Andy Pakes looks at the emergence of Australia's James Pattinson and compares him to his England-capped brother Darren.
Sam Holloway looks at why test match cricket is not going to become extinct just yet
Manraj Bahra looks at the subtle differences between the forms of cricket and how teams shouldn't look to pick the same players in all forms.
Sports Editor James Tompkinson looks at the continuing problem of corruption within cricket as the cases of three Pakistani cricketers accused of spot fixing comes to an end
I’m a big believer in variation within a bowling attack, so for me, England got things wrong from the start by picking the wrong attack. In theory, a fast bowling attack made up of Steve Finn, Stuart Broad and Chris Tremlett should have provided England with a great deal of fire power. The problem is that they are all very similar types of bowler. They are all very tall pace bowlers who tend to bowl slightly short of a length, and they get the majority of their wickets by cramping batsmen for room and making them edge balls to the wicket keeper and slips. The issue with carrying an attack made up of these types of bowlers is that the batsmen get used to facing the attack very quickly and can adjust their game accordingly.
This test match showed just how much better are when James Anderson plays. Anderson’s natural length is slightly fuller and he swings the ball more than Tremlett, Broad and Finn, meaning that batsmen have to readjust their strategies over by over when Anderson bowls in tandem with one of the taller bowlers. Personally, I think someone like Graham Onions or Jade Dernbach would have been a much better option for this Lords test match, and I think that the England selectors perhaps need to think more carefully about the balance of their attack rather than just going with bowlers who they know have played in an England shirt before.
Fortunately, England will have Anderson back for the third test, and his presence will definitely give the England attack more bite. It seems as though Steven Finn will be the person who misses out at the Rose Bowl, and although many would point to the fact that he tends to take more wickets for England than Broad or Tremlett, at the moment he is a little too inconsistent and bowls too many balls and spells that allows the batsmen to gain easy runs and relieve pressure by keeping the scoreboard ticking over. England need to be more cut throat with their bowling in the next test, just as they were in Cardiff when they bowled the Sri Lankans out for 82 to win that game. That’s what the best teams in the world do, and if that’s where England want to be, then they must start producing consistent cut throat performances.
England’s successes in this test came with the bat. Alistair Cook continued his sublime form with scores of 96 and 106, and Kevin Pietersen managed to score some runs with a gritty knock of 72 in the second innings. Matt Prior and Eoin Morgan also proved their worth with good scores of 126 and 79 respectively in the first innings. Those two innings in particular highlighted just how strong England’s batting line up is, and with Stuart Broad hitting a lovely 50 from number 8 in the first innings, it shows that even if England get off to a bad start, they have players lower down the order who can get them out of trouble.
If England apply themselves properly in the next test match, then I fully expect them to win this series. They will have to play well, and have more urgency in the bowling department than they did at Lords, but I see no reason why Andrew Strauss’ men won’t win in Hampshire, with the much bigger test of India looming later in the summer.
You must log in to submit a comment.
