England's Batsmen

The strange thing is that going into this series our two 'bankers' who I would almost guarentee to score runs at some stage were Strauss and Pietersen. They have both had just about the worst series of their careers. The players we had doubts about like Cook and Bell have batted well.

The jury is still out on Trott. I can't help but think a dour extra opener or number 3 in the Richardson mould would help this England team enormously as KP, Colly and Bell all struggle against the new ball.

It must also be said that in Steyn and Morkel the South Africans had an excellent fast bowling attack that would test any batsmen in world cricket. Even the Indian line up would struggle on these pitches against those bowlers.

Gary 111 wrote:It must also be said that in Steyn and Morkel the South Africans had an excellent fast bowling attack that would test any batsmen in world cricket. Even the Indian line up would struggle on these pitches against those bowlers.

Which is my frustration about the soft dismissals. Those two were dangerous enough, England didn't need to help them out.

Shoeshine wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:It must also be said that in Steyn and Morkel the South Africans had an excellent fast bowling attack that would test any batsmen in world cricket. Even the Indian line up would struggle on these pitches against those bowlers.

Which is my frustration about the soft dismissals. Those two were dangerous enough, England didn't need to help them out.

When you're facing excellent fast bowling though it builds pressure and that sometimes creates soft dismissals.

I'd reckon at least 50% of all Test dismissals are soft - fencing away outside off stump or being caught playing aggressively. Its partly a combination of not having the chance to play shots for a period of time, and also the fact that 85mph plus bowlers test your reactions so much more, and the time to react is so miniscule.

Aside from one innings in the first Test England haven't gifted many wickets to the pie chucker Harris and to fat Jacques, who usually gets soft wickets against us.

Which would be fine and understandable, were it not for the fact that England's batsmen do it against everyone.

Shoeshine wrote:

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.

Even his main mentors at Nottinghamshire were not English. Clive Rice was the man who got him in the door and helped with his early development. Greg Blewett was his best buddy and I presume a lot of information rubbed off on him from Blewie. I think, by 19, a lot of the things he did as a batsman would have already been settled in his mind. But trying to discover the point in time when Pietersen became a good batsman is difficult.

Chivalry Augustus wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

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.

Even his main mentors at Nottinghamshire were not English. Clive Rice was the man who got him in the door and helped with his early development. Greg Blewett was his best buddy and I presume a lot of information rubbed off on him from Blewie. I think, by 19, a lot of the things he did as a batsman would have already been settled in his mind. But trying to discover the point in time when Pietersen became a good batsman is difficult.

Yes, that's reasonable. It's just that I think the oft-quoted comment that KP's batting is a product of South Africa (and therefore separating him from the rest of the team, bar Trott in terms of his approach and technique) seems a little simplistic to me.

Chivalry Augustus wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

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.

Even his main mentors at Nottinghamshire were not English. Clive Rice was the man who got him in the door and helped with his early development. Greg Blewett was his best buddy and I presume a lot of information rubbed off on him from Blewie. I think, by 19, a lot of the things he did as a batsman would have already been settled in his mind. But trying to discover the point in time when Pietersen became a good batsman is difficult.

Yeah - that's not strictly true as KP was close to the finished product when he arrived here - he scored prolifically in his First and Second seasons for Notts - I saw him play at Headingley then and he was always a wonderful striker of the ball down the ground. If it wasn't for the 4 year residential qualification period he'd have been in the England ODI team within a season and the Test team within two.

Well I saw Pietersen early on for Nottinghamshire as well, but this was in Div Two and a lot of players score in Div Two. I think the main thing that has changed in his game since I saw him is his off-side play which has developed considerably. There has always been a bit of a myth that he's very leg-sided - he always had off-side shots, it's just that leg-side favoured the percentages more. Back then, players were not as positive, Twenty20 hadn't taken off, and a player with Pietersen's aggression had more at his disposal to thrive. He was a very talented player though always.

Well Englands batting was not up to scratch, that much is obvious.

As already mentioned our 2 'bankers' failed and the 2 who went into the series under pressure came off the best.

Starting to agree with Garys 3 opener suggestion, I think I would go with Cook at 3

Pity Carberry is left handed really as i'd like to get a right hander in at the top too.

What a good discussion this thread has turned into. See? We can do it if we try. Occasionally anyway.

Shoeshine wrote:What a good discussion this thread has turned into. See? We can do it if we try. Occasionally anyway.

A good discussion on FB? We'll have to put a stop to that.

Solanki for England - there that's done it.

Basil wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:What a good discussion this thread has turned into. See? We can do it if we try. Occasionally anyway.

A good discussion on FB? We'll have to put a stop to that.

Solanki for England - there that's done it.

He's already played for England...get with the beat, Daddio.

DJ_Smerk wrote:

Basil wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:What a good discussion this thread has turned into. See? We can do it if we try. Occasionally anyway.

A good discussion on FB? We'll have to put a stop to that.

Solanki for England - there that's done it.

He's already played for England...get with the beat, Daddio.

Not in the test side numbnuts.

Shoeshine wrote:What a good discussion this thread has turned into. See? We can do it if we try. Occasionally anyway.

Don't worry, I'm here now to drag the average down.

Carbs at three would definitely be worth looking at. He's a bit of a hot-streak batsman, in the sense that he plods along, chipping in solid 40s, 50s and 60s for weeks on end and then suddenly finds his range and goes ton, ton, ton, ton, ton, broken hand (well, that's how last season went), but what I like about him is he plays like he's got something to prove - which he has, having not made the grade at a couple of counties before being a bit of a late-bloomer at Hants.

Not that one player is going to make all the difference to England's batting line-up.

I do think it's more of a mentality issue than ability, though. Personality, perhaps. They can all certainly score Test runs - against the best attacks out there. But their performances are so fitful, their wickets thrown away at times so flimsily that you feel the problems that really need addressing are all attitude-based.

Is it a coincidence that the three best contributors with the bat in the series were the two guys most recently dropped and the guy seemingly on the verge of being dropped? There's value in keeping everyone on their toes, out of the comfort zone and playing for their places, I think.

It's probably just the law of averages as opposed to coincidence. Good players from other countries seem to deal perfectly well with their pressure-less existence, anyway. Or maybe England's batsmen are just tw@ts. Yes, that's probably it. Thread over.

Perhaps in the quest to make "Team England" feel all chummy and homely like a county side, England have unwittingly created an environment where players have a "never mind, there's always next week" mentality to a shit performance, when in reality every single Test match should be viewed as the most important game of cricket any of them will ever play.

Mmm, I'm not sure about that at all. For one thing, there's not the slightest evidence to suggest it's true, for another I seriously doubt Andy Flower would stand for it, and finally, their reaction to winning is that of a team who really want to win.

I'm sure they like winning and I'm sure they hope to win games, but do they hate losing?

Just a theory I'm throwing out there.

There's definitely a weakness in their mentality - so many batting collapses by guys who can clearly bat at this level certainly asks a lot of questions about their attitude, focus, desire and such.

Yeah, I think it's more down to the cricket they are brought up in than not having the will to win. As I said earlier, I think county players get into a mindset that the next ball might be unplayable so you can't pass up opportunities to score, therefore they give their wicket away too cheaply and don't develop the experience of 6-hour innings. If they were brought up on sub-continental dustbowls they would have that mindset for making double centuries. Maybe it is just the English swing-friendly conditions that are to blame?

But could it simply be that Morkel and Steyn are better bowlers than the England players are batsmen. Even with all the temprament and effort in the world you can't compete if the bowling is too good. Pietersen aside could this be the case for the England team?

Strauss was unsettled by Morkel's pace and bounce - he gorged on the Australian bowlers who didn't offer the same threat but not here. Trott looked out of his depth. Bell, Cook and Colingwood did as well as could be reasonable expected.

Gary 111 wrote:But could it simply be that Morkel and Steyn are better bowlers than the England players are batsmen. Even with all the temprament and effort in the world you can't compete if the bowling is too good. Pietersen aside could this be the case for the England team?

That's fair enough if they are actually got out by the bowler, rather than getting themselves out to ill-advised shots. Too many England dismissals are of the latter category, however good the bowling overall (and those two SA bowlers didn't have a great deal of support, particularly from the spin department and Ntini when he played).

Official team photo.

As anyone ever considered that Chivalry Augustus is Geoff Boycott?

Zat wrote:
Official team photo.

Also doubles as team photo of Pakistan or India

Or Australia at the Oval.