English Batsmen - Why don't they score "big" hundreds?

[Richard]

Pietersen's far from a "pure" batsman though. The only "pure" batsman I'd say we have around the current set-up are Vaughan and Bell. All the others look manufactured and stilted in some way.

In order of calibre, incidentally, I'd probably go Cook, Pietersen, Vaughan, Bell, Strauss, Collingwood. With Shah possibly > the last two.

 

[Prince EWS]

Pietersen's far from a "pure" batsman though.

Agreed, but he's a lot closer to being one than Paul Collingwood is.

 

[Richard]

Oh, certainly. I don't dispute that slowfinger's was a strange call, but was merely responding to your post.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I'll go through that entire list and tell you exactly when each chance came (and which ones were chanceless) when I'm not watching the Test.

The amazing thing is that you're proud of this.

 

[Richard]

I should not be?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

No. You really shouldn't. That just makes you creepy anal. I've invented that term.

 

[Richard]

Creepily anal, surely?

But did you really not know this until now? With over 81,000 posts between the two of us?

 

[GIMH]

Way to ruin my theory Strauss

 

[Richard]

It'll take more than 1 exception to change the rule. I highly doubt this will be the start of the problem being alleviated TBH.

 

[GIMH]

I know, but Strauss was always one of the worst offenders. Obviously Bell's was more the typical English ton (batted well mind you), KP somewhere in the middle

 

[Richard]

BTW, something I think will also be interesting... I'm cooking (well... warming from the freezer) right now, but when I've eaten a bit later I'll go through that list of the chanceless "small" (say, 100-140) centuries and see in which ones you can say "should have gone on". Here's those:

Strauss V Australia 106 -
Flintoff V Australia 102 -
Strauss V Australia 129 -
Collingwood V India 134* -
Pietersen V Sri Lanka 142 -
Bell V Pakistan 100* -
Strauss V Pakistan 128 -
Cook V Pakistan 127 -
Bell V Pakistan 106* -
Bell V Pakistan 119 -
Collingwood V Australia 206 -
Pietersen V Australia 158 -
Cook V Australia 116 -
Cook V West Indies 105 -
Bell V West Indies 109* -
Prior V West Indies 126* -
Pietersen V West Indies 109 -
Vaughan V West Indies 103 -
Collingwood V West Indies 128 -
Pietersen V India 134 -
Vaughan V India 124 -
Pietersen V India 101 -
Ambrose V New Zealand 102 -

 

[PY]

Pietersen's far from a "pure" batsman though. The only "pure" batsman I'd say we have around the current set-up are Vaughan and Bell. All the others look manufactured and stilted in some way.

In order of calibre, incidentally, I'd probably go Cook, Pietersen, Vaughan, Bell, Strauss, Collingwood. With Shah possibly > the last two.

I would say Pietersen's style of batting is anything but manufactured.

 

[Manee]

I would say Pietersen's style of batting is anything by manufactured.

He has been trying to play more like a classical batsman recently.

 

[Richard]

I would say Pietersen's style of batting is anything but manufactured.

WoW, seriously? Is the epitome of manufactured to me, not to mention the epitome of how "natural"ness is not remotely neccessary to be exceptionally good.

 

[Jamee999]

Nah, Pietersen just bats naturally, hence the flamingo and stuff - no one teaches that.

 

[Richard]

When you get dropped as many times as those two did in that partnership, natural talent is a complete non-requirement.

In any case, natural batting talent is rather different to being a natural batsman TBH. Both Bell and Pietersen score highly on the former, Bell much higher than Pietersen on the latter.

 

[paddy11]

Possibly, because with England's rate of scoring by the time a batsmen in the middle order gets a century the second new ball is due and they nick it. Simple as that.

 

[PY]

WoW, seriously? Is the epitome of manufactured to me, not to mention the epitome of how "natural"ness is not remotely neccessary to be exceptionally good.

I'd say his style is more natural than Vaughan's and Bell's, because it doesn't conform to the textbook.

 

[Richard]

TBH, to me everything about him looks "self-taught". Not at all as if he's just picked-up a bat and thought "ah, this is how we use it isn't it? Yep, indeed it is", which is the feeling you instantly get with someone like Vaughan or Bell.

Or Ponting or Jayasuriya too, to pick someone a little less attractive.

 

[Richard]

I'll go through that list of the chanceless "small" (say, 100-140) centuries and see in which ones you can say "should have gone on".

OK, finally got around to this...

Strauss V Australia 106: second-innings, trying to set a total and declare - no blame there.
Flintoff V Australia 102: could have gone on, but TBH this was one of very few truly convincing innings this game, and I'd not apply too much blame there.
Strauss V Australia 129: yes, should have gone on really. Proved enough ITE - but only just.
Collingwood V India 134*: not-out, obviously no blame there.
Pietersen V Sri Lanka 142: was "big" enough for my money, and was easily the difference between the sides.
Bell V Pakistan 100*: not-out.
Strauss V Pakistan 128: second-innings, trying to set a total and declare - no blame there.
Cook V Pakistan 127: big enough really, England cantered this game.
Bell V Pakistan 106*: not-out.
Bell V Pakistan 119: big enough, was batting with the lower-order in part too.
Collingwood V Australia 206: easily big enough, double-century. Still lost tho of course.
Pietersen V Australia 158: same team-innings, same story as Collingwood's above.
Cook V Australia 116: not enough, sadly - there would've been hope going into the last day if he'd stayed there. Always fairly reluctant to criticise too much tho as most at his age (21) would never have been close to being up to scoring even 116.
Cook V West Indies 105: should have scored more, but the fact he didn't wasn't ever likely to matter.
Bell V West Indies 109*: not-out.
Prior V West Indies 126*: not-out.
Pietersen V West Indies 109: second-innings, trying to set a total and declare - no blame there.
Vaughan V West Indies 103: could and certainly should have gone on - there was something massive on a plate for him. Not that it mattered to the game of course.
Collingwood V West Indies 128: should have scored more, but the fact he didn't wasn't ever likely to matter.
Pietersen V India 134: second-innings, trying to set a total and declare - no blame there.
Vaughan V India 124: exceptionally unfortunate dismissal, can't really blame - and but for that might very well have gone on (and maybe even saved the game) he was batting that well.
Pietersen V India 101: saved the game so good enough.
Ambrose V New Zealand 102: vital, vital contribution to a vital victory in a pretty low-scoring Test.

So as you can see, I don't really think you can attribute a particularly massive amount of blame there really. Certainly hardly any of them where the failure to score very big cost the game. Mind, players from many other countries I'd bet get similar outcomes, and still take those small windows of opportunity that present themselves.