How English cricket critics are so wrong

Those who believe England's batting standards have dropped due to limited overs cricket, should look at Sachin & Co's success over the years

Australia nearly always has it. In recent times India has had an abundance of it. It used to be plentiful in England too but lately it's been misplaced.

It, is successful batsmanship and if England doesn't rediscover the art in a hurry the Ashes will remain in Australian hands.

The England batting performance at Headingley was spineless. Not only did it lack determination, it was also devoid of nous. If it wasn't for a bit of spirited late hitting, which had the feel of a body's final twitches in the death throe, England wouldn't have come close to scoring three hundred runs for the match.

Very poor

Never mind how abysmal the bowling (and it was as poor as an empty pocket), no attack can produce a victory working with such flimsy ammunition.

How has England's batting plummeted to such depths?u00a0u00a0u00a0u00a0u00a0u00a0
u00a0
Excuses can be made: Kevin Pietersen was missing, the fire alarm disturbed the players' sleep and Andrew Flintoff's recently rediscovered batting form wasn't there to stiffen the middle-order.

However, they are only excuses; good teams find a way to overcome adversity.

If ever England needed their young batsmen to step forward it was at Headingley but instead Alistair Cook, Ravi Bopara and Ian Bell were missing in action like a soldier gone AWOL.u00a0

So what has happened to English batsmanship? First, it amazed me there was even a discussion about who would and wouldn't play in the latest round of County games. There's no better way of preparing for a game of cricket than actually playing in one. All the England players who didn't have injury concerns should've been playing in the round of matches between the fourth and fifth Tests.

Those days

Secondly, what has happened to the very English art of batting to survive difficult periods?u00a0 There was a time when that was what they did best; in an era of Ken Barrington, Geoff Boycott and John Edrich survival wasn't the problem. The excuse is often proffered that they play too much limited overs cricket and consequently the survival art has been lost.

Well, how come India's batting has prospered in a period where they've played an unprecedented number of ODI's? Since Sachin Tendulkar came on the scene in 1989, India has played 172 Tests and 550 ODI's. In that period Indian batting has flourished in Test cricket; Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman, Ganguly and Sehwag all have mighty fine records. And just to reinforce the argument, Gautam Gambhir, a recent successful addition to the team, has no trouble adjusting from one form of the game to another.

Bazaar-like

Ricky Ponting is another who has flourished as a Test batsman in an era where the ODI schedule is more crowded than a Mumbai bazaar. And even though Australia has suffered from recent retirements, Marcus North, their latest batting success was able to cobble together a century at Headingley with a combination of gritty determination and judicious strokeplay. North has far less international experience than Cook and Bell and has played slightly fewer Tests than Bopara.

Forget the too much limited overs cricket theory. That is just another excuse.

Style over substance?

England commentator David Lloyd said during the World T20 tournament; "I watch domestic limited overs matches and every time there's a reverse sweep or a flick over the 'keeper's head teammates say, 'Great shot.' It's not a great shot when batsmen from other international teams are smacking traditional cricket strokes into the stands."

Could it be that English batsmen favour style over substance?

One of the best pieces of batting advice I ever received came from former Australian left-hander Bob Cowper.

He said; "It's not what you look like that matters, but the number that goes next to your name on the scoreboard."

Even Pietersen, a fine stroke maker, sometimes opts for style over substance; his ridiculous premeditated sweep shot in Cardiff was an unnecessary risk for potentially little reward.

England has a decent attack and even without Flintoff, it should be strong for a few years. However, unless the young England batsmen quickly discover the art of run scoring, it won't matter what the bowlers achieve at the Oval, Australia will retain the Ashes.