In today's Sunday Telegraph, Mike Atherton talks of how young English batsmen are taught "not to push at the ball, to let the ball come and to play with soft hands so that edges will not carry" and of how "Australian batsmen, honed on hard pitches, tend to have higher back-lifts and play with higher hands than their English counterparts, a combination that makes for both sound defence on bouncy pitches and one that opens up all the scoring options".Some of his observations about key players are interesting:

"Strauss is the best cutter and puller in the England team. His whole set-up at the crease —weight slightly shifted on to his back foot – and his whole game plan is based around looking for these two shots."

"Pietersen['s] game is based around scoring off the front foot. But because of his ability to defend with high hands he can play forward to, and score off, deliveries that most batsmen would look to play back to [though] one area of concern with Pietersen is the hook shot. The small boundaries in England in 2005 disguised this fallibility."

"Cook's technique looks sound enough" but "Paul Collingwood is another with a low back-lift and low hands who likes to score off the front foot[,] doesn't really cut or pull and hooks in the air [whilst] Flintoff is a flat-footed front- footer, who doesn't cut, and if he hooks in the air [...] will find the size of Australian grounds counting against him."

See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/mai.../scsaus19.xml/

I really do think that Atherton is bitter that he was never in an Ashes winning side.

He is the last person to call anyone "Flat footed", Glen McGrath knew he had a certain wicket before play started.

As far as observations over Australias larger grounds are concerned - I think he is also wrong there.

With the smaller boundaries Flintoff has been caught lots of times, if the boundaries are further away, then the ball is more likely to fall into no mans land IMO.

Botham is called, gating is called - but Atherton at times IMO does talk some tosh.

__________________
Ern

First up... Lawrence Booth says of Atherton "Defence was his forte, but when his bad back wasn't playing up, he hooked freely and timed the ball sweetly through point": this nimble player was famous for getting forward and offering a straight bat... and was best off the back foot, not least in the swivel pull. Tanya Aldred, in the Wisden Online Tribute, rams home this point: "He was strong off the back foot, happiest pulling the fast bowlers". His difficulties with McGrath owed nothing to footwork and pretty much everything to a chronic back problem that restricted his upper-body mobility.

Secondly.... Atherton is just stating the bleeding obvious of Flintoff: back in 2004 one David Gower was noting that Flintoff's footwork was dangerously leaden for facing fast, short-pitched bowling... and anyone who has ever paid any attention to the big guy play will know he's basically a pretty leaden-footed, front-foot player whose most productive area extends from a straightish mid-on to a wide mid-off or extra-cover.

Thirdly.... the article has one fleeting line on Flintoff's batting: it's just the final sentence of one little paragraph... and he focusses, quite reasonably, on the specialists. Nothing he says on any of them strikes me as out of place: most may be familiar enough to cricket-followers interested in the more technical aspects of the game... but the fact that it strikes me as familiar suggests that it is a LOT more than 'tosh'.

I have read the article again - and I still don't agree with Atherton.

Flintoff is a front foot player - but can soon react and hook when the ball is in the right place, I don't think he is leadon at all.

In the days of Atherton the England players could not play fast bowling, players the like of Atherton got out wafting at deliveries outside the off stump.

Stewart on the other hand along with Alan Lamb would have cut those same deliveries for four.

Of Pietersen
This is what I mean with 'tosh' - Atherton has nothing to compare either Flintoff or Pietersen with, neither have played in Australia, both are better players of pace IMO - than Atherton ever was.
In fact England players were often critisised for playing to often on the back foot, they could not play the likes of Holding or Marshall on the front foot - todays England players are not as flawed against pace as the players of the 80s.

Look at Gooch - he always looked like he could be out at any time, a high backlift, and played of the back foot, his footwork IMO was not the best, but he was effective.

How often does either Flintoff or Pietersen get out caught in the slips? - even compared to Strauss, the fact that it's rare suggests that both are good players of pace.

__________________
Ern

OK... here's the article I mentioned: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...078198,00.html Please note: no-one is questioning Flintoff's ability to play fast bowling. Gower's saying he just needs to limit himself to what works... and Atherton would agree - so long as he doesn't start thinking he's capable of emulating Andrew Strauss' back-foot gems Flintoff can get along just fine!

Oh.. you might also check out this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/mai...2/ixcrick.html Like I said earlier... Atherton's verdict is nothing new.... it's a commonplace observation made by those who actually played the game to a high enough level to really know what they are talking about!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8WAU...elated&search=
I think Athertons point about Flintoffs hooking is exemplified here about 4mins 20 in. A hook shot off Lee where his timing alone sends it into the stands, but it looks far from a fool proof method.

No but he has come along way sinse then, also the comment on him not being able to move the ball away from a right hander needs updating, he was not complete at that time, and also he is only a bowling all rounder, who can bat at 6 with great effect.
Agreed but Flintoff does not play that way, also Flinoff is capable of two modes of play, defensive as well as his booming off drives.
What gets me about players like Atherton is the fact that they did not get into line, and played off the back foot, that was in part because of fear of being injured because they could not come to terms with fast bowling.

With respect it's very debatable Pringle was not in the same league as Flintoff, and I might argue that Mahmood or Giles was a better bat.
I am glad you posted his articel though, this really caught me eye.
I have been arguing sinse 2004 that players like Flintoff should not play in such games, there will be mixed results, bound to be when the overs are so limited, does not help a player with shot selection.
This is off topic but it shows how he gets wrong - he is talking about Giles of course, but how wrong can he get, revenge was sweet for Bob willis when he took 7 Aussie wickets at Headingly, he silenced his many critics once and for all with a massive attack on the media, never harmed Willis.

Back on topic - Flintoff on the attack is flawed, stange to say he looks a better player when he paces an innings, no he can't cut like Strauss, but I would argue that he see's the ball earlier than Strauss, that's why he is hardly ever got out.
Collingwood in another improving player, he does not need to play of the back foot, he is very effective the way he plays.
Pietersen it is easy to say wil perish from time to time the way he plays, but he again could not play like Strauss, he like Flintoff and Colly plays to his strengths.

I remember when Atherton was first picked for England, as a Lancastrian I wished him well, however players of his era never inspired confidence when playing genuine pace, also I never knew why, but after only a handfull of matches Atherton was being talked of as captain, when a vacancy came it was between him and Stewart if my memory is correct.
As an opener with Stewart Atherton was at his best, he and Stewart where good for that time, the England side as a whole was not - and that was because they could not play Holding - Marshall Walsh et al.
I think this Engand side, more so before Trescothick had to go home, have been the best players of pace in English modern cricket, this side that is being picked at - won the Ashes in 2005, a matter that elued Atherton Pringle and many others.

__________________
Ern

Well if Collingwood is another typical English style batsman, and that style is not suited to Australian wickets, then why when Colly played a season in Aussie grade cricket earlier in his career did he top the averages and win some aussie trophy at the end of the year?

As to Ali Cook, he has time to learn and from what I have seen the ability and application to do that very quickly.
Will he have a good series against Aus? No idea but he will have an exceptional career, and a long one as well.

These players are the best we have and have adapted to score runs in various conditions so far during their careers.Who knows if they will succeed in Australia but we will soon find out.

Personally i think Atherton is being far too negative and should keep his gob shut but i guess he is entitled to his opinion.

Though there are exceptions to the rule (Gooch comes to mind), i think Athertons assesment is pretty much on the money. Considering the contrasts between Australian and England conditions, it is no surprise that each nations' batting techniques evolved differntly. The spinning wickets of the sub-continent, where playing the ball off the wicket is required, naturally results in a wristy style batting technique. The hard bouncy wickets of the West Indies, coupled with postage stamp sized fields, bring about a high backlifting, slashing and aggresive style of technique.