England's Batsmen

Another abject series for England's batsmen. Star performers like Bell averaged a massive 44. When can we expect to see some of these losers put out to pasture instead of having to consistently witness sub-200 scores? I think England's bowlers once again put in a decent shift in this series and achieved the maximum of what could be expected. But no English batsman distinguished himself and stood up like Smith and Kallis. We just had people happy to play supporting roles. Unfortunately, South Africa had three or four other batsmen to support like Amla, de Villiers and Boucher.

England's batsmen have really got to stand up in this batsman friendly era. This is why the last two series have been so difficult for England in terms of their share of the matches (just ignoring results for the moment). It's because the batsmen aren't competing enough.

Well it would have been a different matter if they'd all done the same kind of thing as Bell.

But it's hardly new. The only thing that can be said I guess is that Flower is pretty open about being less than impressed about this. Can he fix it, that's the question.

The frustrating thing is that they're all doing just enough to keep their place. Nobody is consistently shocking, bar Bopara in the Ashes - a 25 average series followed by a 50 average series and you guarantee staying in there for another year or so, while another player does the reverse.

The batting line-up has needed freshening up for some time, but where exactly? A few months ago the most popular name to drop would be Collingwood, now he's surely first name on the teamsheet after the captain. The problem is our county game doesn't produce players with the patience to bat for long periods of time and make not just hundreds but 150s and 200s. Our batsmen get starts then get out, and I suspect whoever else we tried would do much the same.

We have to play three openers though, instead of giving middle order batsmen the pressure of batting number 3, and I'd favour having Strauss at 3 to provide the stability, although Cook also has a decent record there.

Bringing in who to open?

I don't know, haven't seen enough of the candidates in FC cricket. But we've needed to get a new opener into the setup for a long time as we keep picking squads with no cover for Strauss and Cook.

A bit peculiar to want to change it without actually showing that that change will deliver an improvement.

The batting can probably be retained for a while. Excusing the rebellious Bangladeshi tour, the only player to gain Test status in the next few months will be Luke Wright.

Shoeshine wrote:A bit peculiar to want to change it without actually showing that that change will deliver an improvement.

Well we can't continue to pick players at number 3 who are not specialists in facing the new ball, they're being put in an impossible situation.

You sound like the selectors, who are waiting for a player to average 60 in county cricket for 4 or 5 years before they consider making a change. If you don't make changes because they might not make an improvement, you never get any better. They have to take a risk from time to time if they want to progress up the rankings. A pick might not necessarily come off but in that case you just move on and try someone else.

Carberry would obviously be next in-line. The problem is there are about four batsmen who are performing averagely who you could drop, yet also make a case for them not quite deserving to be dropped.

I presume that we're largely in agreement that dropping Pietersen, ignoring this bad series, is a non-starter? For me, Bell is still the most droppable followed by Trott. Cook has had a better series but is not there yet. Strauss is a definite what with being captain and all. Collingwood to me would be better at 6, but I'm happy with him.

But if we're going to bat Trott at 3, there's no point. He's not a number 3 so may as well drop him. Play Carberry.

After Carberry though, which batsmen are next off the circuit?

Alarmingly, Andrew Gale is still prominent in second-string selection. Do we like hackers all of a sudden with the talk of Luke Wright, etc? Surely it's a very Asian future for England with the likes of Bopara and Fatel making it into the side?

Sounds like Carberry is seen as next in line anyway - my main concern would be his age and whether he can adapt to Test cricket at this stage in his career, but he probably deserves a go and may well get it in Bangladesh.

I think they're all competing to avoid being the next in line to be dropped really. The next couple of series will be important in all the batsmen's careers. But I'd rather have three great and three awful rather than six average batsmen, as at least then you know where to make the changes!

Chivalry Augustus wrote:Carberry would obviously be next in-line. The problem is there are about four batsmen who are performing averagely who you could drop, yet also make a case for them not quite deserving to be dropped.

I presume that we're largely in agreement that dropping Pietersen, ignoring this bad series, is a non-starter? For me, Bell is still the most droppable followed by Trott. Cook has had a better series but is not there yet. Strauss is a definite what with being captain and all. Collingwood to me would be better at 6, but I'm happy with him.

But if we're going to bat Trott at 3, there's no point. He's not a number 3 so may as well drop him. Play Carberry.

After Carberry though, which batsmen are next off the circuit?

Alarmingly, Andrew Gale is still prominent in second-string selection. Do we like hackers all of a sudden with the talk of Luke Wright, etc? Surely it's a very Asian future for England with the likes of Bopara and Fatel making it into the side?

Well, Chiv, assuming Strauss and Collingwood are 'rested' for the Bangla tour, then I assume Carberry and Wright will be brought in as appropriate cover. I'm assuming Wright is closer than Gale to getting a Test place because he's in the squad.

Anyone who wants Pietersen dropped after one bad series, especially when he'd just came back from injury, is insane!

I fear Bell will be dining out on that innings at Cape Town for a long time, while not making any further improvements. Today was a typical Bell dismissal, just guiding the ball to the slips from a delivery he never had to play at. Harsh to lay in to him considering everyone else pissed their wickets up against the wall though, but he just doesn't inspire me with confidence that he'll step up from the cape town knock.

No, Beamer, I'm saying that if you want to drop a player then the replacement needs to be better. There may well be someone there, but if you don't have an example, it's calling for change for the sake of it. And we did that in the nineties.

Gus makes a better point about Carberry, because he's been pretty unlucky not to have been selected already.

The reality is we don't have a Kallis waiting in the wings to come in and score shed loads, and that's because of the structure of county cricket.

For all the flaws in England's batting, I don't see that the selectors are making horrible decisions about the batting line up. This is where we are, and this is what we have. In this series our two big guns, Strauss and Pietersen, had very poor series by their standards. KP is by a street our best player, and he had a bit of a mare. Had he done better, England would have done better. The reality is that we have only one truly world class batsman available to us, and he didn't perform.

Bell did pretty well, Collingwood was our rock in the order, Cook showed significant mental strength but he still has technical problems, and the jury's out on Trott at the moment.

krikri wrote:Anyone who wants Pietersen dropped after one bad series, especially when he'd just came back from injury, is insane!

I fear Bell will be dining out on that innings at Cape Town for a long time, while not making any further improvements. Today was a typical Bell dismissal, just guiding the ball to the slips from a delivery he never had to play at. Harsh to lay in to him considering everyone else pissed their wickets up against the wall though, but he just doesn't inspire me with confidence that he'll step up from the cape town knock.

Word, as I said in the squad for Bangladesh thread, you'd be crazy to drop him. Worst thing would be for Pietersen to be kept out of the limelight and out of the action. As the Sky Comms often reiterate, KP loves being the centre of attention, and the Bangladesh tour might spark the dormant flame within KP and might increase his hunger for runs again.

Shoeshine wrote:No, Beamer, I'm saying that if you want to drop a player then the replacement needs to be better. There may well be someone there, but if you don't have an example, it's calling for change for the sake of it. And we did that in the nineties.

They've been doing the opposite recently, keeping things the same for the sake of it. If you don't give a few players a go then you will never know whether they are up to it, and we have hardly tried out any new batsmen in recent years. We just need a balance between 90's and 00's selection policy really.

But who is there who's demanding a place? They've tried a few recently, Bopara and Trott stand out as examples who have been given a run in the side. I assume you're fairly happy wuth KP and Collingwood? Cook, frustrating as he is, is pretty obviously a Test batsman, so it's not like we have loads of spaces to fill.

We don't have people queueing up to get in the side. Carberry deserves a go, but even so. We don't have people shouting to the rooftops that they're world class batsmen. Shuffling the order around can't be for the sake of it.

I'm in the thinking that, we know what Pietersen can do, give him the time to settle back. I suppose it's easy as pie to knock a player when they don't perform (e.g. Bell).

As you've all told me, Smerk give KP a break, he's just come out of injury, etc etc.


So yeah, let's do that.

England does not have a world-class batsman and that is a big problem.

One thing that concerns me is the upbringing of English batsmen. Pietersen came into the side as a world-class talent but is the only one, and he led a cricketing education that was not of our making. Does English cricket not promote excellence? Do players like Bell who are almost 'too' coached represent the best that we are capable of producing? Perhaps the key to better players is a bit more chaos, a bit more independence. Phillip Hughes is an example of unorthodoxy produced entirely of its own desires.

On Pietersen, I don't think it's right to back him just 'cause he's Pietersen. For me, he's the best player by a mile and more therefore should be expected of him. His current returns are poor, and made the worse by the flimsy nature of his dismissals. Now, batsmanship is far too instinctive to be OVERLY critical of the ways he gets out. It's easy to look at a soft dismissal and say what a prick he is. But I'm more concerned about his attitude and approach at the crease. He doesn't look very happy about things and doesn't look as if he belongs. If he doesn't then I'd have no more problem with him being dropped than anybody else.

I'm trying to remember which batsman it was who had the same injury KP had. I can't recall. Anyway, that player said that he found this particular injury the hardest of any he'd had to recover from, that it took him ages to find form, even after a supposed full recovery. He's more than earned some patience I feel. Smacking the Bangladesh attack around might be a perfect way for him to get back into the swing.

Our bowling isn't all that bad though?

Too many teams, talent too thinly spread, pitches that suit ordinary medium pace swing bowlers - county cricket promotes mediocrity. Other than closing down 10 of the counties there isn't really a solution.

Shoeshine wrote:I'm trying to remember which batsman it was who had the same injury KP had. I can't recall. Anyway, that player said that he found this particular injury the hardest of any he'd had to recover from, that it took him ages to find form, even after a supposed full recovery. He's more than earned some patience I feel. Smacking the Bangladesh attack around might be a perfect way for him to get back into the swing.

Yes. Aslong as he respects Shakib, he'll do well.

Chivalry Augustus wrote:England does not have a world-class batsman and that is a big problem.

One thing that concerns me is the upbringing of English batsmen. Pietersen came into the side as a world-class talent but is the only one, and he led a cricketing education that was not of our making. Does English cricket not promote excellence? Do players like Bell who are almost 'too' coached represent the best that we are capable of producing? Perhaps the key to better players is a bit more chaos, a bit more independence. Phillip Hughes is an example of unorthodoxy produced entirely of its own desires.

Do you mean technically or in terms of attitude? I have serious doubts Hughes will make it in Test cricket unless he makes major adjustments (which he might).

However, with Pietersen, I wonder how true it is to say that his batting isn't English created. All of his batting development, from tail-ender to heart of England's batting, happened here, not in South Africa.

We shouldn't go over the top about this though. England have drawn 1-1, not had a 4-0 battering, irrespective of how some of the Tests went. Equally, many of England's poor performances were down to terrible shot selection rather than inadequate technique. I don't know why that is, but if you look at the line up, you couldn't honestly say that those players don't look good enough to be Test cricketers. It's just that they do so many daft things, and then of course you also get the good bowling, the great ball - the usual. So they're not maximising what they have. That's clearly driving Flower mad.

DJ_Smerk wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:I'm trying to remember which batsman it was who had the same injury KP had. I can't recall. Anyway, that player said that he found this particular injury the hardest of any he'd had to recover from, that it took him ages to find form, even after a supposed full recovery. He's more than earned some patience I feel. Smacking the Bangladesh attack around might be a perfect way for him to get back into the swing.

Yes. Aslong as he respects Shakib, he'll do well.

I didn't mean it disrespectfully to them. But he should score heavily.

Shoeshine wrote:

DJ_Smerk wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:I'm trying to remember which batsman it was who had the same injury KP had. I can't recall. Anyway, that player said that he found this particular injury the hardest of any he'd had to recover from, that it took him ages to find form, even after a supposed full recovery. He's more than earned some patience I feel. Smacking the Bangladesh attack around might be a perfect way for him to get back into the swing.

Yes. Aslong as he respects Shakib, he'll do well.

I didn't mean it disrespectfully to them. But he should score heavily.

Yeah, KP seems to like Sub-continent conditions.