Yep you can dare to say it what we have seen thus far, Pietersen has been head and shoulders above the rest, and that includes the India players.

Can't say that for the rest though, some good innings - but English batting with few exceptions is very inconsistant.

__________________
Ern

Pietersen is remarkably light on his feet for a big bloke... and yes, he does generally use his feet to good effect. He also, as you note, gets well forward to overpitched deliveries... which is certainly no bad thing. What's perhaps less admirable is his tendency to also get forward to length deliveries that a player like Thorpe would have the nerve to play off the back foot.. but unlike some, I don't think it's a case of him not being ABLE to linger on the back foot - it's just that (rather like Viv Richards) he's in the habit of relying on the percentage option (encouraged, no doubt, by the reluctance of umpires to grant LBW appeals to folk whose physical stature means their stride is substantial, but also by Fletcher, who seemingly had a grave aversion to batsmen taking on the spinner's challenge).

That said.. Vic Marks was talking quite specifically about the desirability of letting the ball hit the bat rather than pushing hard AT the ball. In truth, I suspect Pietersen is also better at that than is commonly recognised: sure, he goes hard at the ball most of the time.... but my understanding was that he had pretty good hands - and far better than (amongst others) Cook and Strauss.

Thats probably just down to the differance in heights of the 2 bats concerned. KP is quite tall whereas Thorpe is quite short.

__________________
Mark.

I have resisted commenting on this thread up till now, mainly because the title and subjected really annoyed me.

I am not sure where Rachael gets her idea of what proper Test cricket is, but frankly it is - to quote one of the best swing bowlers around - a load of old dogs "ding dang doolies"!!

I am currently reading John Majors brilliant book "More than a game" which is a history of the early years of Cricket, and the thing that strikes me is how the game has grown developed, changed and adapted. The game Rachael (and other traditionalist refer to) as proper Test cricket was a 1950's interpretation of the game, and would have been unrecognisable from the game just 50 years earlier, and looks different from now.

Cricket is a very flexible game, and a very enjoyable one at that. It is less about style than we may think, and is about winning.

What is "proper" Test cricket? I dare anyone to define it, and not see that in it's definition you have limited a game that is limitless.

It is a contest between bat and ball, yes, but it is and always has been about entertainment. That is what I have learned from the history of the game. It is played to be enjoyed by the players and the spectators.

What really gets my goat is people who dismiss new forms of the game like Twenty20, as not being Cricket. I wonder what they would think of a single wicket game? Would they call that proper cricket, despite the fact that it was around way before the Test match form we have grown up with was even considered!!

Cricket is a great game, and will be ruined if people want it to stay the same. Part of it's charm is that it has always taken on new ways of being played (round arm bowling/reverse swing are just innovations!!) and new forms that people can compete in (Single Wicket/Twenty 20).

Too right. It should always be a case of how many you score rather than how you score them.

Thats why Steve Waugh was always more effective than his brother.

__________________
Mark.

Unless I have got you wrong - you commented on this thread here .


Cricket played proper is not flexable to any great extent, unless you count the adulteration the one day game offers.
As for winning you are right - but what's wrong with two sides playing proper cricket, and the best side winning?.

"Proper Test cricket" is cricket where a batsman plays "proper" shots, not swinging wildly at the ball, where a bowler bowls to a plan, and should not have to bowl negativly, in other words Test cricket as it was played before one day cricket with it's improvised batting and bowling which started to influence the longer game.

In other words cricket players with sound techniques.

__________________
Ern

The problem with that outlook is that not all players can score the way Steve Waugh did, so you IMO end up with players hitting away blindly - and getting out more times than not.

Flintoff up until 2004 when he learned SOME sence is a good example of what I mean, he looked good and even exciting the odd time his stroke play payed off, but more often than not - he was caught on the boundry.

Example of a proper player is Tom Graveney, Boycott and other players who did not sell their wickets cheap.

__________________
Ern

True but I was just commenting on a digression, not Rachael's original thread starter

Interesting, so basically the game has it evolved over the twentieth century, up until the 1960 is the game we call proper cricket? The fascinating thing is the negative aspects of the game you describe, is how Test cricket was played in it's earliest days - but this is not Proper cricket?

This is my point, Cricket will continue to evolve and innovate, and if we think there is only one it should be played - "proper" Test Cricket - then IMO we will kill the game.

If there was never any improvisation the game you know and love would be played by 11 versus 22, with the ball bowled along the ground, and the bats would be unsprung hooked bats, that did not propel the ball very far at all!!! IMO there is no difference between the improvisation which developed bowling from rolling, to lobbing through to round arm and then over arm bowling, or the improvisation that created the Googly, to the improvisation in the reverse sweep. The game has been a continuous process of refining, and it has made it the great game it is, this improvisation will continue and the game will improve because of it.

The key bit is "a contest between bat and ball"... and what many commentators have noted of this most recent Test is just how refreshing it is to see such a contest given the steady diet of Tests played on wickets so skewed in favour of the batsmen that selectors have cause to fear ineffectiveness on the part of 1st rate bowlers seamers like Vaas, Collymore, Sidebottom and Langveldt and even of spinners of the callibre of Giles.

If you want an ideosyncratic definition... Proper Test cricket is what you have got when a batsman doesn't even start contemplating a century until he's nearly there: if a century takes an awesome effort AND great luck then fair enough... but if any batsman who reaches 35-40 thinks he's just got to concentrate in order to reach 3 figures... the idea of a contest is self-evidently a nonsense.

With respect FF, your argument is flawed, when cricket first became a game it was basic, you mention the shape of the "bats", well this was a fundimental improvment so the players could manage to hit the ball.

IMO once cricket was established there was no need for drastic change we have seen, the game hardly ever changed since Bodyline up to the 60's.

But then came the adulterations - first the counties played the 40 over John player game, the Beson and Hedges and the Gillette Cup.

This was fine as it was just a diversion, also the counties had specialist one day players as well as their first team members, also a major point - less cricket at that time was played.

Not as many players broke down with Flintoff/Hoggard type injuries - that tells it's own story.

We have a 50 over World Cup - with most matches struggling to play the 100 overs, in some cases play can carry on the next day - hardly one day cricket.

This could be avoided with 40 overs an innings for all ODI's, World Cup included, and that would be less wear and tear on the bowlers.

So we have Test players in the 20/20 side, having to play Mal Loye type shots at the end of an innings, indeed in 20/20 from over one - and being encouraged to take risks in the 50 over format with the silly Power Play rule - that's not - and never will be proper cricket in my opinion.

But worse still we have players bringing into the Test side their bad one day habits, often Tests go at over 4 runs an over - not really sustainable IMO - if proper cricket is to be played.

To keep an innings going at over 4 runs an over means the batsmen are taking risks more often than not, and making improvised shots when their is no need with 5 days to play the match in.

There were more draws in the 60's and before, but not as many draws as we get Test matches over in 3 days - because of poor batting most of the time.

What is the point of having a 5 day Test format - if every other game is going to be trunkated?.

In short Test cricket is established - their was a time when the rules and equipment had to be got right, the that just took a few years, so an analogy with the times of W G Grace is not a fair one.

Things that would help is specialised players being used in one day cricket as much as possible.

All ODI's including the World Cup should not excede 40 overs an innings.

20/20 should not be played by Test cricketers, in fact it should be dumped by the ECB - and let the counties work out when they should be played - one day cricket (if it is cricket) is popular, but IMO it is harming the longer version of the game.

And the notion that 20/20 brings in more spectators for cricket I doubt is true, the audience is different - and 20/20 supporters in the main will not attend Test matched, they would find it boring.

A question FF - how can a your player wanting to become an England Test player learn how to BUILD an innings - in the 20/20 format, or even in tight finishes in the 50 over game? - IMO it's impossible, hence the poor top order batting in more than not - most Test teams.

__________________
Ern