The England Diagnosis: Batting

[feverpitch]

In many ways, whether England manage to save the 3rd Test is irrelevant. If they are able to do so, it will be in large part due to the rain that has engulfed Galle, and will not in any way disguise their patent faults. Though they fought on more-or-less equal terms with Sri Lanka for large parts of the first two Tests, ultimately no one can deny they have been out-batted, out-fielded and out-bowled by Sri Lanka (even discounting Murali). They are now ranked fifth in the world. After two series wins out of eight, England must now accept they have regressed alarmingly since their golden run on 2004/05. What can they do to improve, or is it simply a case that the best England have are not good enough?

Batting
Excuse me for harping back to my perennial cause celebre, but when Mark Ramprakash was ignored for this tour I wrote that "England are a mid-table Test side; are they really in a position when they can afford to refrain from picking their best XI in the hope of building for some mythical date in the future?" Peter Moores has shown a worrying tendency to support promising 'kids' who have not proved up to the task - Luke Wright during the World Twenty20; and Ravi Bopara here, whose much-hyped 'x-factor' constituted a penchant for being dismissed for a duck.

As Australia constantly prove, the only game you need worry about is the next one, and England's inability to score hundreds is crying out for someone possessing the depths of concentration and capacity for longevity of Ramprakash at the crease. To date, England have scored 10 fifties but no centuries in this series. Even if they go some way to rectifying that, the stat illustrates England have a lot of perfectly competent Test batsmen, but cannot make the big scores that Messrs Sangakkara and Jayawardene batted England out the series with. Curiously for a side in the midst of such a slumber, there is probably only one man - Bopara - for whom the axe is around the corner.

Ian Bell often looks in supreme form at the crease, as he did in the first Test, while failing to really capitalise. As such, he has not yet making the runs to justify batting at three. But with Kevin Pietersen being unfortunate with umpiring decision and snorters alike, and with Vaughan's innings consistently ended by impetuosity, there has been no one to grind the Sri Lankan attack into the dust. Calls for a recall for Andrew Strauss should be laughed off given his form in the past 15 months. That would leave Ramprakash, in an ideal world, to replace Bopara and move up to number three, with Pietersen four, Bell five and Collingwood at six and Owais Shah, once again, next cab-off-the-rank. Most likely, that top six would score big against a Kiwi attack top-heavy with medium-pacers. Whether they could consistently make first innings scores of 400 against the sterner Tests that await, however, would have to be doubtful - but do England have anyone else?

[Trescothick's Footwork]

England don't have anyone else, except for Trescothick, Ramprakash, Strauss and Shah. I think the problem is that the batsman do well enough to stay in the team, nobody averaging <20 for example. I wouldn't pick Ramprakash again, he is cricket's version of Steven Gerrard! He's averaged 90 odd in an English summer before, and then was recalled for a tour of South Africa. He looked absolutely paralysed with fear, and I would rather have Tres back before Ramps. Both of them have mental fragility, but at least Tres scores runs with his! He's also an excellent slip fielder and by ****** we need one. He seemed to be a good sounding board/giving good advice for Vaughan, something we probably miss with Strauss also out the team. It's a pity nobody else has hit world class yet apart from KP, though I do believe Bell is about to take the step up. The batting is a big worry, and as you can see by my rambling post I don't have the answer

[Trescothick's Footwork]

I wrote c h r i s t by the way, not a profanity. That word isn't a profanity and shouldn't be bleeped out.

[Rachael]

There's one critical problem with your analysis: you rather overlook the fact that after touring Sri Lanka is second only to touring Australia in terms of difficultly... and that winning a test against Sri Lanka on Sri Lankan pitches is tougher than winning a test in ANY other country.

Bottom line: England should have drawn the first Test.... and should still draw the final Test - they have slipped slightly... but that's about as much as any side bar Australia could have expected to manage given the current form of Tharanga, Sangakkara and the magestic Jayawardene.

Shah's omission, Swann's omission and Prior's selection have probably made the difference between forcing a stalemate in all three games and losing either 1-0 or 2-0. Neither decision was ludicrous.

Shah appears to have been penned in to start the first test, but Bopara really did impress everyone in the build up to the first Test... and pretty much everyone following the side around agreed that he made a good enough case for selection to justify the decision that was made.

Swann's omission is less intelligible... but may owe more to Vaughan than to Moores: England's illustrious captain has many merits... but he's never really shown much faith in spin as the basis of his attack... or much confidence in setting attacking fields for spinners.

Prior's selection strikes me as having been less justifiable given that Read, Foster and Ambrose were available... but the selection was not completely crazy.... and Prior's batting has been a revelation.

Bottom line: whilst I am the most ardent fan of Ramps... I find your analysis woeful: the biggest reason for England's below par showing in Sri Lanka has been the dire fielding rather than the bowling and batting. If the gloveman had been Read, the slips had been Tresco and Flintoff and the outfielding had been led by Collingwood and Bell... the two sides would have been inseperable.

ps. That's not an argument AGAINST Ramps' selection... as I'd have taken him: I just think his non-selection has been irrelevent.

[feverpitch]

Just to clarify, the reason I largely skited over what a hard place to tour Sri Lanka is is my piece was not solely on the series. but on the current state of the England side. Likewise, it was only about batting (fielding, keeping and bowling will be dealt with elsewhere).

Equally, I think the issue of why England have not managed a century in two and a half Tests is absolutely fundamental, especially as they only managed three against India.

[Rachael]

I still find your analysis misguided: I see Cook, Vaughan, Bell, Pietersen and Collingwood as an extremely competitive top order... and see reserves likes Shah and Joyce as being of a callibre that would walk into most test squads.

I've serious reservations about Prior... but he's done well with the bat.

As it happens... I've also got limited reservations about the bowling: I accept that this is beyond your initial remit.. but your tone suggested crisis... and I see none. If I were in Moores shoes right now... I'd be pretty happy with the outlook.

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Bottom line: England should have drawn the first Test.....

Or possibly even won it. Harsh though it may seem Bell must take the blame for that. Twice he got in and twice failed to post a substantial score. A 150 score by Bell in the first innings would have made a massive differance to the game and then, who knows.....

Englands batting has failed because for some reason since Fletcher quit the batsman seem to find it difficult to convert starts into big scores. Even Vaughan the master of converting starts into good scores has struggled recently.

[greg]

Well yet again 3 of the top 4 have got in and got out without making the score we needed,hopefully Cook will be the exception and complete his hundred after lunch but from a serene 200-2 we slipped to 200-5 in no time at all and the batsmen have to take the blame as they should be making more use of the starts they keep getting.

Our lack of centuries in recent times is worrying and it is almost like the bad old days of Atherton's reign when a ton was a rarity and was usually only got by Atherton or Stewart (Thorpe used to get to 70 before throwing it away in those days,in fact he only got 6 hundreds in first 60 matches and 10 in his last 40).We know they are good players,their averages show that,so why all of a sudden are players who were scoring tons at will 18 months ago suddenly unable to convert?

If i knew the answer i would be the best sports psychologist in the world and be very rich but sadly i am not.

Obviously Bopara needs another season or two at Essex before being picked again (preferably at the start of an English summer),so that means Strauss will return for New Zealand.What order they bat in is anyones guess as i would be loathe to split up Vaughan and Cook or move bell from 3 as they have been relatively successful in this tour and are something to build on.Shah will probably be the unlucky man again and end up carrying the drinks around while counting sheep instead of runs.

The worry i have is that we could easily go to New Zealand and beat them and everyone will just think things are ok when they clearly aren't as this tour and the India series last summer has proved.

[engssmoothcriminal]

Originally Posted by feverpitch

Just to clarify, the reason I largely skited over what a hard place to tour Sri Lanka is is my piece was not solely on the series. but on the current state of the England side. Likewise, it was only about batting (fielding, keeping and bowling will be dealt with elsewhere).

Equally, I think the issue of why England have not managed a century in two and a half Tests is absolutely fundamental, especially as they only managed three against India.

I agree completely and I would look no further than those couple of mickey mouse three day games that constituted as our preparation for this tour. First game in the solitary innings we had batsmen retiring on 50/60 so that everyone could get a bat and in the second after getting skittled in the first innings we had part time bowlers of the calibre of Mubarak bowling half the overs. So the batsmen with zero relevant time at the crease are expected to miraculously switch it on in a test match and bat for over a day against someone like Murali in some of the most physically demanding conditions in the world.

It's therefore no great surprise that under pressure (a combination of Murali and the scoreboard) the batsmen after battling away for 4/5 hours have suffered these costly lapses of concentration that have been punished by Sri Lanka and their considerably better fielding unit. Sadly we've seen it all before in the Ashes, in Pakistan (the batsmen cost us the Karachi game and effectively the series) and even though we won the series in South Africa the batting outside the openers misfired throughout. Three 11 a side warm up games (two of them 4 days) has to be the absolute minimum preperation for O/S tours in future.

(Oh and cramming the three tests into a 23 day period is just beyond gormless scheduling although that's more of an excuse for the bowling thread)