PlanetCricket
Bot
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
Article by barmyarmy -
Two months ago this week England completed their tour of New Zealand; battered, bruised and unbroken. Just. Only a heroic rearguard action prevented the Black Caps from a deserved series victory. In that series England looked clueless with the bat and increasingly blunted with the ball. Boult and Southee were swinging it round corners whilst even swing-King Anderson was struggling for movement. Taylor and McCullum went after the bowling whilst England?s batsmen ground and stalled.
How then to explain such a convincing 170 run victory at the home of cricket? Playing at home? Changes to personnel? Psychological factors?
Let?s start by examining an often over-looked factor in cricket at home and overseas; the ball. New Zealand, like Australia, South Africa and indeed everyone apart from England and India use the Kookaburra ball for test matches. Usually the Kookaburra will lose its shine sooner than the Duke used in England or the SG used in India. It was evident in the NZ series that the home bowlers were able to keep the ball swinging for much longer than the English bowlers. An analysis of grip showed a slightly different seam position being utilised by Boult, Southee and Wagner compared to Anderson, Broad and Finn. This may seem like a small thing to be able to adjust to during a match but a bowler?s runup and release can be a very personal thing and small changes can have big effects on line, length and consistency. At Lord?s we saw the English bowlers back with a Duke in their hands and the effect from Anderson and Broad was devastating. Interestingly New Zealand?s bowlers were apparently unaffected by the ball switch. An analysis of the grips they were using at Lord?s would be instructive.
Secondly certain changes in the England side have had positive effects. The re-introduction of Graeme Swann for example, not just for his bowling which adds a good measure of control against aggressive batting but for his on-field persona and slips catching. Cook feels happier with Swann around, as does Anderson and despite all Monty?s heroics with the bat in Auckland he remains a number 11 who is a liability in the field and a confidence bowler who can be hit out of the attack. Joe Root, as we know, has gone into this series on the back of a fantastic early season for Yorkshire and the England Lions and looks hungry to cement his place ahead of Jonny Bairstow when KP returns to the side. Stuart Broad remains mercurial but posted a timely reminder that he can win a test match in a session when the mood seizes him (and he pitches the ball up) and Steven Finn?s remodelled runup does at least seem to have fixed his habit of knocking the bails off during the delivery stride.
Concerns still remain, not least the tentative way in which England played Bruce Martin, a veteran of just 4 tests and hardly in the same calibre as Saeed Ajmal or Ravi Ashwin. The lack of Pietersen in the side led to an almost paralysed 2 rpo where batters looked terrified of playing shots in case they were accused of giving away their wickets. As New Zealand showed though a positive approach can also be a liability if the ball is swinging late.
Moving on it?s only right to give credit to this New Zealand side who have been through turmoil recently with regular collapses and chaos at board level over the captaincy. They have the makings of a very promising side. Not just the exciting young bowlers but also the way Rutherford and Fulton suddenly seem to have arrived in test cricket. New Zealand sides frequently have to be greater than the sum of their parts and it does them a disservice not to recognise that for 3 tests and 2 days they had been the better side in this home/away series. Bangladesh and the West Indies, coming up next, are definitely beatable on this showing.
Overall the English enigma has its roots still in the Pakistan series in UAE 15 months ago. England arrived as the number 1 team in the test rankings and proceeded to lose their way with such alacrity it was hard to remember how they got there in the first place. This England team does not have the confidence or belief of the 2005 side, nor the steel and grit of the 2009 team. It does though have a more experienced and more dangerous bowling attack and swathes of emerging young talent with the bat. Once they achieve consistency as a side they will surely be back where they belong and it will be the opposition not the fans who find mystery and ambiguity in their play.
More...
Two months ago this week England completed their tour of New Zealand; battered, bruised and unbroken. Just. Only a heroic rearguard action prevented the Black Caps from a deserved series victory. In that series England looked clueless with the bat and increasingly blunted with the ball. Boult and Southee were swinging it round corners whilst even swing-King Anderson was struggling for movement. Taylor and McCullum went after the bowling whilst England?s batsmen ground and stalled.
How then to explain such a convincing 170 run victory at the home of cricket? Playing at home? Changes to personnel? Psychological factors?
Let?s start by examining an often over-looked factor in cricket at home and overseas; the ball. New Zealand, like Australia, South Africa and indeed everyone apart from England and India use the Kookaburra ball for test matches. Usually the Kookaburra will lose its shine sooner than the Duke used in England or the SG used in India. It was evident in the NZ series that the home bowlers were able to keep the ball swinging for much longer than the English bowlers. An analysis of grip showed a slightly different seam position being utilised by Boult, Southee and Wagner compared to Anderson, Broad and Finn. This may seem like a small thing to be able to adjust to during a match but a bowler?s runup and release can be a very personal thing and small changes can have big effects on line, length and consistency. At Lord?s we saw the English bowlers back with a Duke in their hands and the effect from Anderson and Broad was devastating. Interestingly New Zealand?s bowlers were apparently unaffected by the ball switch. An analysis of the grips they were using at Lord?s would be instructive.
Secondly certain changes in the England side have had positive effects. The re-introduction of Graeme Swann for example, not just for his bowling which adds a good measure of control against aggressive batting but for his on-field persona and slips catching. Cook feels happier with Swann around, as does Anderson and despite all Monty?s heroics with the bat in Auckland he remains a number 11 who is a liability in the field and a confidence bowler who can be hit out of the attack. Joe Root, as we know, has gone into this series on the back of a fantastic early season for Yorkshire and the England Lions and looks hungry to cement his place ahead of Jonny Bairstow when KP returns to the side. Stuart Broad remains mercurial but posted a timely reminder that he can win a test match in a session when the mood seizes him (and he pitches the ball up) and Steven Finn?s remodelled runup does at least seem to have fixed his habit of knocking the bails off during the delivery stride.
Concerns still remain, not least the tentative way in which England played Bruce Martin, a veteran of just 4 tests and hardly in the same calibre as Saeed Ajmal or Ravi Ashwin. The lack of Pietersen in the side led to an almost paralysed 2 rpo where batters looked terrified of playing shots in case they were accused of giving away their wickets. As New Zealand showed though a positive approach can also be a liability if the ball is swinging late.
Moving on it?s only right to give credit to this New Zealand side who have been through turmoil recently with regular collapses and chaos at board level over the captaincy. They have the makings of a very promising side. Not just the exciting young bowlers but also the way Rutherford and Fulton suddenly seem to have arrived in test cricket. New Zealand sides frequently have to be greater than the sum of their parts and it does them a disservice not to recognise that for 3 tests and 2 days they had been the better side in this home/away series. Bangladesh and the West Indies, coming up next, are definitely beatable on this showing.
Overall the English enigma has its roots still in the Pakistan series in UAE 15 months ago. England arrived as the number 1 team in the test rankings and proceeded to lose their way with such alacrity it was hard to remember how they got there in the first place. This England team does not have the confidence or belief of the 2005 side, nor the steel and grit of the 2009 team. It does though have a more experienced and more dangerous bowling attack and swathes of emerging young talent with the bat. Once they achieve consistency as a side they will surely be back where they belong and it will be the opposition not the fans who find mystery and ambiguity in their play.
More...
