England's place in world cricket

[butchering lee]

I was here five minutes ago writing a thread about how England will never be real competitiors because of the tendancy to hero-worship individuals. I deleted it (mainly cos i've said it here before) and went off to read about their game - and found this (so i'm back):

""England's challenge faded long before their mathematical prospects elapsed in the final over, but in truth it was over from the moment Pietersen fell. That is the extent to which his presence dictates their fortunes. ""

i know they were covering the recent 7 ODIs against India (on cricinfo) cos i read the coverage - so, how do they come to this conclusion? I am begining to believe it is institutional - i know many kronko english forumites who follow this train of thought but when you see it running through their journalism ("gnasher", miller and williamson are guilty of this as are the other English contributors), how can it not be in the team (what has happened to Flintoff's batting - for me, that's almost a rhetorical question).

Before Pieterson there was Flintoff after Thorpe after (though also with) Atherton...

If it is institutional then i believe England have a LONG way to go before seriously competing with any consistency for a permanant place in the top tiers of cricket's tables.

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by butchering lee

""England's challenge faded long before their mathematical prospects elapsed in the final over, but in truth it was over from the moment Pietersen fell. That is the extent to which his presence dictates their fortunes. ""

I've commented on this subject a while back.

Originally Posted by Seamer

It is no co-incidence that England, who played so brilliantly as a team up until the 2005 Ashes began to unravel upon the arrival of Kevin Pietersen. Even in the recent tour of Australia, England played terrible cricket until Pietersen was injured and went home .......... Once he left, England became a "team" again and started kicking ass. Then Pietersen came back for the WC, and they went back to playing poor cricket again.

Pietersen is a champion batsman, no doubt. But there are two different types of champions - one who inspires his teammates and sucks them into his slipstream, and one who is quick to criticize others who don't reach his lofty standards, thus placing pressure on them and unedrmining their confidence.

I am not saying that Pietersen is totally responsible for England's form reversals, injury played a big part, but i am convinced that Pietersen's presence is undermining team unity.

[Quagmire]

I dont think that Pietersen is a team player. I think your Vaughan's, Flintoff's and Collingwood's are more inspiring and more respected in the English than Pietersen will ever be.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by butchering lee

"England's challenge faded long before their mathematical prospects elapsed in the final over, but in truth it was over from the moment Pietersen fell. That is the extent to which his presence dictates their fortunes."

i know they were covering the recent 7 ODIs against India (on cricinfo) cos i read the coverage - so, how do they come to this conclusion? I am begining to believe it is institutional

First things first: we have journalists... and idiots who mouth off in print - and the former are an increasingly rare breed (even in the broadsheets). To compound matters... sports journalism is at the forefront of "sentimentalisation of Britain": where readers were once credited with having an interest in the game... they are increasingly treated as mindless plebs whose interest is less in the nuances of technique and tactics than in the "feelings" of (and relationships between) the players.

Even Radio Four has succumbed: the idiot who does the sports report during the Today programme is forever trying to help listeners "empathise" with the "stars" he interviews... or blathering about the "drama"!

Boycott is more old-school. He pointed out (very early on) that the poor fielding cost England the game. The bowling was OK (not special, but OK) and the batting was OK (not special, but OK)... but SA benefitted from dropped catches (and sloppy fielding) that (if taken) would almost certainly have kept the target well within reach.

Sadly, that's not the sort of thing our overly sentimentalised journalists generally want to print!

[greg]

Rachael is right,the only reason England lost that game last night was the fact we dropped so many easy catches.The dismissal of Pietersen obviously didn't help but if we had caught the chances that we had South Africa would have struggled to get over 120 and England would have cruised that.

[butchering lee]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Boycott is more old-school. He pointed out (very early on) that the poor fielding cost England the game. The bowling was OK (not special, but OK) and the batting was OK (not special, but OK)... but SA benefitted from dropped catches (and sloppy fielding) that (if taken) would almost certainly have kept the target well within reach.

I have heard him get over-tonal about "that's a BIG wicket" - but i hear you.

[butchering lee]

Originally Posted by greg

Rachael is right,the only reason England lost that game last night was the fact we dropped so many easy catches.

The dropped catches were irrelevant - it was a very gettable target and one which England were well on course for until...i believe the comment i quoted was true, i just think it's a bad state to be in.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by butchering lee

The dropped catches were irrelevant - it was a very gettable target and one which England were well on course for until...i believe the comment i quoted was true, i just think it's a bad state to be in.

First it does not really matter in this form of cricket what happens, this game is a lottary in any case.

Pietersen being out the way he was started the rot, but the dropped catches did matter AKA England v Sri Lanka Lords 2006 when 9 catches were dropped.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Boycott is more old-school. He pointed out (very early on) that the poor fielding cost England the game. The bowling was OK (not special, but OK) and the batting was OK (not special, but OK)... but SA benefitted from dropped catches (and sloppy fielding) that (if taken) would almost certainly have kept the target well within reach.[...]Sadly, that's not the sort of thing our overly sentimentalised journalists generally want to print!

Says it all really - Rachael is spot on, the only qualm I have is that neither "batting nor bowling" can be special in 20/20 cricket - it's 90% a matter of luck when a batsman slogs wether he gets a six, or is out.

But dropped catches and sloppy fielding can be helped, that's not down to luck - fielding is basic, and the fact is that had England got the basics or simple things right, they would have won this game IMO.
Make no mistake SA faltered, and the dropped catch resulting in Schofield getting cated was the difference between the two sides.

I have not a clue, or have ever seen any evidence to back up the clain that Pietersen in an upsetting factor in the England dressing room, England did play better when Pietersen was injured in Australia - but that coincided with Flintoff getting someform with the bat, and Loye slogging England to victory.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest

this game is a lottary in any case [...] |20/20 cricket - it's 90% a matter of luck when a batsman slogs wether he gets a six, or is out [...] But dropped catches and sloppy fielding can be helped, that's not down to luck

Boycott basically makes the point that if you play the slogging game... you are relying on lady luck. Barry Richards would add that a mis-timed shot that skews wide of where it was aimed and clears the field and goes for four or six is still and bloody awful shot: that only luck seperates that from the bloody awful shot that ends up in the hands of the fielder or wicket-keeper.

With that said... the best players don't slog (even in Twenty20). The trick is to make sure you score off every ball (by working good balls around and then punishing the poor ones). It is emphatically NOT looking to belt the ball all around the park... an error often compounded by daft tricks like moving around a lot at the point of delivery or premeditating strokes.

Wait to see the delivery before moving... play proper shots... and back yourself to score no matter where the ball is bowled... and the element of luck rapidly diminishes.

[butchering lee]

Originally Posted by Ernest

First it does not really matter in this form of cricket what happens, this game is a lottary in any case.

Not really true - i could argue my case but apart from one game things have gone as they would (or certainly could) in any ODI imo and therefore the case is evident.