That was worse
What a collapse... again.
All in all what a horrible defeat. I couldn't bear to listen while Pakistan were piling up the runs on Wednesday and Thursday. It was like a return to the bad old days of toothless attacks (Defreitas et al). There was the consolation, however, that our brilliant fast bowlers had just been neutralised by a very flat track. Collingwood and Bell, hardly the most imposing batsmen, both looked to have the measure of it, but then... oh no, not again. That was truly horrible. Had the players given up? Did they just want to get it over with? I don't know. If the team needed a wake up call after the ashes though, that was it.
So where now? Well, I think there are two or three issues to be dealt with. The first is the spin bowling. Without Giles, the cupboard looks very bare. Is it time to throw Monty Panesar (spelling?) in at the deep end? That's been the policy with the fast bowlers of late (viz Plunkett), so why not with a spinner as well? OK, so the guy can't bat, but we're desperately in need of a spinner who can take wickets and given a few years in the team, who knows? He can't be much worse than Udal. I wouldn't jettison Gilo just yet, but it's sad to seem him having to play when he's injured just because of the lack of a credible alternative. I was wrong about Udal. He doesn't really look up to it, and he's not young enough to worth perservering with.
The next issue is the batting. As I've said before, we're desperately in need of a grafter down there in the middle order. I even said this at the beginning of the Ashes when Thorpe was so unceremoniously dropped. We got away with it in that series but only just. The second innings performances at Edgbaston, Trent Bridge and the Oval weren't at all convincing (if Warne had caught Pietersen...). In fact none of the batting performances in any of the Tests were that convincing, not given the flatness of the pitches.
The problem seems to be that 5, 6 and 7 are all the same type of player: high risk strokemakers. I previously suggested trying to make Pietersen into a grafter but that doesn't look as if it's about to happen. Alternatively how about playing Pietersen at 4 and Bell at 5? If Bell can build on his decent series, he could become the new Thorpe. New blood isn't really required, I don't think. It is about time, however, that Vaughan started to score some runs. Swap him and Strauss perhaps?
The third issue is that of preparation. Aggers makes a good point here I think. How much better might the batting have been if they'd had a chance to acclimatise? The conditions out there are so very different. Of course, the Pakistanis were unlikely to give the batsmen a chance to acclimatise: they produced seaming wickets for the only two warm up games. But, as in South Africa last year, the batting did look half baked. Chances of longer tours look slim however. Let's just hope that the batsmen can take some lessons from Pakistan with them to India.
On a brighter note, it's good to see Pakistan gelling finally. It could be a false dawn, of course. They've always looked good when on a roll, not so good when faced by adversity. But with Woolmer at the helm, Kaneria and Shoaib Ahktar maturing, two great middle order batsmen in Inzaman and Yousuf, and the rest of the team looking relatively solid (with the exception of Shoaib Malik at the top of the order), they could start winning regularly. They certainly have the raw materials. Strong teams make for good cricket.
As for England, well, maybe they should go to India as underdogs now. That might suit them.
All in all what a horrible defeat. I couldn't bear to listen while Pakistan were piling up the runs on Wednesday and Thursday. It was like a return to the bad old days of toothless attacks (Defreitas et al). There was the consolation, however, that our brilliant fast bowlers had just been neutralised by a very flat track. Collingwood and Bell, hardly the most imposing batsmen, both looked to have the measure of it, but then... oh no, not again. That was truly horrible. Had the players given up? Did they just want to get it over with? I don't know. If the team needed a wake up call after the ashes though, that was it.
So where now? Well, I think there are two or three issues to be dealt with. The first is the spin bowling. Without Giles, the cupboard looks very bare. Is it time to throw Monty Panesar (spelling?) in at the deep end? That's been the policy with the fast bowlers of late (viz Plunkett), so why not with a spinner as well? OK, so the guy can't bat, but we're desperately in need of a spinner who can take wickets and given a few years in the team, who knows? He can't be much worse than Udal. I wouldn't jettison Gilo just yet, but it's sad to seem him having to play when he's injured just because of the lack of a credible alternative. I was wrong about Udal. He doesn't really look up to it, and he's not young enough to worth perservering with.
The next issue is the batting. As I've said before, we're desperately in need of a grafter down there in the middle order. I even said this at the beginning of the Ashes when Thorpe was so unceremoniously dropped. We got away with it in that series but only just. The second innings performances at Edgbaston, Trent Bridge and the Oval weren't at all convincing (if Warne had caught Pietersen...). In fact none of the batting performances in any of the Tests were that convincing, not given the flatness of the pitches.
The problem seems to be that 5, 6 and 7 are all the same type of player: high risk strokemakers. I previously suggested trying to make Pietersen into a grafter but that doesn't look as if it's about to happen. Alternatively how about playing Pietersen at 4 and Bell at 5? If Bell can build on his decent series, he could become the new Thorpe. New blood isn't really required, I don't think. It is about time, however, that Vaughan started to score some runs. Swap him and Strauss perhaps?
The third issue is that of preparation. Aggers makes a good point here I think. How much better might the batting have been if they'd had a chance to acclimatise? The conditions out there are so very different. Of course, the Pakistanis were unlikely to give the batsmen a chance to acclimatise: they produced seaming wickets for the only two warm up games. But, as in South Africa last year, the batting did look half baked. Chances of longer tours look slim however. Let's just hope that the batsmen can take some lessons from Pakistan with them to India.
On a brighter note, it's good to see Pakistan gelling finally. It could be a false dawn, of course. They've always looked good when on a roll, not so good when faced by adversity. But with Woolmer at the helm, Kaneria and Shoaib Ahktar maturing, two great middle order batsmen in Inzaman and Yousuf, and the rest of the team looking relatively solid (with the exception of Shoaib Malik at the top of the order), they could start winning regularly. They certainly have the raw materials. Strong teams make for good cricket.
As for England, well, maybe they should go to India as underdogs now. That might suit them.
posted by djbrd at 12:23 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home