Batting big
A couple of quiz questions, first.
What do the following batsmen have in common: Brian Lara, Mahela Jayawardene, Kumar Sangakkara, Mohammad Yousuf, Stephen Fleming, Sachin Tendulkar, and Virender Sehwag?
Since the start of 2004, each of these players has scored more than one double hundred. Only one England player has made a double hundred in that time, and he only did it once. Who was that man?
Bob 'Robert' Key.
Bangladesh and Zimbabwe aside, the only country to have scored less than England's single 200 in this time is South Africa. West Indian players have scored a 300 and a 400 in that time, against South Africa and England respectively, so it's not the pitches that are at fault.
But forget South Africa. Nobody cares about them. To retain the Ashes, England need to bat big. They need players to go on, to get to 50 and then to 100, then 150, then 200. They are very good at getting from 50 to 100, but woeful at pushing on from there. England's average century score since 2004 (130.53) is worse than all but Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Sri Lanka's batsmen average 169.93 in that period if they reach 100.
Again from the start of 2004, England score more 100s per Test than any side but Australia and Pakistan, but they convert less of those to 150s or above than any other major country than (surprise) South Africa. Andrew Strauss is the only current batsmen to have scored more centuries than fifties in Tests (Sehwag has an equal amount), and he's never passed 150. Kevin Pietersen has only passed 150 once (but what a once); likewise Collingwood, Flintoff and Bell.
I'm always wary of pronouncements on how a team needs to play, or what is essential for a team to succeed beyond the obvious. But in Australia, tall scoring is key. The only team that hasn't lost there recently is India - and they did this on the back of some epic innings. Tendulkar and Dravid each made a 200, and every Indian century in that series was over 140. Freakish it may have been, but it was also effective.
England don't have the quality of batsmen that India did then, but a top five that each averages over 40 (only one less than 45, one over 50) can't be all bad. It shouldn't be up to the all-rounders to ensure a big score. So my hope for tonight is this: England bat first and make it count.
Labels: ashes, ashes 2006
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed -
| You've got you're first wish Geoff, they're batting!
By 
Stuart Helwig (1 Dec 2006, 5:58:00 am)
Woah! Geoff! From where do you get all those stats?
Oh dear. England unchanged. Fletcher's clearly taking his "Don't change a combination" mantra too seriously. I could be proved wrong, but I seriously can't see England taking too many Australian wickets at Adelaide. I don't think England can afford to play two spinners, simply because captaining a side with 2 spinners is tough. England should pick only one spinner, and they've picked the wrong one, again!
By Jagadish (1 Dec 2006, 11:10:00 am)
Ananth: I worked them out :-). You can get lists of centuries each year, and all the other information from which they were derived. For instance, India are second only to Sri Lanka in converting 100 to 200, and have the second highest average century score (162.80).
Jagadish: I know, but Gareth Batty was shamefully overlooked for the tour.
By Geoff (1 Dec 2006, 5:35:00 pm)
England's home conditions count against them when going for big hundreds, but it's definitely the case that the batsmen don't 'push on'.
Whether they feel they've done the job by getting to 100 is an interesting, but unanswerable question.
Alastair Cook has a double hundred against Australia to his name, albeit not in a Test. Kevin Pietersen's hit a number of domestic doubles. There's one player who's got a record of big hundreds against Australia, of course. Michael Vaughan.
Rob Key would be our choice though. He would have won that first Test for England without question.
I don't think the pitches are to blame. Look at this: Lord's, The Oval, and Old Trafford are three of the best batting pitches in the world.
Rob Key might have won the Test if Ricky Ponting didn't bring on his bete noire, Damien Martyn.
By Geoff (1 Dec 2006, 10:10:00 pm)
there you go geoff...another double hundred by an englishman!
By Ganesh (2 Dec 2006, 2:58:00 pm)
blue-n-brown: Grounds all over the world are in general becoming slower and more batsman friendly. I suppose New Zealand's grounds would be the only exception. I've previously trained my guns on Pietersen (given he was the 'set' batsman most of the time) for his one-day scores. So maybe the inability to go on and make a big score isn't test specific!
By Jagadish (4 Dec 2006, 8:46:00 pm)
We'd prefer if you posted comments with your real name to add more credibility to your opinions. However, the moderators reserve the right to delete comments, especially those containing offensive or unsuitable language. The opinions in the comments are your own views. You are welcome to provide a URL to your own cricket blog, but the moderators reserve the right to delete comments which only reference sites for viewing live streams.
Links within entries open in a new window. Some of the links may now be broken/not take you to the expected report since the original content providers may have archived/removed the contents. Some of the sites linked may require registration/subscription.
All opinions expressed are those of the authors alone. The authors' respective employers (past, present or future) are in no way connected to the opinions expressed here.
All pictures, photographs used are copyrights of the original owners. We do not intend to infringe on any copyright. Pictures and photographs are used here to merely accentuate and enhance the content value to our readers.
|
|
|
|
Post a Comment