Collingwood gone to a horrible shot.
Rubbish.

__________________
Ern

240-7 at the close which I suppose represents a bit of a recovery.

Still a pretty dismal effort considering the pitch. Well played KP who showed his class and also Broad who played sensibly and well. Strauss still horribly out of form and Bell fails AGAIN when he was really needed.

Barring something extraordinary in the second knock Shah must start the next test in May and whilst I don't want to pick on him, especially considering the amount invested in him, I think it's time Bell was dispensed with. He only seems to score when the pressure's off. If there's a counter argument I'll be pleased to hear it but I doubt it!!

Yes and no: all players are at their most vulnerable when new to the crease... and even the best take time to get their feet moving well and, and whilst airy drives are never good news, a lot of good batsmen have risked a few, early in their innings, in order to get the feel of bat on ball and find the touch and timing that gives them the confidence to settle to playing a tighter game.

With that said, the dismissals of Cook and Strauss strike me as a legacy of Fletcher's obsession with a particular strand of "positive" play and of Vaughan's instinct to "not die wondering": in the first Test we saw a disciplined display with batsmen playing themselves in and waiting for the easy pickings rather than trying to get after the bowlers from the off.... and the sooner Moores stamps his mark on this side by insisting on a more watchful approach the better.I don't have ANY problem's with Bell: he's showing ever greater class with the bat... and just needs proper mentoring by someone who actually understands where he's coming from.

Bell doesn't attract criticism for his playing of good bowling... because when the bowling is good he knows what to do and responds appropriately. The problems (as with Ramps a generation ago) come when the bowling is "ordinary": Bell's extremely accomplished, especially through the off side, and he's got the class to come down the pitch and execute great shots... but if he continues to play balls on merit he gets criticised for "not looking to assert himself" (something he must be acutely aware of following the efforts to transform his approach to ODI cricket).

In today's innings he could have done a job for the team by EITHER withdrawing into his shell and batting for Pietersen... or by asserting himself as the team have been asking him to in ODIs... and he clearly wasn't sure which to do when faced with that ball from Elliot - and he ended up neither leaving it nor playing the pull through midwicket that was clearly in his mind.

Moores needs to change the culture of the side somewhat: to start making more of a virtue of patience... to stop all this nonsense about asserting oneself at the crease (or "expressing oneself")... and to tell the baying media and fans to "get over it" when the side bats for 5 innings without throwing wickets away but in a manner that doesn't excite the Twenty20 generation.

I think he went into his shell too much! 9 from 58 is inexcusable. If he was going to bat with Pieterson, he could easily have scored 20-25 from that number of balls without taking any significant risks. My favourite batsman of all time, Mark Waugh, was quite capable of playing for the long haul and reigning in his attacking instincts- but you can probably count his number of sub- 33 (2 runs an over) innings on the fingers of one hand.

Broad, on the other hand, did an excellent job (although I didn't see it)- putting on over 50 and still rotating the strike. He really deserves a fifty tomorrow.

Dare I say it's time to re-evaluate Vaughan's selection in the squad? Collingwood has proven that he can captain an England side, and Vaughan's batting is beyond terrible, and his space could be filled with a more worthy batsman.

__________________
Frank Skinner: "You know when Glenn McGrath trod on that cricket ball? Don't you wish it would've been a landmine?"

When you come to the crease in the 7th over with your side having already lost three wickets (two to airy drives) and with just 4 runs on the board... 9 from 58 is absolutely fine. The match has a long way to go and securing a result is NOT essential (as the series is currently tied): Bell (and Pietersen) should have been under instructions to get through to lunch and then take stock... with runs very much a secondary consideration.

What's inexcusable is not scoring 9 from 58... but getting out playing to one's weaker side (in Bell's case the on side): when the side is in trouble you stick to your strengths (in Bell's case the off side) and if that means no runs then sobeit.

Edit re: Vaughan - anyone can be leaden footed at the start of an innings - no bit deal!

No, it boils down to Strauss being horribly out of form and Cook having a couple of flaws in his technique.
I've said this before but you chose to ignore it, under Fletcher we regularly posted 350+ in the first innings and were good and chasing down large 4th innings totals.

And again most players (past and present) said that England batted too slowly and were too negative, something even the England players admitted to.

The sooner Moores gets fired the better!

All of the great batsman in the history of test cricket "looked to assert themselves". The problem with Bell was as his state of mind was so negative when a bad ball came along he was in two minds - the worst thing that can happen if you are a batsman.


Playing to win should always be your primary concern. If you play for a draw you will more than likely lose.
If you give batsman those instructions they play too negatively and the team struggles.

I'll ask you a hypothetical question: What happens if in Bells first (full) over at the crease the bowler bowls 6 juicy long hops??

If we follow your way of thinking Bell should just either leave them or pat them back to the bowler. Any good batsman would end the over on 24*

__________________
Mark.

The problem was surely that the players were looking to drive too early in their innings (i.e. approach): that's not a "technique" matter, it's an attitude thing. They didn't HAVE to play an expansive shot...

Sure, if they'd been seeing the ball like a football, had been tighter with their footwork and positioning and had played a textbook drive the problem wouldn't have arisen... but when new at the crease, you don't EXPECT to get that lot right... which is why you reserve such shots for later in your innings!

Well, Rachael, I have to disagree with you on a number of things, having watched the whole nights play.

Bell - At the end of the previous over he was playing air pull-shots down the non-strikers end. Pre-meditating a stroke that he hadnt yet played in his innings! It was a truly horrible shot to get out to. The ball was six to eight inches outside off stump and could have been cut, driven square on the offside, or left well alone.

Moores has certainly stamped his authority. The healthy first innings totals of the Fletcher era are well and truly history. Poor shot selection, lack of assertive foot movement and batsmen failing to deal with changes to around the wicket bowling (something Fletcher, in his book, said all bowlers should be capable of. Trouble is, not all bowlers want to listen!)

Collingwood had done what bell should have done. he spent 23 balls before lunch scoring only one run. After lunch he counter attacked, then inexcusably got out to the worst ball of the day!

Vaughan got a good ball, the rest commited suicide. Under fletcher NZ were beaten, as were india, pakistan, austrailia, west indies, south africa and bangladesh. What has old boys brigade Moore done? Not a lot. The fielding was better under Fletch too, im afraid.


Quick edit - ALL batsmen should look to drive early in the innings, when the ball is overpitched. If its on a good length, fine leave it alone, but people were leaving half-volleys and looking to drive away from the body. It's poor technique. Thus, poor coaching?

What the hell are you talking about Rachael?

Cooks dismissal was batsman error - he was playing a DEFENSIVE shot Rachael a DEFENSIVE shot, and he got bowled through the gate, with a slight deflection off his pads because he didn't DEFEND it properly - because he has a flaw in his technique!

Strauss is just out of form, his body was in no position to play the shot he did and consequently it was MISS HIT! If that shot had been correctly executed it would have raced to the boundary - his favourite cut shot.

So try blaming Fletcher for something else, those two dismissals were both batsman ERRORS, with one of them being an incorrectly executed defensive shot - how can that be blamed on positive play?