Selection, planning and execution
Nobody should be carping at the manner of the England team victory in Chittagong. The batsmen averaged 70 per wicket as against 30 for Bangladesh. The bowlers took 20 wickets as against only 10 by the opposition. Game, set and match. Congratulations to Mr Cook in his first Test as Captain. And plaudits galore for Graham Swann for his 10 wicket haul.
If there is improvement to be made it is in the fast bowling department. Given that the absence of Anderson and Onions meant that we had our second division attack, with Finn making his debut, there was a palpable lack of confidence with long periods when they were just plugging away with no obvious plan – and, worse, no variation.
All quicker bowlers have been forced to develop variety in their bowling in limited over matches. The well disguised slower ball is a must and the ability to bowl Yorkers is both desirable and often enough well executed. How come then, that the moment they bowl in a Test match, these same bowlers seem to forget everything they have learned.
Another variation which gets scant attention these days is to cut down the speed, possibly off a shorter run and mix in some cutters. Making the ball revolve on bone dry pitches can make the odd one grip or deviate which is better than nothing. Fred Trueman and Alan Davidson were good examples and there was a remarkable performance by Tony Greig with a hatful of wickets against the West Indians. There may be a reluctance to do anything that might interfere with the process of “developing” the condition of the ball with a view to achieving reverse swing – but a willingness to try something different is important.
Fred was in search of his 300th Test wicket on a hot afternoon at the Oval against the Australians and was struggling. The newly introduced front foot rule had disturbed his rhythm and balance and his days of late outswing seemed to have passed. “ Gimme ‘t ball and I’ll bowl a few cutters” he said. Off a shortened approach and fingers rotating clockwise, he immediately rediscovered his powers of swing and was quickly celebrating the great milestone of his career. All because he was brave enough to experiment.
The other variation I have in mind is more the province of captaincy. Cook maintained a couple of slips and a gully despite all the evidence suggesting that the old ball off a dead pitch was never going to carry. Surely there was a case for switching to a middle stump line with close catchers on the leg side by way of a change. At least it would make the batsmen think. Then the occasional low bounce gives a better chance of lbw as well.
All this was within the confines of a four bowler selection policy which brought a deal of criticism. Now they have included a second spinner, Treadwell for the Dacca match at the expense of a batsman. For my money they have got it wrong again. I would have kept the batting and dropped Finn.
I remember various occasions in India when the mighty Kapil Dev was the only regular seam bowler selected alongside three spinners with a batsman part-time seamer sharing the new ball to keep the shine a little longer for Kapil.
I also remember Graham Gooch rejecting a five bowler policy on the grounds that four could bowl at least 80 overs in the day with occasional bowlers (like him!) to make up the other half-dozen. I note that Finn only bowled seven overs on the first day at Dacca – hardly worth sacrificing a batsman for that. Broad and Bresnan only bowled 13 and 14 respectively and they could have easily shared the extra overs between them.
I detect a slight lack of proper planning and strategy within the current dressing room team though nothing, of course, to compare to with the two horrific Strauss blunders: at Headingley and Johannesburg when first Australia, then South Africa gambled on four quick bowlers, lost the toss only to be handed back the initiative each time by the England Captain.
Thank the Lord anyway for the mighty Swann who seems to take most of his own decisions and delivers the goods.
If there is improvement to be made it is in the fast bowling department. Given that the absence of Anderson and Onions meant that we had our second division attack, with Finn making his debut, there was a palpable lack of confidence with long periods when they were just plugging away with no obvious plan – and, worse, no variation.
All quicker bowlers have been forced to develop variety in their bowling in limited over matches. The well disguised slower ball is a must and the ability to bowl Yorkers is both desirable and often enough well executed. How come then, that the moment they bowl in a Test match, these same bowlers seem to forget everything they have learned.
Another variation which gets scant attention these days is to cut down the speed, possibly off a shorter run and mix in some cutters. Making the ball revolve on bone dry pitches can make the odd one grip or deviate which is better than nothing. Fred Trueman and Alan Davidson were good examples and there was a remarkable performance by Tony Greig with a hatful of wickets against the West Indians. There may be a reluctance to do anything that might interfere with the process of “developing” the condition of the ball with a view to achieving reverse swing – but a willingness to try something different is important.
Fred was in search of his 300th Test wicket on a hot afternoon at the Oval against the Australians and was struggling. The newly introduced front foot rule had disturbed his rhythm and balance and his days of late outswing seemed to have passed. “ Gimme ‘t ball and I’ll bowl a few cutters” he said. Off a shortened approach and fingers rotating clockwise, he immediately rediscovered his powers of swing and was quickly celebrating the great milestone of his career. All because he was brave enough to experiment.
The other variation I have in mind is more the province of captaincy. Cook maintained a couple of slips and a gully despite all the evidence suggesting that the old ball off a dead pitch was never going to carry. Surely there was a case for switching to a middle stump line with close catchers on the leg side by way of a change. At least it would make the batsmen think. Then the occasional low bounce gives a better chance of lbw as well.
All this was within the confines of a four bowler selection policy which brought a deal of criticism. Now they have included a second spinner, Treadwell for the Dacca match at the expense of a batsman. For my money they have got it wrong again. I would have kept the batting and dropped Finn.
I remember various occasions in India when the mighty Kapil Dev was the only regular seam bowler selected alongside three spinners with a batsman part-time seamer sharing the new ball to keep the shine a little longer for Kapil.
I also remember Graham Gooch rejecting a five bowler policy on the grounds that four could bowl at least 80 overs in the day with occasional bowlers (like him!) to make up the other half-dozen. I note that Finn only bowled seven overs on the first day at Dacca – hardly worth sacrificing a batsman for that. Broad and Bresnan only bowled 13 and 14 respectively and they could have easily shared the extra overs between them.
I detect a slight lack of proper planning and strategy within the current dressing room team though nothing, of course, to compare to with the two horrific Strauss blunders: at Headingley and Johannesburg when first Australia, then South Africa gambled on four quick bowlers, lost the toss only to be handed back the initiative each time by the England Captain.
Thank the Lord anyway for the mighty Swann who seems to take most of his own decisions and delivers the goods.