Do England batsmen struggle on fast bouncy tracks?

[morgieb]

Who does Evermind actually support?

Yarp's possibly?

 

[Uppercut]

1st Test: South Africa v England at Centurion, Dec 16-20, 2009 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
3rd Test: South Africa v England at Cape Town, Jan 3-7, 2010 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
4th Test: South Africa v England at Johannesburg, Jan 14-17, 2010 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
Eng 123 (37.0 ov, CT Tremlett 1*, RJ Harris 6/47) - Match over | Live Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Or have I been listening to Boycott and Botham too long?

Obviously they won in Durban but that wasn't a bouncy track IMO. Not as bouncy as Johannesburg anyway.

You could argue that guys like Strauss, Cook and Collingwood, who only ever get half forward and don't get out of their crease to defend on the front foot, get found out a bit more on the front foot - especially in defence - on pitches with that sort of carry.

Not entirely sure that it's the case, but it's a possible reason?

Hmm. Strauss, Cook and Collingwood all have very obvious (and similar) weaknesses though. I know Jono's list wasn't meant to be a comprehensive list of England's batting collapses, but he hasn't included any of the matches played against Pakistan last summer when those three barely made a run between them, nor has he included the first innings at Brisbane.

If he had, the common factor wouldn't be particularly bouncy pitches, it would be accurate bowling. The pitch on the first innings at Lord's in the last Ashes was at least as quick as the one at Cape Town '09, but England didn't struggle in the slightest. Because Australia bowled filth.

I'd say that on any pitch that you wouldn't go out of your way to describe as "slow", if you get the ball full in the corridor to these guys often enough, you'll get them out. If you don't, they'll score runs. It's that simple, IMO.

 

[vcs]

Hmm. Strauss, Cook and Collingwood all have very obvious (and similar) weaknesses though. I know Jono's list wasn't meant to be a comprehensive list of England's batting collapses, but he hasn't included any of the matches played against Pakistan last summer when those three barely made a run between them, nor has he included the first innings at Brisbane.

If he had, the common factor wouldn't be particularly bouncy pitches, it would be accurate bowling. The pitch on the first innings at Lord's in the last Ashes was at least as quick as the one at Cape Town '09, but England didn't struggle in the slightest. Because Australia bowled filth.

I'd say that on any pitch that you wouldn't go out of your way to describe as "slow", if you get the ball full in the corridor to these guys often enough, you'll get them out. If you don't, they'll score runs. It's that simple, IMO.

Nothing in that is specific to England, it is common to all batting lineups in the world.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I'd say that on any pitch that you wouldn't go out of your way to describe as "slow", if you get the ball full in the corridor to these guys often enough, you'll get them out. If you don't, they'll score runs. It's that simple, IMO.

Yes, strongly agree with this.

 

[Uppercut]

Nothing in that is specific to England, it is common to all batting lineups in the world.

Definitely, but it's especially true of those particular three batsmen.

 

[Mister Wright]

In the first innings Strauss & Cook did not look uncomfortable at all. Cook played a lose shot and opened up new batsmen to an 'all-of-a-sudden' world beating Johnson spell. Obviously they lost a bit of confidence from that and Australia got on a roll off the back of it.

Both teams bowled really well in that match, and England bowled Australia out for winnable totals, and it was only the first innings collapse from 0/70 odd to all out for 260 odd that lost them the game.

I think the Perth result was less about England not playing bounce well, and more about Australia suddenly getting on top. Although, after Australia got on top the lack of confidence on the bouncier decks could have played a factor.

 

[centurymaker]

In the first innings Strauss & Cook did not look uncomfortable at all. Cook played a lose shot and opened up new batsmen to an 'all-of-a-sudden' world beating Johnson spell. Obviously they lost a bit of confidence from that and Australia got on a roll off the back of it.

Both teams bowled really well in that match, and England bowled Australia out for winnable totals, and it was only the first innings collapse from 0/70 odd to all out for 260 odd that lost them the game.

I think the Perth result was less about England not playing bounce well, and more about Australia suddenly getting on top. Although, after Australia got on top the lack of confidence on the bouncier decks could have played a factor.

180 odd actually IIRC

 

[TT Boy]

1st Test: South Africa v England at Centurion, Dec 16-20, 2009 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
3rd Test: South Africa v England at Cape Town, Jan 3-7, 2010 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
4th Test: South Africa v England at Johannesburg, Jan 14-17, 2010 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
Eng 123 (37.0 ov, CT Tremlett 1*, RJ Harris 6/47) - Match over | Live Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Or have I been listening to Boycott and Botham too long?

Obviously they won in Durban but that wasn't a bouncy track IMO. Not as bouncy as Johannesburg anyway.

Durban is the second quickest track in the Republic and is notorious for its bounce. In contrast, Cape Town is the slowest and Centurion hasn’t been quick in years. England do struggle on quick surfaces but the aforementioned are not the best examples.