Not a pretty sight
2 days gone. 25 wickets. 15 of those, unfortunately for England, happen to be theirs. Barring deluges that necessitate the building of arks and the loading up of animals by pairs, this test should go to Australia. We could say "And then?" But that would be premature. For now, its worth noting England have batted poorly, that Australia have bowled well (and Johnson's late spell is making me eat my words that he would be a dud until after the Oval test), and that test cricket can be very cruel indeed. There is no place to hide when a player cannot summon up the internal reserve to keep his body language positive as the cricketing facts of a test gone wrong start to crush you slowly and surely. England laid it all out today and it was painful to watch at times.
posted by Samir Chopra at 4:23 PM
6 Comments:
This feels to me like an Ashes losing performance. How do you recover from a capitulation like this?
There's always a chance that a defeated team will reinvigorate themselves and come back stronger for the next game. But England won't just be defeated in this test. They'll be routed and humiliated. Difficult to reinvigorate yourself after this experience.
Selectors continue to pick players like Bell though it is a known fact that he scores runs only against Bangladesh's and Pakistan's attack made up of Nazir, Sami and co.
Under pressure against decent teams or good teams he is no good.
GB,
you are right that Bell should not have been included in playing XI.
It's pity to see English cricket's humiliation like this after a win.
The tactic against Bell is bowlers keep bowling back of a length and outside the off stump with the odd inswinger.
He has a habit of coming half forward and lacks concentration so he would either edge one outside the off stump or he would get out lbw to the inswinger and I have said it many times.
I won't mind if they pick Moore at 3 though he is an opener and not in the best of form in CC this season. I do think Moore is a bit of fighter and handles pace well.
Shah at 5 is fine too. Shah at number 3 is no good but on a true surface like at Oval his style of play suits well and if he gets going on a true surface like the Oval he can be a handful.
I know though at most the selectors would pick Trott for Bopara as he has scored lots of runs on a flat deck like Edgbaton.
It is fine having one Colly but to have a player who looks like the poorer version of Colly? doubt so.
Noisms: This was a bad blow to suffer at this stage in the series. They'll pray for Flintoff's return but really, they need to look beyond that.
GB: Rob Key deserves a look in, I think.
Vikas: Top-order batsmen need to score tons regularly - this has not been happening with this side.
GB: There are selection issues aplenty for England to solve now - none of them simple.
I have never rated Key. He is good in CC but in tests I don't see why he should again get a chance.
I know Shah would be a controversial choice considering how bad he is at running between the wickets and occasionally he gets cramped up but with KP not there I have a feeling England need a player like Shah at say 5.
I wouldn't have said if the next test was at Headingley but on a true surface like Oval I like the idea of Shah playing.
Post a Comment
<< Home