Australian revival
So where did it all go wrong? Was it just the predicted unpredictability of both sides? Or was England suffering from misplaced feelings of superiority after the substantial Adelaide victory? Probably a bit of both.
Things started to unravel for Andrew Strauss halfway through the first Australian innings. The first problem was that in a four man, three fast bowler attack, you cannot afford any passengers. And there was clearly something amiss with Finn from the start. He was scratching around with his footmarks after his first over and was not running in freely. Then he forgot the cardinal rule which is not to get carried away by the high bounce of the Perth pitch by bowling too short. Gone was the intense discipline that Broad provided at Adelaide, even when he wasn’t taking wickets. Australia got at least 80 too many runs in that first day.
Then it was Australia's turn with the ball and they made the most of the conditions. They bowled quicker, swung the ball more (not least because they bowled a fuller length) and had the extra bowler on a pitch to suit. But there was a frailty about the England batting against good pace, much of it due to unsuitable techniques.
In the first innings, two of our first seven, Collingwood and Prior were definitely bounced out – to use the normal dressing room vernacular – possibly Trott too. Collingwood narrowly avoided a very quick throat ball from Johnson and was then hopelessly late on the next ball – looking for another short ball, a cardinal sin. Prior was guilty of trying to get away to the off side as an evasive tactic before he knew the line of the ball (as was Ricky Ponting in the second innings): another basic failure of technique.
There has been a sea change in dealing with short pitched bowling ever since the advent of helmets. In pre head-protection days, batsmanship at Test level was virtually determined by the ability to hold your nerve against “bouncers”, to keep your eye on the ball, to make a last split second move, usually to the off side, letting the ball slide past your cheek and over your shoulder. Those who remained sideways provided a smaller target and moved laterally more easily. Those who batted more “square” to the line of the ball got caught with nowhere to go and took many a blow to the body. The late Ken Barrington was one such – brave as a lion but unable to avoid the consequences of the way he played.
Come the helmet and the old precept of “always keep your eye on the ball” became a thing of the past. Even such a prolific run scorer as Graham Hick was a head turner and must have been hit on the back of the helmet enough times to have spent months in hospital without the protection. Ducking down and throwing the shoulders backward are further variations. It amuses me that the current crop of TV commentators pay lip service to the old precepts but they mention them “en passant” as though they are of little importance. Only when you see Michael Hussy bat, embracing all the long established essentials, are you able to spot the difference compared with others less accomplished – on both sides.
Coming to the matter of batting techniques generally, there are a number of departures from classical principles, none of which seem to produce better results. There is the top hand round the back of the handle. There is a fashion for walking round the ball for a defensive back stroke (Trott and Smith) and there is a general disease of squaring the shoulders. The common denominator is evidenced by the feet finishing with toes pointing up the pitch and, in the process, there are always signs of the bat coming down from off to leg. Finally there are all the different “pick-ups” with the closed face low position prevalent (encouraged by the poor grip).
Special mention has to be made of Pietersen in this context because he is more unorthodox than most. I had never thought to see a fully committed front foot player achieve so much at Test level. They say that there are always exceptions from the norm and he certainly qualifies for that description. But let's look at his two dismissals on 0 and 3. In the first innings he missed a leg stump inswinger to be lbw – so far so normal but he was only just in and was playing a full bloodied swish to leg. Too dangerous by far.
Then in the second he was struggling to find a place to score. He is used to playing straight bat forcing shots on the rise on the off-side but the higher bounce at the WACCA ground makes that both difficult and dangerous. His get-out waft outside the off stump looked dreadful but it is something he gets away with regularly when the bounce is lower.
Now you may understand why I get such a kick out of watching Test cricket. In my mind I analyse the bowling and batting techniques involved for every ball of a match. Some would say that such little things only please little minds. OK, I plead guilty but it is a pleasing little world to live in and does little to contribute to the sum total of human sadness.
Things started to unravel for Andrew Strauss halfway through the first Australian innings. The first problem was that in a four man, three fast bowler attack, you cannot afford any passengers. And there was clearly something amiss with Finn from the start. He was scratching around with his footmarks after his first over and was not running in freely. Then he forgot the cardinal rule which is not to get carried away by the high bounce of the Perth pitch by bowling too short. Gone was the intense discipline that Broad provided at Adelaide, even when he wasn’t taking wickets. Australia got at least 80 too many runs in that first day.
Then it was Australia's turn with the ball and they made the most of the conditions. They bowled quicker, swung the ball more (not least because they bowled a fuller length) and had the extra bowler on a pitch to suit. But there was a frailty about the England batting against good pace, much of it due to unsuitable techniques.
In the first innings, two of our first seven, Collingwood and Prior were definitely bounced out – to use the normal dressing room vernacular – possibly Trott too. Collingwood narrowly avoided a very quick throat ball from Johnson and was then hopelessly late on the next ball – looking for another short ball, a cardinal sin. Prior was guilty of trying to get away to the off side as an evasive tactic before he knew the line of the ball (as was Ricky Ponting in the second innings): another basic failure of technique.
There has been a sea change in dealing with short pitched bowling ever since the advent of helmets. In pre head-protection days, batsmanship at Test level was virtually determined by the ability to hold your nerve against “bouncers”, to keep your eye on the ball, to make a last split second move, usually to the off side, letting the ball slide past your cheek and over your shoulder. Those who remained sideways provided a smaller target and moved laterally more easily. Those who batted more “square” to the line of the ball got caught with nowhere to go and took many a blow to the body. The late Ken Barrington was one such – brave as a lion but unable to avoid the consequences of the way he played.
Come the helmet and the old precept of “always keep your eye on the ball” became a thing of the past. Even such a prolific run scorer as Graham Hick was a head turner and must have been hit on the back of the helmet enough times to have spent months in hospital without the protection. Ducking down and throwing the shoulders backward are further variations. It amuses me that the current crop of TV commentators pay lip service to the old precepts but they mention them “en passant” as though they are of little importance. Only when you see Michael Hussy bat, embracing all the long established essentials, are you able to spot the difference compared with others less accomplished – on both sides.
Coming to the matter of batting techniques generally, there are a number of departures from classical principles, none of which seem to produce better results. There is the top hand round the back of the handle. There is a fashion for walking round the ball for a defensive back stroke (Trott and Smith) and there is a general disease of squaring the shoulders. The common denominator is evidenced by the feet finishing with toes pointing up the pitch and, in the process, there are always signs of the bat coming down from off to leg. Finally there are all the different “pick-ups” with the closed face low position prevalent (encouraged by the poor grip).
Special mention has to be made of Pietersen in this context because he is more unorthodox than most. I had never thought to see a fully committed front foot player achieve so much at Test level. They say that there are always exceptions from the norm and he certainly qualifies for that description. But let's look at his two dismissals on 0 and 3. In the first innings he missed a leg stump inswinger to be lbw – so far so normal but he was only just in and was playing a full bloodied swish to leg. Too dangerous by far.
Then in the second he was struggling to find a place to score. He is used to playing straight bat forcing shots on the rise on the off-side but the higher bounce at the WACCA ground makes that both difficult and dangerous. His get-out waft outside the off stump looked dreadful but it is something he gets away with regularly when the bounce is lower.
Now you may understand why I get such a kick out of watching Test cricket. In my mind I analyse the bowling and batting techniques involved for every ball of a match. Some would say that such little things only please little minds. OK, I plead guilty but it is a pleasing little world to live in and does little to contribute to the sum total of human sadness.
Trackbacks
No Trackbacks
The author does not allow comments to this entry
Comments
Display comments as Linear | Threaded