England cricket sides - are they mentally incapable of batting on Asian pitches?

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 11 Jan 2012, 8:54 am

First topic message reminder :

Seriously this is pathetic.

<rant>

by gboycottnut Tue 17 Jan 2012, 8:41 am

Let's get one thing straight here. England are not playing on an Asian pitch. They are playing on an Arabic pitch in the middle of Dubai. Secondly, England may well be mentally incapable of batting on Asian pitches. That is fine, but so are teams like India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka who are just as incapable of batting on English type pitches.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue 17 Jan 2012, 8:42 am

To be fair its their batting thats suffering, and Panessar wouldve only made that worse. Its not an issue with their bowling, its that their batsmen genuily get the heebies on over think when faced with spin. They cant stop Pakistan from picking Ajmal just by picking 2 spinners themselves.
Pietersen certainly has a mental block with how to play spinners. He seemed to get himslef into trouble by trying to bat properly against them and play for the team against his natural instincts. It just seems they are so intent on batting to a plan rather than the way they are comforatble that they become tense and panic in the same way we've seem teams implode when faced with Englands seam attack.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue 17 Jan 2012, 8:47 am

gboycottnut wrote:Let's get one thing straight here. England are not playing on an Asian pitch. They are playing on an Arabic pitch in the middle of Dubai. Secondly, England may well be mentally incapable of batting on Asian pitches. That is fine, but so are teams like India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka who are just as incapable of batting on English type pitches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Asia_(orthographic_projection).svg

Its Asian, hence why I didnt use the term " sub continetal"

And the joke when I wrote this was that there was a thread with an alomst identical title belittleing the Indians inability to play away for their comfort zone. I didnt actually seriously think England would be this bad, but all the cheap jibes we get form sonci boom and anu d are showing to have some basis of truth. England seem to have a mental block as much as a technical issue when it comes to playing spinners used to these kind of flat dry pitches.

by Guest Tue 17 Jan 2012, 8:49 am

also to be fair not many of this side, have played test matches on the sub contient, and the ones that have, habve only played a handfful themselves

by Guest Tue 17 Jan 2012, 8:50 am

My argument is that not choosing Panesar (where the evidence from the warm-up was that he could perform well in these conditions - he got 8 wickets), is a strong sign they weren't adequately accepting and preparing for the Dubai conditions. This mornings performance suggests they indeed weren't prepared for the conditions - Strauss won the toss and elected to bat...

by Guest Tue 17 Jan 2012, 8:52 am

nore staat, the monty issue is irrevant at the moment...if we had picked him we would still be in this mess.........therefore its an irrevent point...[b]wait till we bowl and then say that.

by Guest Tue 17 Jan 2012, 9:01 am

Nore Staat wrote:My argument is that not choosing Panesar (where the evidence from the warm-up was that he could perform well in these conditions - he got 8 wickets), is a strong sign they weren't adequately accepting and preparing for the Dubai conditions. This mornings performance suggests they indeed weren't prepared for the conditions - Strauss won the toss and elected to bat...

the ball isnt spinning its just bad batting

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue 17 Jan 2012, 9:01 am

Alos just been reading Waqaar Younis' pre match comments sayiong Pakistan had made a mistake by picking two spinners as theres cracks which would help seamers.

This is not that spin friendly a pitch, its just England are that bad at playing spin and Ajmal is the real deal depsite being late to the party.

by Guest Tue 17 Jan 2012, 9:15 am

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:... This is not that spin friendly a pitch, its just England are that bad at playing spin and Ajmal is the real deal depsite being late to the party.

From the BBC Test Match Special:
Vic Marks: "That was quite a celebration from Hafeez - it's good when you can bring on your third spinner first, and immediately get a a wicket!"

Geoff Boycott: "That was a quality delivery. I just think England aren't picking the spinners here. The DRS means you can't hide your bat behind the pad."

Sam Sheringham: "With Pakistan's three-pronged spin attack in full swing (or should that be spin?), it's probably a good time to look at KP's infamous tribulations against twirlers of the left-arm persuasion. ..."

Geoff Boycott: "Andrew Strauss talked at the toss about the batsmen having to be patient, but he didn't do that - he got out trying to get after the bowling."

Henry Blofeld: "Pakistan's spinners have combined figures of 17 overs, 10 maidens, 13 runs and four wickets."

by Guest Tue 17 Jan 2012, 9:16 am

it didnt spin though!

clearly your not wtaching the game, becuase your talking asboslute rubbish!

by Guest Tue 17 Jan 2012, 9:18 am

cricketfan90 wrote:it didnt spin though!

clearly your not wtaching the game, becuase your talking asboslute rubbish!

I wasn't "talking". You are referring to the BBC's Test Match Special Team.

by Guest Tue 17 Jan 2012, 9:19 am

im talking about your other points as well...at this stage of the game, they were rubbish and irrevlant at this stage of the game.

by Guest Tue 17 Jan 2012, 9:21 am

They were not "rubbish". I have explained my points above, I don't need to repeat them.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue 17 Jan 2012, 9:30 am

Right and all the comments you posted point to England playing spin badly rather than the ball spinning.

Where ar ethe commenst saying " My that turned a mile"
" I have never seen a first day pitch like this"
" These are nothing more than average bowlers but the conditions are making it very difficult for the batsmen"
" He picked that one but it bounced and truned more than expected"

Isntead we have:
"That was good bowling"
" Strauss played like an idiot"
" We all know KP cant play spin"
" England cant pick the spinners"

by Guest Tue 17 Jan 2012, 9:40 am

the ball isnt spinning, they are relying on subtle varations and pace changes, and at the moment it dosent matter that monty didnt play because we are in a batting mess!

by rich1uk Tue 17 Jan 2012, 10:16 am

i said before the game started that anyone who thought we should be playing 2 spinners because pakistan will bowl alot of spin were wrong and nothing i have seen today has changed my mind on that

firstly the ball isn't spinning, what is troubling the batsmen is variations of flight, length and pace. the main reason panesar got dropped was because of his lack of variations so there is absolutely no reason to assume he would be getting the same success as the pakistan bowlers are

secondly, i dont care if this sounds like sour grapes but no-one is gonna convince me that ajmal's doosra is a legal delivery

lastly, our batsmen have been poor against spin for a long time now and again there is no reason to assume that panesar would be giving the pakistan batsmen the same sort of problems that our batsmen are having. in fact i think even on this pitch tremlett will be harder for them to play than panesar would have.

by **Pal Joey** Tue 17 Jan 2012, 10:25 am

Good point rich... Tremlett could get into double figures; whereas Monty - not a chance. Smile

by **hampo17** Tue 17 Jan 2012, 10:28 am

Nore Staat wrote:
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:... This is not that spin friendly a pitch, its just England are that bad at playing spin and Ajmal is the real deal depsite being late to the party.
From the BBC Test Match Special:
Vic Marks: "That was quite a celebration from Hafeez - it's good when you can bring on your third spinner first, and immediately get a a wicket!"

Geoff Boycott: "That was a quality delivery. I just think England aren't picking the spinners here. The DRS means you can't hide your bat behind the pad."

Sam Sheringham: "With Pakistan's three-pronged spin attack in full swing (or should that be spin?), it's probably a good time to look at KP's infamous tribulations against twirlers of the left-arm persuasion. ..."

Geoff Boycott: "Andrew Strauss talked at the toss about the batsmen having to be patient, but he didn't do that - he got out trying to get after the bowling."

Henry Blofeld: "Pakistan's spinners have combined figures of 17 overs, 10 maidens, 13 runs and four wickets."

To be fair I was watching the test before I left for work and the ball wasn't spinning as much as those guys are making out. England just aren't picking the length.

by Guest Tue 17 Jan 2012, 10:44 am

Okay fair enough - it seems to be more an issue of variation of flight, variation and pace and poor application from the "English" batsmen

but surely England should be rolling over the present Pakistani side given all the circumstances?

Panesar has got support from certain quarters:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/16560524.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/16571909.stm

From Jonathan Agnew: "This, however, seems as unlikely as ever with the familiar mantra that 'this balance works for us' already being trotted out." , which was my original point.

by Guest Tue 17 Jan 2012, 10:46 am

who cares wherever he has support, he hasnt been picked move on....its not spinning and he dosent do a rehman job and go under 2 an over, therefore move on!!

by **Pal Joey** Tue 17 Jan 2012, 10:49 am

You were the one who was so adamant he would play, weren't you?

by rich1uk Tue 17 Jan 2012, 10:49 am

Nore Staat wrote:Okay fair enough - it seems to be more an issue of variation of flight, variation and pace and poor application from the "English" batsmen but surely England should be rolling over the present Pakistani side given all the circumstances?

Panesar has got support from certain quarters:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/16560524.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/16571909.stm

From Jonathan Agnew: "This, however, seems as unlikely as ever with the familiar mantra that 'this balance works for us' already being trotted out." , which was my original point.

agnew wanted us to play 5 bowlers at home against india last year tho so him saying we should go with 5 bowlers here isn't really to be taken seriously

i really cant believe after us being 40odd for 5 today that people still think we should be weakening our batting

by Guest Tue 17 Jan 2012, 10:52 am

Linebreaker wrote:You were the one who was so adamant he would play, weren't you?

yes because everyone thought it would spin a lot, but the selectors made the right decision to play only one spinner, because its not turning.

by **Pal Joey** Tue 17 Jan 2012, 10:54 am

That's right. However, you went on and on about it then have a go at Nore Staat when he brings it up.

by Guest Tue 17 Jan 2012, 10:54 am

yes but i stopped, he constantly saying it, after we all know the pitch isnt spinning!

by Mike Selig Tue 17 Jan 2012, 11:33 am

CF is right, the pitch isn't turning that much, and England have picked the right team. Broad will enjoy the abrasive nature and slow-low characteristics if he bowls straight. Tremlett will get a bit of bounce due to sheer height which could trouble the batsmen. Unlikely Panesar would have done much, given how he bowls.

by Guest Wed 18 Jan 2012, 7:12 am

BBC Test Match Special's Geoff Boycott (at 0636 with Pkn 76-0 (24 overs)):
"This will be a big test for England's three-man bowling attack with one spinner. Most of us who've been to Asia - and this is an Asia-like pitch - feel you need a second spinner. I'm hard-pressed to think of a time when three seamers and one spinner have won Test matches in Asia."

Jonathan Agnew (at 0704 with Pkn 90-0 (30 overs)):
"I've just sat down with my work book, and after an hour's play I've not made a single note. Kind of sums it up."

by **Pal Joey** Wed 18 Jan 2012, 8:22 am

They're both good points they make, Nore.

I can't help but feel England were a touch under-prepared for yesterday. Maybe they felt they could just roll up and everything would be sweet.

The Arabic non-continental Asian conditions are proving to be quite a challenge but as I've said before - I think England will gradually perform better as the series progresses.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 18 Jan 2012, 8:36 am

Aggers and Boycott have never stopped advocating 5 bowlers for any test match. They are part of the old school who simply cannot cope with the concept of not having 5 bowlers, despite all the top ranked sides of recent times consitently playing with 4.

I find it quite amussing though that youve come upo with a quote of Geoff Boycott calling it an Asian pitch despite Gboycottnuts earlier assertion.

Its still flat, and its seam thats taken the wickets so far. As its panned out maybe England would have benefitted form teh extra spinner, but they packed their premier bowlers to do the job against a weak Pakistan batting lineup who are more comfortable against Panessar and Swanns dobbly spin than pace and bounce. Neither is going to be massively helped by the pitch.
Had they picked panessar we would no doubt be discussing what a mistake they made weakening the batting when they were bowled out for 150 or bemoaning the lack of a 3rd seamer.

For all the quotes you can come up with from those two who still think England should play 2 spinners at home youll find experts before the game who were willing to say the opposite including that Paksitan made a mistake picking 2 speacilist spinners.

Its easy to be "right" in hindsight when you have no evidence that things would have been any better with two spinners in a 5 or 4 bowler stratergy. If they had batted properly then we wouldnt be having the argument about the bowling anyway.

by **Pal Joey** Wed 18 Jan 2012, 8:55 am

Maybe just early signs of panic (in hindsight) from Aggers and the usual whinge from Boycs.

The general tone of their comments was more like - I wish we had a spinner (hoping that Swann can do the same) who could tear through the lineup (like Ajmal did) and batters who could knuckle down and play sensibly 'old school style' (more like Prior yesterday and Hafeez today) who have shown there are no demons in the pitch whatsoever.

by Mad for Chelsea Wed 18 Jan 2012, 2:19 pm

odd comments from Boycs, Australia never played two spinners (or very very rarely) when they were at their very best, yet won all over the world (including in Asia). England's three seamers all put in a good shift today, and I don't think Panesar would have done that much.

by Mike Selig Wed 18 Jan 2012, 2:28 pm

I can think of many times when one spinner and 3 seamers won test matches in Asia. When Australia finally won in India they did so with an attack of McGrath, Gillespie, Kasperwicz and Warne. South Africa have won a few times in the sub-continent: I'd be very surprised if they used 2 spinners. When England won in Pakistan they may as well have picked 1 spinner for all the good Salisbury did.

by Mad for Chelsea Wed 18 Jan 2012, 2:41 pm

It seems to be a very English thing, this obsession with five bowlers. Every other team just gets on with it. Face it, how many overs would a fifth bowler get through per day? Probably about ten, if that. Is it worth it? Especially when you consider that Trott seems more than capable of doing the job? Definitely not IMO. Of course if England go into the final test 1-0 down having failed to look like getting 20 wickets in the first two it may be worth the gamble, but when you consider that our bowlers have done a good job here, and that it's our batsmen who have let us down, I'd say 6 batsmen seems a good shout.

by guildfordbat Wed 18 Jan 2012, 4:00 pm

Mike Selig wrote:
.... When England won in Pakistan they may as well have picked 1 spinner for all the good Salisbury did.

As every Surrey follower knew would be the case. It was so so unfair of Cricket's governing bodies not to allow Solly to bowl in Tests with his usual Surrey parther Saqlain at the other end! Wink

by **Fists of Fury** Wed 18 Jan 2012, 4:06 pm

Completely agree, fellas. It isn't necessary to have 5 front line bowlers unless one of those bowlers can justify their place as a batsman alone.

Remember, it is a luxury, not a necessity.

by Carrotdude Wed 18 Jan 2012, 7:57 pm

In an ideal world you would have a 2nd spinner who could bat in the top 7 but this isn't an ideal world. I suppose another option would have been to play Bopara for Morgan and have him and Trott as seam back up to Anderson/Broad allowing Monty and Swann to both play. Don't think it would have made much difference here, certainly in the first innings, it definitely wouldn't have made us bat better!

I do feel that on pitches that will definitely spin such as what we might encounter in Sri Lanka I really do think that 2 spinners are needed.

by rich1uk Wed 18 Jan 2012, 8:26 pm

Carrotdude wrote:

I do feel that on pitches that will definitely spin such as what we might encounter in Sri Lanka I really do think that 2 spinners are needed.

would that be why when sri lanka played at home against australia last september they only played one specialist spinner in the test matches ?

if sri lanka themselves are not picking 2 specialist spinners to play in sri lanka then why on earth should we ?

i really think people get too wrapped up in all these "urban myths" about 2 spinners or 5 bowlers blah blah blah and dont actually look at the sides being selected and being succesfful both now and in the recent past. and as i have been saying a few times now, even if sri lanka do play 2 spinners thats because their spinners are better than their alternative seam options, whereas our strength is in the seam department.

in this game thats on atm we struggled with the bat and our seamers have looked far more threatening than swann has with the ball. so why would we either want to weaken our batting by playing a 5th specialist bowler or weaken our seam attack by playing a second spinner.

by Demon Racer Wed 18 Jan 2012, 8:49 pm

rich1uk wrote:
Carrotdude wrote:

I do feel that on pitches that will definitely spin such as what we might encounter in Sri Lanka I really do think that 2 spinners are needed.

would that be why when sri lanka played at home against australia last september they only played one specialist spinner in the test matches ?

if sri lanka themselves are not picking 2 specialist spinners to play in sri lanka then why on earth should we ?

i really think people get too wrapped up in all these "urban myths" about 2 spinners or 5 bowlers blah blah blah and dont actually look at the sides being selected and being succesfful both now and in the recent past. and as i have been saying a few times now, even if sri lanka do play 2 spinners thats because their spinners are better than their alternative seam options, whereas our strength is in the seam department.

in this game thats on atm we struggled with the bat and our seamers have looked far more threatening than swann has with the ball. so why would we either want to weaken our batting by playing a 5th specialist bowler or weaken our seam attack by playing a second spinner.

Sri Lanka played 2 spinners in the 1st and 2nd Tests, In the 1st Test they had Herath and Randiv. 2nd Test Randiv and Prasanna. Only 3ed Test Herath was the sole spinner.

by rich1uk Wed 18 Jan 2012, 9:39 pm

ok i got my players mixed up

i still think the point remains that sri lanka are more likely to play a second spinner because of the relative weakness of their seam options whereas england's seam bowling is our strength

saying we should play 2 spinners because thats what sri lanka will do is not logical , when was the last time we saw australia or south africa go there and play 2 spinners , we dont , thats because they, like us, have better quality in their seam attack

should we go to bangladesh and play 4 spinners coz thats what bangladesh do at home ?

by skyeman Wed 18 Jan 2012, 9:56 pm

Just can not fathom this out, and apparentely nor can the team psychologist with the players. In the past there was a problem with Eng in the sub-continent and Asia, but this current England team boasts some of the best batsman in the world, but they seem to have been taken in by the mind-games on the Asian pitches. But in recent times they have come back before from adversity and I am sure that they are strong enough to do it again.

Beware the wounded Lion Wink

.

by rich1uk Wed 18 Jan 2012, 10:03 pm

agreed in the past england would have been knocked over for around 100 yesterday and would probbaly be out of the game completely by now

we need to take the three wickets quickly in the morning with what is still a faitly new ball and then dig in and play like we have been for the last couple of years with the bat

it just annoys me when i see all these comments about us making a mistake not playing two spinners because our batsmen failed against spin

its like seeing the indian batting lineup fail against the short pitched ball and then saying their bowlers should bowl more bouncers

by skyeman Wed 18 Jan 2012, 10:10 pm

rich1uk wrote:agreed in the past england would have been knocked over for around 100 yesterday and would probbaly be out of the game completely by now

we need to take the three wickets quickly in the morning with what is still a faitly new ball and then dig in and play like we have been for the last couple of years with the bat

it just annoys me when i see all these comments about us making a mistake not playing two spinners because our batsmen failed against spin

its like seeing the indian batting lineup fail against the short pitched ball and then saying their bowlers should bowl more bouncers

by Corporalhumblebucket Wed 18 Jan 2012, 10:20 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Pleased to see this smiley being used.... BTW never mind the contents this thread has got the best title of any I've seen for a long time....

by Mike Selig Thu 19 Jan 2012, 12:03 am

Demon Racer wrote:
Sri Lanka played 2 spinners in the 1st and 2nd Tests, In the 1st Test they had Herath and Randiv. 2nd Test Randiv and Prasanna. Only 3ed Test Herath was the sole spinner.

Remind me what was the only test Sri Lanka came close to winning again? Oh and remind me who won that series? And how many spinners they used?

Sure, two spinners on a turning deck is the way to do if you've got two outstanding spinners (ala Warne and MacGill) or your spinners are considerably better than your seam bowlers (India, Sri Lanka when they had Murali).

I can't believe this debate. England picked the right team, if they lose it's cos they didn't play well enough.

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Fri 20 Jan 2012, 10:56 am

Some nice stats put together by cricinfo on England in the sub-continent
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/550154.html

by **Fists of Fury** Fri 20 Jan 2012, 11:01 am

Thanks for sharing, Kiwi, very interesting.

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Fri 20 Jan 2012, 11:05 am

I found it quite interesting that England's batting performance on the sub-continent is very similar to New Zealand's, and a ways behind Australia and South Africa. Given the gap in the rankings between England and NZ that's quite damning. Because we're rubbish Wink

by The genius of PBF Fri 20 Jan 2012, 11:05 am

Didn't England win away against Pakistan and Sri Lanka under Hussain?...Remember Thorpe scoring a hundred with only one four.

by **Fists of Fury** Fri 20 Jan 2012, 11:10 am

Thankfully, a lot of those stats come from when we were rubbish, too. The first Test didn't help our cause, but deep down I'd like to think that we might start pushing up those figures a little now!! Looking doubtful thus far, however.

by **Pal Joey** Sat 21 Jan 2012, 6:12 am

England have a good chance against SL in SL, however India in India would be a tougher task but they're still capable of winning there - like the did back in the old days.

by Sponsored content