It's the same old England (9 August 1999)

9 August 1999

It's the same old England

David Lloyd

England have been well and truly turned over by New Zealand at Old Trafford in this third Cornhill Test. They came into the game on the back of a woeful performance at Lord's and universal criticism was ringing in their ears. This was the time for a resounding effort but the same old players performed in the same old way. New Zealand have been the team with drive, energy and organisation, while we have looked totally anonymous.

Both teams have been duped by the pitch. When Mark Butcher won the toss, Stephen Fleming's shoulders nearly hit the floor and if ever I saw a look of "win the toss, win the game", then Fleming gave it. Everyone said that batting would be hazardous throughout, and on the first day there was extravagant movement and judging the ball's bounce was a lottery.

Michael Atherton was back in the side to give steel and stability and, after he quickly lost Butcher, we sat back anticipating an Atherton vigil. He is a thinking batsman and was entitled to the view that New Zealand only had two front-line bowlers in Chris Cairns and Dion Nash, and that batting would become much easier against Nathan Astle and Daniel Vettori. You can bet your life that the team tactic would be to grind out a total in the first innings because this pitch will not get better. Nobody reckoned with the fact that there was a touch of moisture in the pitch and in the sultry atmosphere. This combination brought about the extravagant movement.

These days, our view of Test cricket is compared with the one-day game. Neville Cardus wrote about the art of stonewalling as being "entrenched behind sandbags, bitter and spartan, passionately inflicting miseries of frustration on the bowlers and on the crowd". Atherton's effort brought stinging comment from Bob Willis on Sky Sports, who thought his innings was "an appalling effort" because he never looked to hit the loose ball or pinch a quick single. Trevor Bailey, on Test Match Special, said Atherton's innings was "a beautiful exhibition of defensive batting". Atherton would see the tactic as a means to an end in the way that Geoff Boycott and Chris Tavare ground out 29 runs on the third morning of the fifth Test against Australia in 1981, which allowed Ian Botham to blaze 118 in the afternoon.

This stonewalling topic brings me round to Mark Ramprakash. In his position of No 6, he is left time and again with the tail. He is not by nature a negative batsman but appears to see his role as defensive in difficult situations. He would be far better, surely, to attack and play naturally. Take control. Peter Such was time and again left with three deliveries to block out after Ramprakash had taken a single given to him by Fleming. The better option would be to draw in the field towards the end of the over, then look to attack and pinch a single off the last ball and, if that fails, to be busy at the beginning of the over to get Such off strike. In that way there is potential for the scoreboard to tick over. It can be argued that Ramprakash's tactic worked because when Such joined him he was 27, and when Philip Tufnell perished he had advanced to 69. I feel, however, he could have scored a lot more.

The stonewalling mood afflicted the whole innings and allowed New Zealand to employ attacking fields, particularly to Chris Harris and Vettori. With fields around the bat it is just a matter of time for an unaccomplished batsman. Michael Holding, again on Sky Sports, put it succinctly when he said "block, block, block - when the ball does something out of the ordinary you are gone." With that he shook his head and sank back in his chair.

England's negative play is accentuated by being preoccupied with the sweep and playing half-forward from the crease. With the use of video it would be worthwhile England watching what happened at 12.10pm on the second day. Vettori bowled to Ramprakash, who stepped out of his ground and played a lifted drive down the ground for a one-bounce boundary.

It was a glorious attacking shot. Vettori immediately bowled a flatter trajectory and was cut. When Such and Tufnell bowled, Astle, Cairns and Craig MacMillan were more than happy advancing down the wicket. It is the way to play spin. "What if" does not come into it. The batsman comes down the pitch to hit or play the ball, not with the mental intention of missing it. I am not proposing a cavalry charge but a calculated attack towards the bowler to make him change the field, change his line, change his length. Ted Dexter wrote over the weekend about nimble and decisive footwork together with a sideways position. Let us all agree: it is the passport to happiness.

Batting was difficult on that first day and it was a shock to everyone on the second and third days how flat the pitch rolled out. I mentioned weeks ago that New Zealand are no pushovers and that they bristle at the accusation of being unfashionable. They have organisation and a team ethic. Steve Rixon, their coach, has worked tirelessly on the latter and there is a massive difference in their team culture since England last played them in 1997.

The main difference has been the harnessing of their brightest talent, Cairns. He was seen as a brooding underachiever but he looks the linchpin of the team as a genuine all-rounder and his aggressive approach is there for all to see. As a team, they seized the opportunity to put England effectively out of the game on a pitch that was now playing beautifully. They played cricket. Good feet, straight bats, run hard and hit the bad ball for four. Basic but mighty effective.

England's response was negligible. Nobody seemed to grab the moment. The game meandered along. Granted, we are all a distance away from the action, and I will stand corrected if I am wrong in saying that proceedings lacked passion, drive and conviction, but that is the impression that is given.

The tone was set for the third day with the first ball from Andy Caddick. A leg-side half volley was dispatched for four through mid-wicket by Astle. Caddick then bowled three overs for 17 runs and busied himself with the footholds. He was then taken out of the attack. Those three overs were dreadful and it is worth remembering that this is the same Caddick who bowled so well in the previous Test matches. He had another spell at 4.30pm on the third day when he bowled beautifully, without luck, and had figures of 11 overs, five maidens, 23 runs, no wickets. He had also bowled a clever bouncer to dismiss Astle just after he had reached his century and had lapsed in concentration. Caddick then bowled aggressively for a spell at the new batsman before dropping back into 'easy mode'. It is exactly this sort of in-out performance that brings out a quietness, an anonymity, in the team. Old habits die hard.

Source :: Electronic Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk)