowlers are in form, the above suggests England's batting is lacking that bit of class. Of course it's all relative to other test nations but if they're aiming for number 1....

You have to say a pox on their houses inparticular in this test- as soon as things get a bit more challenging not one substantial innings to date from the whole line-up in 2 innings. But they'll come away with some nice averages regardless after the run gluts in the first two tests.

I don't think many sides often have their top six all on form at once, and cricket is a cruel sport for batsmen in that if he makes, say, just six consecutive mistakes (ie gets ducks in both innings of three matches) it can mean the end of his international career. Meanwhile other sportsman make loads of mistakes every time they compete and are still able to stay at the top. Therefore you have to give batsmen with any previous success lots of chances to come good again, and meantime take the rough times with stoicism.

Also, look at the whole picture: For instance, Colly not only took a wicket but also a blinding catch which a jellyfish wouldn't have even got a tentacle to. Didn't GET runs, but how many did he save?

ever hopeful wrote:Thanks for that, Dello. Because of the matches in your list which were saved it nicely proves my point that "it's not like before" which is what I felt, but hadn't actually bothered to check statistically. In the old days, all those matches would've have been lost. Like I say, they've got real backbone these days, but thanks for providing the evidence. If the top order falls cheaply, someone in the lower order digs deep. Of course any idiot can cherry pick instances when parts of a team have slipped up, but to demonstrate lack of backbone, he'd need to consider the team as a whole and also list the times they've scored over 400 (which would need to be very few) and, for comparison, the batting failures of all the other test sides over the same period. Then, once he'd compiled these extra lists and his "All-England-players-failed-and-match-lost" list, he'd still need need to show which England batsmen got out playing weak shots, rather than slightly misjudged ones, over confident ones, or simply by getting beaten by a good ball. Then he might possibly have a genuine no-backbone case.
I can't see anyone being bothered to do all that though. Can you?

Or they could just post the numerous instances where the batting has imploded spectacularly and leave it to others to digest and interpret those facts as they wish. To me, it demonstrates a soft centre. To others, that they're probably the greatest team in the history of cricket.

But you are right, England are more resilient these days - sadly, only as a result of a stronger tail rather than any obvious improvement in their top order batting.

6 scores of 400 in the 16 Test (28 innings) period I highlighted. FWIW.

ever hopeful wrote:
Also, look at the whole picture: For instance, Colly not only took a wicket but also a blinding catch which a jellyfish wouldn't have even got a tentacle to. Didn't GET runs, but how many did he save?

Yes, let's start picking specialist fielders. That'll help strengthen a paper thin batting line-up.

Dello wrote: But you are right, England are more resilient these days - sadly, only as a result of a stronger tail rather than any obvious improvement in their top order batting.

Thank you. Is that blood I see coming out of that stone?

Backbones, in linear creatures like snakes and batting line-ups, extend right to the tip of the tail. So well done for conceding that, unlike jellyfish, England definitely do have one (although admittedly they slip a few discs from time to time).

You're not looking at these genetically modified jellyfish that I've recently invented, though (out of some jelly and a fish). They have barely visible, teeny tiny backbones. And an iPod dock.

They're going to be big sellers this Christmas.

Sound good. Do they have a sting in the tail?

bring back Ray East and his bike (once again)

He's the man ta restore England ta life.




((Or possibly Gordon Sumner.))

ever hopeful wrote:Sound good. Do they have a sting in the tail?

Afraid not. There was a Broad bit of bone which occasionally drew blood when it thrashed around in a hopeless cause, but in the latest evolutionary cycle, it has been replaced by a massive lump of gristle.

Sounds like budgie material.

Gristle's good for me. It's tough and hangs around for ages- virtually impossible to get rid of.

Lets not forget the glorious 51 all out at Sabina Park as well. I have slight doubts about the England top/middle order batting against high quality pace when it gets a bit hot in the kitchen.

A forumer on Caribbeancricket.com posted that England would get thrashed at Perth after seeing the way all the batsmen handled the short ball at Adelaide. He was roundly ridiculed by a number of other psoters but he was absolutely right.

England have a good bowling attack, a very good slip cordon and a decent lower order, but as Dello says, the top/middle order has some work to do when everything isn't loaded in their favour.

Collingwood is woeful on quick, bouncy pitches. Always has been. KP too often plays terrible shots, Strauss seems more nervous than usual, Prior is hit and miss.....

Cook, Bell, and Trott are the only batsmen even close to reliable.

Just to absolutely clear this up then. Here is England's latest scorcard compared with a backbone. Very similar shape and structure, you will agree.