England are relying too much on instinct

The first Test of the Ashes series was a violent reminder of the beauty of Test cricket. In a completely unexpected result, Australia thrashed England by 381 runs. Apart from a barrage of venomous bouncers, a slew of unpleasant words was also dished out by the Australians. In the end, it was too hot for England to handle.

For Jonathan Trott, the pressure of the Ashes tipped his already predisposed mind over the line. He has left the tour citing stress related illness as the cause.

 

From a psychological point of view, certain individuals are more likely to develop such illnesses while some are more resistant. While the sledging and the twin failures may have exacerbated the issue, it couldn’t have ‘caused’ Trott’s illness.

 

Trott’s departure shouldn’t be treated as something special because treating mental illness like a physical injury could serve better at erasing the taboo around the issue. If a sports personality retires from a tournament because of the above reason and doesn’t garner attention, it projects mental illness as being for the want of a better word, ‘normal.’ Having said that, the Australian media have been insensitive about Trott’s departure and deserve no further mention in this article.

Focusing on the cricket, Australia out-thought England. Their plan was simplistic yet dangerous. As if a sniper on a rooftop, they were aiming for the deadly parts; the heart or the head. Most of the English batsmen couldn’t sway or duck and were shot out. Not every bullet fired was on target but the English made it easy by walking into the line of it.

 

On a fast, bouncy wicket the short ball is a non-diffusible bomb. The more you fiddle with it, the more likely it explodes. If you leave it alone, eventually it might explode but the extra few precious minutes can be used to score runs. Before the analogy explodes in my face, leaving the short ball alone is the best way to tackle it.

 

As easy as it seems, most back foot play is governed by reflex actions. Instinct. Since a batsman always looks to transfer his weight onto the front foot, the short ball presents the batsman with less time. Pulling on the front foot is quicker but that much tougher.

 

For aggressive batsmen, instinct dictates a short ball be pulled or hooked away. For eg Kevin Pietersen. For others, riding the bounce seems the natural solution, eg Trott. However, when a batsman is dismissed reacting in his way to a short ball, reason takes over instinct. Trott in his second innings tried to take on the short ball. But since it wasn’t what comes naturally to him, he executed a half baked shot. It has also become clear now that his thought process was perturbed by other factors too.

 

In modern day cricket leaving the ball alone is an afterthought. The aggressive nature of modern cricket has ensured batsmen hone their instincts in a manner that it requires a deliberate effort to leave/sway. Alistair Cook and Ian Bell in the second innings made up their minds to leave well directed bouncers. They had a plan. It worked pretty well and extended their stay at the crease.

 

Throughout the game, England relied on instinct. They managed to bundle Australia out for 295 in the first innings only because Broad bowled a few unplayable deliveries. The others relied on their natural ability to do most of their work.

Anderson hoped the ball would swing and when it didn’t, he was almost pedestrian. In Australia, Anderson has played 9 matches, taken 31 wickets at an average of 38. His career average is 30.35 while his average outside England is 36.45. Yes, he has begun to bowl beautifully in the sub-continent with the old ball. But he still lacks a clear plan when the ball does not swing.

Graeme Swann has played 6 games in Australia so far and has picked up 17 wickets at an average of 47.76. He hasn’t figured out how to bowl in Australia. A traditional off spinner, Swann relies on flight and drift which he isn’t getting. Although he didn’t leak runs in the first innings, he never looked threatening. He was out bowled by Nathan Lyon which speaks volumes of how badly he under performed.

 

In the second innings, even Broad couldn’t get the ball to talk. If they had a plan to Michael Clarke, that of bowling bouncers, as Ian Chappel pointed out they abandoned it pretty quickly.

 

Tremlett was bowling at 125-130 kmph. When a guy as broad shouldered as Tremlett bowls gentle medium pace, it speaks ill about the benefits of weight training for a fast bowler. He seemed a genial bowler putting the ball at a good length without any real intent. To inject a bit more pace into the attack, Finn would be a better option.

 

This isn’t to suggest the bowlers were at fault. It points to England’s lack of planning. If England had their plans, they were poorly executed. Australia bowled to a plan. Hardly any wicket was off an absolutely unplayable delivery. It was strategy that made pacey good deliveries into wicket taking ones. Obviously their plan depended on the wicket being conducive to fast bowling. It would be a crying shame if they didn’t have a different plan for every batsman in the next Test at Adelaide.   

 

The ‘first Test match’ excuse might be used as a rationale for the disastrous performance but England need to put a little more thought into cricket rather than food. And while following one’s instincts is recommended, it needs the support of good planning.

Click HERE to read more