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

[Gloucefan]

lol I think clarification of what is meant by 'natural' is needed.

Bell looks like he is 'a natural' at batting in the textbook way, as with Vaughan.

Pietersen doubtlessly bats in the way that is most natural to him, but while being naturally talented, and no doubt 'a natural' in his own right, wouldn't be considered a textbook 'natural'.

Colly is not doubt manufactured...

Oh stuff it, I'm not sure what I mean now

 

[GIMH]

OK, finally got around to this...


Strauss V Pakistan 128: second-innings, trying to set a total and declare - no blame there.

Are you sure we were batting for quick runs. Pretty sure we got bowled out (not that that means we weren't attempting to declare, obviously).

Cook V Pakistan 127: big enough really, England cantered this game.
Cook V West Indies 105: should have scored more, but the fact he didn't wasn't ever likely to matter.
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.

I think the fact that these were games that we ended up winning easily (or I think in Vaughan's case it was a rain-spoiled draw) is all the more reason why they should have gone on tbh, even if it doesn't matter to my original point of our recent lack of success. Runs were there on a plate in these games, a chance for big hundreds, maybe even double hundreds. I'll say it again, 127 is too low a HS for a batsman of Cook's quality.

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.

Yep, and I think it's down to mentality. Our players are chuffed to finish with a ton on the most part, look at Ponting's reaction at getting out for 196 in Brisbane 06. Wonderful innings but still thoroughly pissed off to miss out on a double.

 

[Richard]

Are you sure we were batting for quick runs. Pretty sure we got bowled out (not that that means we weren't attempting to declare, obviously).

Yeah, our second-innings was 296 for 8 declared (84.5 overs). Strauss was dismissed in the 75th. Not a hell of a lot of fault with him there TBH.

I think the fact that these were games that we ended up winning easily (or I think in Vaughan's case it was a rain-spoiled draw) is all the more reason why they should have gone on tbh, even if it doesn't matter to my original point of our recent lack of success. Runs were there on a plate in these games, a chance for big hundreds, maybe even double hundreds. I'll say it again, 127 is too low a HS for a batsman of Cook's quality.

Yeah, agree - I tried to emphasise that it didn't matter, but they should've got more.

We won the Vaughan-century game by an innings and 283 runs BTW. 'Twas the previous innings - Cook's 105 - that our chances were scuppered by rain.

Yep, and I think it's down to mentality. Our players are chuffed to finish with a ton on the most part, look at Ponting's reaction at getting out for 196 in Brisbane 06. Wonderful innings but still thoroughly pissed off to miss out on a double.

Anyone should be absolutely gutted to miss a century\double-century by a boundary, of course, but yes I agree completely with what you're saying.

So often you see batsmen playing a few extra shots after making a century, being dismissed for 120 and going in barely with a "that's a shame" thought. Nasser Hussain was one exception, not that it terribly often spurred him to massive scores.

 

[GIMH]

Was getting mixed up between the 1st and 3rd Tests on the Strauss one, forgive me

As for the Vaughan one, silly of me, should have remembered that he missed the 1st Test of last summer, where we scored so many centuries that i think Monty might have actually got one

 

[Richard]

Was getting mixed up between the 1st and 3rd Tests on the Strauss one, forgive me

You should have remembered that Strauss should have got no more than 29 in that Headingley Third Test second-innings that series.

And had he got just that, of course, we might perfectly possibly have lost that game, so I won't moan too much about that decision.

 

[GIMH]

Thought you always liked to see the batsmen out when they should be, regardless of the result

 

[Richard]

Put it this way - had it been given out, I'd not have had many complaints. I seem to recall thinking "he's gone there... WHAAAAAT?" at the time.

But I'd not be rushing to find-out what'd have happened in that game (were such a thing possible) had the decision gone the other way.

 

[GIMH]

TBH, can't remember the let-off, what was it?

 

[Richard]

Was absolutely plumb lbw to Kaneria, for some very odd reason Billy Doctrove said n\o.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

FFS Dicko, are you phobic of the forward-slash? I don't know if this is another grab for non-conformity or your keyboard's Chinese-made, but this annoys me.

 

[Richard]

Unlike 1981\82s and 1968/69s, I'm aware of no precedent regarding n\o \ n/o.

But yes, the backslash is far, far easier to tap (yes, risky with you around, I know) than the foreslash on this 'ere keyboard. And I'm long into the habit and am having to work very hard to change this where cricket seasons are concerned.