Australian Batting vs English Batting

[Goatman]

There are lots of schools of thought on Hayden - "flat track bully" some say "great batsman out of sorts" say others "mentally fatigued" say a third group. I'd like to throw my 2-cents in, and by the way I am certainly not trying to stick the boot in here.

Hayden success - in my opinion only - was built because he had an unusual gift for upsetting bowlers. Bowlers like to have a plan and stick to it. Haydens batting - and his mouth and general demeanour - got under thier skin, the bowlers would deviate from thier strategy to try and compensate and no on-your-feet plan can match one that has been throught out with all due care an attention before the match started.

First time they met, this is definately what happened to Hoggard. He got some treatement early in the tour and kept trying to bowl wicket taking balls, when he should have been looking for the dry line. Hoggard has a big heart though. He went back to his home and worked really bloody hard at bowlng to left handers - particularly aggressive ones. Next time he met a Hayden-a-like - GC Smith - he made him look like a prize wally. Since 2003, he has also had Chanderpaul and Jacobs 4 times each and Gayle 3 times. This summer, he has had Hayden 3 times in 8 innings every time within the first ten overs. Its no wonder Hayden is struggling.

In this personal battle is is clear to me that this time Hoggard is bowling to the plan set before he walked out onto the field. Actually, on all three occassions he has basically got out to the same ball - it pitched on off from over the wicket and straightened late. First time, he missed it and lost his off stump. Second time he mis-judged it, and popped it to the close fielder off the inside half of the bat. Third time he flopped heavy-footed onto his front foot, and it hit his pad. Hoggard is clearly bowling to a plan, and it is working.

Is it not at least possible that this shift has also accounted for some - many? - of the other early dismissals he has been suffering from lately. New bowlers coming into test cricket - like Franklyn or O'Brien - have the advantage of having seen him on video without the disadvantage of having suffered him when he was still a relatively new - and therefore unknown - test cricketer. They have a better plan, and none of the baggage. This would certainly explain why he now gets so many starts - he is actually in decent nick - but then gets out - the bowlers are sending down balls he can't deal with.

I submit; Matthew Hayden is an adequate test batsman (of the kind who usually average in the high 30's) who, in his own way, has done exactly what Boycott did - he has "made the very most of a very small talent" as Ian Botham said of Boycs. Boycott worked on his strength; the ability to dig in. So has Hayden; the ability to make good bowlers bowl poorly. All credit to him; he has maximised what he has and that is always highly creditable. But if I'm right, this isn't poor form striking. Its his game plan coming apart at the seams. You can't do what Hayden did if you look ordinary. Its a bit like if everyone in the world suddenly realised Boycott wasn't that sure where his stumps were.

[Colourful Chaddi]

I would say the Australians batsmen on paper are leaps and bounds better than England's batsmen, but at the moment the english batsmen are in-form compared to the Australians. One other factor in the England team is that only 2 batsmen are capable to score big hundreds or even bigger scores. I would say only England opener Marcus Trescothick and England Captain Michael Vaughn are the only batsmen who could hit big scores for England. The rest of the batsmen are Andrew Struass, Kevin Pietersen,Andrew Flintoff and Ian Bell are just players who would hit a century or a cameo. Whereas all the Australians batsmen from no.1-7 are capable of taking the game away from the opposition with huge indiviaul scores.

[Rachael]

Huge individual totals don't really worry me: in order for one batsman to score 200+ he needs support... and in the vast majority of cases where someone scores 200+ I'd guess you are looking at 550+ totals.. and at pitches on which no self respecting side should lose a Test match.

Centuries which are the sole major contribution to an innings are more significant... on a genuine result pitch they make the difference between a modest total (say 300) and a good one (say 400).

That said... Tresco and Vaughan represent opposite extremes: Tresco's more likely than almost any cricketer in the game to get off to a good score, play himself in and get to (say) 40. He's perhaps the least likely of the top 7 to actually go from such a good start though. By contrast... Vaughan rarely gets to 50 but he has a great record of playing a matchwinning or match-saving innings.

Now... it's perhaps true that the Aussie top order have more players in the Vaughan mould... but is it a co-incidence that Tresco tops the averages and has done more to shape the series than many of the big-score batsmen? Perhaps when it really counts... it's consistency not big scoring that really counts...

Something to think about.... someone recently reported that Hussain (not your obvious heavy-scorer) actually averaged nearly 50 in games in which he came to the crease with the side in real trouble (can't verify that). Complete opposite of a flat track bully who'll score stacks (and bat the opposition out of the game) when it doesn't matter and then go awol when it does. Who's more useful?

[djdannybrown]

One of the reasons why most of our batsmen dont get huge hundreds is
1)Because of skill,dont think any of the batsmen have mind to stay in.

2)The way England has started batting,trying to score over 400 with a fast rate and have time to win the test,even if they risk getting out.(Just look at how they play once they get to 300-400 it's like one day cricket)

3)The kind of players,Trescothick,Pietersen,Flintoff,G Jones are all attacking players,game-changers(Just look at 4th ashes test with G Jones and Flintoff scoring for fun.)

4)I'd rather have a good century and a win rather than a 400 Lara and a draw.

[Kirsty Harris]

Originally Posted by Waseem Khalifa

The rest of the batsmen are Andrew Struass, Kevin Pietersen,Andrew Flintoff and Ian Bell are just players who would hit a century or a cameo.

I personally think that Strauss is more than capable of getting big hundreds. He hasn't done so yet, true, but he has barely played one year of test cricket!! He has the right temprament and approach to the game to do so. The jury is still out on Bell, IMO. He hasn't looked like a big hundred player in this series, by a long shot, but he only has a handful of test matches behind him. Time will tell!

[Ernest]

There is hope for Strauss.

Originally Posted by Kirsty Harris

The jury is still out on Bell,

LOl I thought the trial was over, Fletcher must be the judge. .