England v Australia, 2nd ODI

During the course of England’s Test matches, reference is often made to their batsmen’s habit of making starts but failing to convert them into centuries.  Generally, blame is placed upon the proliferation of limited overs cricket.  Today, England again lost an ODI against Australia, and again a number of their batsmen established themselves, only to lose their wickets.  The same trait was their downfall in the 1st ODI on Friday.  Is this a regular feature of their limited overs batting, and what are the reasons behind it?

Since they last reached the final of the World Cup in 1992, England players have reached 100 on only 55 occasions in 310 matches.  That’s a ratio of one century every 5.63 matches.  Examine the results since the beginning of 2008, and only Kevin Pietersen (2) and Andrew Strauss (1) have scored centuries, in 31 matches at a ratio of 1 century every  10.33 matches.  Only on another 7 occasions has a batsman even managed to pass 75. India, in contrast, have managed 16 centuries from 43 matches (2.69 matches per century) and Pakistan 13 from 34 (2.61).

In today’s match, neither sides batsmen were able to register a significant score, with Paul Collingwood’s 56 being the highest score.  But Australia were able to change the momentum in the late overs, Mitchell Johnson smashing his 43 not out from just 23 balls.  It was this that made the difference – England reached 200 faster than Australia, despite their loss of wickets.

It is this lack of acceleration that can often cost England dearly in ODIs.  Whilst working the gaps is the order of the day for the middle overs, England often struggle to switch from this accumulation mode to the necessary boundary hitting mode at the end of the innings.  Subsequently, they get bogged down and start to lose wickets as the pressure builds.

What is at the root of these trends?  It is hard to do anything but speculate, but here’s my two penn’orth: lack of continuity.

Whilst England have been guilty of not changing their Test side quickly enough (and that has been pinpointed as the reason for poor batting performance), the opposite is true in the limited over formats.  In the same period in 2008/9, England have used 26 players in their 31 matches, which is basically a new player every other match.  They have used 8 different opening partnerships, the longest unbroken run being 7 innings.

Even when players are selected there is still inconsistency.  Owais Shah is the only player to appear in all 31 matches, and yet even he has appeared anywhere between number 3 and number 6 in the order.  The demands of batting at number 3 and number 6 in limited over cricket are very different, so each time there is a change, players have to adjust their mindset and their approach.

Fine, you might say, they’re professionals.  So try moving from marketing to accounts to customer service within the space of a few days, and see how you get on.  Or is that too broad a choice of vocations?  Okay then, try print, broadcasting and online marketing.  The point is, you might be capable of making the change competently, but how long would it be before you excel at any new discipline?

So, is the root of the problem the opposite extreme from that in Test cricket?  Or is it just that England’s batsmen just aren’t good enough for this level of cricket?  Please provide your thoughts via the comments.

Enjoyed this post? Share & follow...

• Tweet
• 
•