The differences extend to keeping as well... although Aussie Jones 'keeps in English fashion (thought to be better when the ball swings after passing the batsman) whilst the very-English Read keeps in Aussie fashion

Yes now that you say that, i do remember Jones taking some absolute crackers in 2005 where the ball swung after passing the batsmen. while his hands can let him down, i think his footwork is technically quite good.

Back onto the batting, there was much talk down here during the 2005 ashes about the Aussie batsmen (Gilchrist in particular) lowering their backlift in an attemp to counter the (sometimes late) swing. Of course, it was unrealistic to expect veteran batsmen to change their ways all of a sudden, but the observation itself (Aussie batsmen having too high a backlift) was correct.

__________________

If Australia'n wickets are not as fast as they was - and that is what we are led to believe, then Atherton is wrong, playing into line on the from foot, is the best way to play.

Enen against spinners if you have a good reach, standing up and seeing what the ball is going to do, but then a faster ball can bring an LBW, or failing to read a googly can spell the end.

Smothering the spin at least in the first stages is safer, and England have the time, a drawn series will keep the urn in England.

__________________
Ern

Yet Atherton averaged 43.83 against South Africa throughout 18 matches, against Donald and Pollock in their PRIME. And scored 4 hundreds against the West Indies (Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop).

Todays pace bowlers aren't anywhere near the same quality as the 80's bowlers, that's why.

When talking about Atherton who cares what the attacks in the 80's could or couldn't do..

Atherton only played two test Innings in the 80's!!

I have to agree with both Pete and Ern here...

One, the attacks were much better, McGrath in his prime, Donald, Akram, Waqar, Ambrose, Walsh... but Atherton did have a habit of getting out to most of them quite often, quite early, by leaving his bat out to dry!!

In 115 matches he has 20 ducks... 3 from McGrath, 4 to Ambrose, 2 to Donald and 2 to Pollock... of his 220 dismissals 29% were caught at the wicket (McGrath got him that way 10 times). He was caught by another fielder 74 times including Mark Waugh 6 times, Mark Taylor 5 Times - so we can probably assume where those catches went!!

So although the attacks were better, I don't think Atherton had the best record at handling them!!

http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?s...lds= viewtype

Off course I should have said 80s/early 90s - the main jist of my argument was that Atherton is the last person to lecture the England players on how to bat in an Ashes series.

He was McGraths bunny - never put up a decent fight.
I did not say Atherton could not bat - I said he struggled against genuine pace, and while Pollock was a great bowler of his time - he was not as fast as Donald, so he did not get the bombardment from South Africa as he would have from the West Indies.

He may have scored 4 100s against the West Indies, but Bishop was not the best by any means, and Ambrose got his wickets with his hight, and the bounce he generated rather than pace.

Would have been more impressed had you mentioned Marshall - Holding, Garner et al.
That's right - but to be fair to Atherton most of the England players got out that way, but then again Atherton should not pass comments about the present England players playing off the front foot, most England players of his generation played of the back foot, to avoid being hit.

Earlier Brian Close was an exception, but did you see his bruises, David Steele was another exception.

In Athertons day all test were free to view on the BBC, and as an English supporter i really did get fed up with players just wafting at the deliveries, maybe had Atherton got into line more, and placed defence of the front foot, he may have retired with a decent average of over 40.

__________________
Ern

The best way to play the short ball is off the back foot: there's no danger of LBW, so that advantage of being on the front foot is irrelevent... and being back {a} gives the maximum opportunity to adjust to seam movement or late swing; {b} facilititates the cut, the pull / hook or simply swaying out of the line of the ball.

There's no law against big men taking advantage of their height and getting forward to back-of-a-length deliveries... and Viv Richards was one of many to do exactly that... but the great players of fast bowling have tended to be short and to play back-of-a-length deliveries off the back foot.

ps. Atherton had repeated duels with many great fast bowlers... but he never had real problems with the guys who looked to rough him up: what got to him about McGrath was not aggression but consistency - he was a player who waited for the bad ball... and playing against McGrath he was pushed out of his comfort zone as scoring meant hitting good balls.

England do have a lot of front foot players.

I can see Strauss, KP and Jones (no sniggering at the back please) doing well, with the flashing blade off the back foot.

I can see Colly struggling, but if anyone has the temperament to get through, it's him...

Sometimes I wonder whether you do actually know anything about the game... how many times have you seen a player go back to a short ball, and then see the ball stay low and he is left with not much to do except watch his stumps cartwheel, or wait for the umpires finger to go up as it thumps into his pad!!

I was always taught to get on the front foot, where ever possible, and to only rock back if the ball is very short for a cut or pull. Even against the fastest bowlers I would try to get to the pitch of the ball. But when players are frightened they suddenly get on the back foot, meaning that drives are harder to enact...

Atherton was very frustrating to watch early on, as you just knew that he would be on the back foot wafting at wide one (which the commentator would invariably call unplayable) and it would always be at a crucial time in the game!!

Playing balls that leap off the pitch (as McGrath's often did) strikes me as rather like returning a heavily top-spun serve in tennis: one friend of mine said it was like playing a hand-grenade that exploded on impact - you either smothered the kick by getting to the pitch of the ball and pretending you were Andre Agassi.... or you got well back so you could see the kick and respond in more classical fashion.

I'd not argue with any coach who says get to the pitch whenever possible... or with those same coaches advocating getting right back to anything so short it's sure to clear the stumps.. but neither strike me as especially difficult in terms of shot selection. The tougher call is always going to be the length-ball that's just too short to give you a decent chance of getting to the pitch... but which is full enough to leave you fearing it might stay low and not clear the stumps.

At this point the probability of lateral movement should ideally determine tactics. Jayawardene won huge praise this summer for playing the English conditions perfectly, taking length balls on the back foot, with low, soft hands and virtually no backlift, looking to play as late as possible to adjust to the movement (accpeting the increased risk of the LBW but backing himself). This is just one example:Simon Hughes goes on to talk about pre-war Test cricketer lingering on the back foot, "dabbing and nurdling" bowlers who "utilised the conditions well".

What Atherton is suggesting is that in Aussie conditions (where the ball moves around far less) the opposite pays off: getting forward with a high back-lift, pushing hard at the ball and looking to open one's shoulders should the opportunity arise (accepting the increased risk of catching an edge and sending the ball a long way in the air but minimising the risk of LBW dismissals).

It strikes me that few players will be equally adept at each approach... and that most players are better off sticking to whatever works best for them. The purist in me says the Jayawardene approach has more merit... but the pragmatist has to counter that the average club player is better off playing the percentages off the front foot!