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

[GIMH]

So this morning I was discussing last night's events with a colleague who hadn't seen the scoreboard. Told him of Ambrose's ton and how he got out the next over. He was hardly surprised. And why would he be?

We have, batting as I type, two batsmen with good records and in their early Test careers both scored a lot of centuries. Seventeen between them in their first 50(ish) Tests - yet neither has passed 150. From memory, Cook's HS is 127 (I was there when he scored that ) and Strauss's is around the 147 mark.

So I thought I would look into this over the last three years, starting with the 2005 Ashes. Here are the centuries scored since then:

Vaughan V Australia 166
Strauss V Australia 106
Flintoff V Australia 102
Strauss V Australia 129
Pietersen V Australia 158
Trescothick V Pakistan 193
Bell V Pakistan 115
Pietersen V Pakistan 100
Collingwood V India 134*
Cook V India 104
Strauss V India 128
Pietersen V Sri Lanka 158
Trescothick V Sri Lanka 106
Pietersen V Sri Lanka 142
Cook V Pakistan 105
Collingwood V Pakistan 186
Bell V Pakistan 100*
Strauss V Pakistan 128
Cook V Pakistan 127
Bell V Pakistan 106*
Pietersen V Pakistan 135
Bell V Pakistan 119
Strauss V Pakistan 116
Collingwood V Australia 206
Pietersen V Australia 158
Cook V Australia 116
Cook V West Indies 105
Collingwood V West Indies 111
Bell V West Indies 109*
Prior V West Indies 126*
Pietersen V West Indies 109
Vaughan V West Indies 103
Pietersen V West Indies 226
Cook V West Indies 106
Collingwood V West Indies 128
Collingwood V India 134
Pietersen V India 134
Vaughan V India 124
Pietersen V India 101
Cook V Sri Lanka 118
Ambrose V New Zealand 102

In this list there are 42 centuries. Only two of these have been turned into doubles, and just eight have been over 150 (including the two doubles). Also, there are only five not outs, four of which are from Bell/Prior batting at 6/7.

When passing 100 in this period, our batsmen average 142.68 per dismissal. This is actually a lot higher than I was expecting...however, i think if you look at our batsmen aside from KP/Colly, there seems to be a psychological trend of 100...job done. I believe that this is a major factor in our failure to dominate games in this period. We need players going on to 170, 180, and it just isn't happening. Cook is a great batsmen and I would never criticise a player who gets a century but getting out in the 100s and 110s...he should be doing better, carrying his bat through the innings and scoring a double century from time to time.

Do I expect too much or is this fair enough? There are 19 scores below 120 in my list, admittedly including Bell's not outs, but still...I think this is an area we need to improve in. Thoughts?

 

[Richard]

Biggest difference is we tend to drop the Jayawardenes and Sangakkaras of this World, hence allowing them to score the massive scores we tend not to be allowed to score, because when our batsmen give the chance on 130, it gets caught.

Seriously - while there is something in what I said above, there clearly always has been a lack of application for long, long, long times from English batsmen. Why, I just don't know.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, I was wondering if you could help me a little actually.

From memory, I reckon Tresco was dropped in his 193, Vaughan got 2 or 3 lives in his 166, and Pietersen was dropped in most of his big scores. This would affect the average score when getting a ton and make us look even worse...do you know of any other big scores that have had a fair few chances?

 

[Richard]

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.

You're right on all those you mention there BTW.

 

[GIMH]

Do it in the tea break

LOL...tbh lately I should probably worry more about our players getting 40s and 50s rather than 100s...given our recent conversion rates I guess I sound a little "my diamond shoes don't fit me" but I have high expectations.

Not criticising Ambrose, btw, as he did a splendid job, along with Colly, in taking us from a bad position to a rather good one, but his 100 then out just seemed all to familiar to me.

 

[Prince EWS]

They're just not as good as Mathew Sinclair.

Seriously though, I'd like to see if this was a trend that extended past just recent times, and how England compared to other countries. I could just coincidental that the batsmen currently in the England team do not have the concentration powers required to go on and make huge scores, and the problem could really have nothing to do with "cricketing upbringing" as such, but we'd need more data to make a call on that.

 

[Top_Cat]

They're just not as good as Mathew Sinclair.

Seriously though, I'd like to see if this was a trend that extended past just recent times, and how England compared to other countries. I could just coincidental that the batsmen currently in the England team do not have the concentration powers required to go on and make huge scores, and the problem could really have nothing to do with "cricketing upbringing" as such, but we'd need more data to make a call on that.

Yeah it's an interesting point. Because in the last couple of years, I don't recall many big tons or doubles by Aussie batsmen either. Plenty of centuries overall but few big hundreds where one batsman has totally dominated.

 

[Richard]

Seriously though, I'd like to see if this was a trend that extended past just recent times

Oh, it is, beyond question. Only Nasser Hussain out of England's "big six" of the 2nd half of the 1990s (Butcher, Atherton, Hussain, Stewart, Thorpe, Ramprakash) scored a chanceless Test double-century (Thorpe scored one when he was dropped on 4, which in fairness is a chanceless 196* and Atherton got a 185*).

But there's no doubting the last English generation of batsmen to be good at cashing-in big-time was the lot which played in the 1950s and 1960s. Even the likes of Boycott, Greig, Gower, Gatting, Lamb, Smith, etc. were far from excellent in this area. Only Gooch, more than ever later in his career, bucked this trend.

 

[Swervy]

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.

You're right on all those you mention there BTW.

will we get to see this on here?

 

[Precambrian]

Big 100s are not pre-requisites for series wins.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Comes down to not facing English bowlers for mine.

 

[Manee]

Seriously - while there is something in what I said above, there clearly always has been a lack of application for long, long, long times from English batsmen. Why, I just don't know.

Perhaps it is because there are few featherbeds in County cricket and so batsmen simply do not get the mental experience in converting hundreds to big ones.

 

[Precambrian]

Heck, cannot comment on this without getting stats of other teams as well.

At the look of it average of 142 looks very good. Maybe as well to do with the increased scoring rate, coach tells batsman, "ok son, you got the 3 figures, now you better go for the declaration"

 

[Scaly piscine]

Heck, cannot comment on this without getting stats of other teams as well.

At the look of it average of 142 looks very good. Maybe as well to do with the increased scoring rate, coach tells batsman, "ok son, you got the 3 figures, now you better go for the declaration"

On the face of it it is like averaging 42 if you take 100 as the starting point. But then you've got to factor in the batsman's scoring stroke to get to 3 figures may have pushed that starting point beyond 100 so that lowers it to nearer 40. Then you've got to factor in the centuries would be more likely to happen on flatter pitches, so that makes it easier to achieve the '42' average. You also have the fact that the batsmen aren't going through that tricky period when they've just walked out to bat, if you take a Test class batsman's average after they've gotten 'in' then they'll generally average 50+ from that point on.

 

[Richard]

Perhaps it is because there are few featherbeds in County cricket and so batsmen simply do not get the mental experience in converting hundreds to big ones.

Thing is, pitches in domestic cricket have only been the current featherbeds since 2002 (added to the fact that a change of ball manufacturing process meant they swung much less between 2001 and 2006). And as I mentioned, the lack of really massive innings dates back much further than that.

 

[Richard]

will we get to see this on here?

Yeah, of course. Sorry, is the fact I haven't done it within 8 hours (most of which have been spent asleep) of that post not good enough?

 

[Redbacks]

Yeah it's an interesting point. Because in the last couple of years, I don't recall many big tons or doubles by Aussie batsmen either. Plenty of centuries overall but few big hundreds where one batsman has totally dominated.

Don't forget Dizzy's 200 against Bangladesh

Its just the point where players relax and can often throw thier wicket away. Once Mark Waugh used to get to 100 he would play a shot at nearly every ball whereas Steve would dig in.
Seems like a trend that alot of English batters get out in the 50's also. Bell may be a good player, but he would never survive in the Australian team with his conversion rate. Alot of breakthrough youngsters make good runs v Bangladesh and then???

 

[Richard]

OK, here's the list...

Vaughan V Australia 166 - dropped by Gilchrist on 50 (and bowled off a no-ball the previous delivery)
Strauss V Australia 106 - chanceless
Flintoff V Australia 102 - chanceless if I do recall correctly
Strauss V Australia 129 - chanceless
Pietersen V Australia 158 - dropped by Warne on 15, and should also have been caught at mid-off on about 60 or 70-odd IIRR but Katich didn't pick the ball up
Trescothick V Pakistan 193 - plumb lbw on 48 and given n\o
Bell V Pakistan 115 - missed stumped by Kamran Akmal on 30-odd, dropped by Mohammad Yousuf immediately afterwards, both easy chances
Pietersen V Pakistan 100 - dropped off an absolute sitter by Danish Kaneria at mid-off on 40-odd (IIRR)
Collingwood V India 134* - chanceless
Cook V India 104 - dropped on 70 by Harbhajan Singh, easiest c&b ever
Strauss V India 128 - think he was dropped about 3 times, but not sure
Pietersen V Sri Lanka 158 - caught off a no-ball on 52, and I'm pretty sure he was dropped again sometime later
Trescothick V Sri Lanka 106 - plumb lbw given n\o on 28
Pietersen V Sri Lanka 142 - chanceless, magnificent innings
Cook V Pakistan 105 - missed at least 4 times, first on about 5, may even have been 0, shockingly poor innings
Collingwood V Pakistan 186 - dropped on 79 by Kamran Akmal, only ever seen 2 worse misses by a wicketkeeper in my life, that very recent one in the ODI by McCullum off Cook, and 1 off Craig White by Deep Dasgupta
Bell V Pakistan 100* - chanceless
Strauss V Pakistan 128 - chanceless I'm almost certain
Cook V Pakistan 127 - chanceless I'm almost certain
Bell V Pakistan 106* - chanceless
Pietersen V Pakistan 135 - 5 let-offs at regular intervals (and also included a retired period), shockingly poor innings
Bell V Pakistan 119 - chanceless, at least until very late - possibly might have been dropped after passing 100
Strauss V Pakistan 116 - plumb lbw given n\o on 29
Collingwood V Australia 206 - chanceless
Pietersen V Australia 158 - chanceless
Cook V Australia 116 - chanceless
Cook V West Indies 105 - chanceless
Collingwood V West Indies 111 - dropped on 31 and 36 and given n\o to a plumb lbw on 32
Bell V West Indies 109* - chanceless
Prior V West Indies 126* - chanceless
Pietersen V West Indies 109 - chanceless
Vaughan V West Indies 103 - chanceless
Pietersen V West Indies 226 - stumped off a no-ball from Gayle on 20
Cook V West Indies 106 - dropped on 42 by Collymore
Collingwood V West Indies 128 - chanceless if I do recall correctly
Collingwood V India 134 - think you've just reproduced Pietersen's TBH, Collingwood's last century was that previous 1 against West Indies
Pietersen V India 134 - chanceless I think
Vaughan V India 124 - chanceless
Pietersen V India 101 - not sure TBH
Cook V Sri Lanka 118 - dropped on 54
Ambrose V New Zealand 102 - chanceless

 

[slowfinger]

Yeah, I think they Don't score 'Big Hundreds' often 'cus they have no real pure batsmen produced apart from, Collingwood Cook and Bell, these are the only main people to trust.
Not like when Atherton and Gower and Hussain IMO.

 

[Prince EWS]

they have no real pure batsmen produced apart from, Collingwood Cook and Bell

Strange call. Not only are Pietersen and Vaughan fit to be listed alongside those players, but they are actually superior to them as far as I'm concerned.