Your Theories Please

[Rebecca]

How do you explain such a turn in events?

How is it possible to play so awful in one match (and we're not just talking about one or two players here - it was most of the team) and then play so well in the next?

It's looking like a repeat of 1984 when the England team went on to win the next test by over 200 runs so it's not just a one off and I'm sure other countries have their own examples they could quote . . .

So, in your opinions, how do you think it is possible? How do you account for it all?! What is it that makes such a difference?

 

[zaremba]

How do you explain such a turn in events?

How is it possible to play so awful in one match (and we're not just talking about one or two players here - it was most of the team) and then play so well in the next?

It's looking like a repeat of 1984 when the England team went on to win the next test by over 200 runs so it's not just a one off and I'm sure other countries have their own examples they could quote . . .

So, in your opinions, how do you think it is possible? How do you account for it all?! What is it that makes such a difference?

When you're collapsing you're collapsing. It can take on a dramatic momentum of its own. But if you can put it behind you there's no reason for it to haunt you.

Everything that's happened since then has been in England's favour. Strauss wanted to play this additional Test, Gayle was set against it (a negative and defensive frame of mind). England were put in on a flat pitch on a high-scoring ground. They got a good opening partnership.

And thus, as Alan Partridge might put it, they've successfully nailed the ghost of Sabina Park to its coffin.

 

[Uppercut]

Whether you get away with your early-innings mistakes or not. Everyone scores the occasional <10 score, the odd time they'll all score one at once.

 

[Langeveldt]

Whether you get away with your early-innings mistakes or not. Everyone scores the occasional <10 score, the odd time they'll all score one at once.

Yeah precisely, the thing that sports fans find hard to fathom is that blips occur say once a year, and it's unusual for it not to happen to be honest.. I imagine the English press were climbing all over the team, wondering if they will fall to the Pitts of hell before close of play, when in reality we are seeing a mid range team play against a fairly poor one, interspersed with all the batsmen failing in one innings.. Nothing unusual about it really, and it's annoying when people over analyse one innings.. If England were to go down in every test then I'd start getting worried

 

[Evermind]

How do you explain such a turn in events?

How is it possible to play so awful in one match (and we're not just talking about one or two players here - it was most of the team) and then play so well in the next?

It's looking like a repeat of 1984 when the England team went on to win the next test by over 200 runs so it's not just a one off and I'm sure other countries have their own examples they could quote . . .

So, in your opinions, how do you think it is possible? How do you account for it all?! What is it that makes such a difference?

It's how you sometimes get the bus 2 minutes after going to the stop, and sometimes have to wait 45 minutes for it?

Such are the vagaries of life. I guess that's just the way things work.

 

[Furball]

Pitch being a road, West Indies not taking chances offered to them, Benn in particular not bowling as well as he did in Jamaica.

 

[Jamee999]

4th innings at Sabina was just variance, England haven't gained 500-odd runs of ability since the 1st test (only like, 30; Bell/Shah )

 

[Uppercut]

4th innings at Sabina was just variance, England haven't gained 500-odd runs of ability since the 1st test (only like, 30; Bell/Shah )

15-20 more for Swann/Panesar tbh.

 

[Rebecca]

So, do you all think it's fair to say that the fact they go on to recover in the next match, shows it's just a blip and one of those things?

 

[Uppercut]

Pretty much. It's all great cricket when it happens, but there's a tendency to overreact. An awkward wicket and some top-quality bowling, collapses happen. They happen to every team.

 

[bryce]

Graeme Swann (N)

 

[craigyc43]

A lot of it is psychological, I know from playing for my club side when you get in one of those collapses it is hard to stop irrelevant of pitch, bowling or conditions. Batsman go in thinking they ar going to get out.

It is a testament to both the players and background staff for coming out in this match fighting. After the embarrasment of the 51ao it brings alittle pride back as long as we go on to skittle them for under 200 this afternoon!

 

[archie mac]

Taking out the WI of the 80s, if you go in with no spinner you will lose more then you will win

 

[Redbacks]

Flat Track Bullies

The last deck turned alot and allowed Benn into the match

 

[Redbacks]

A lot of it is psychological, I know from playing for my club side when you get in one of those collapses it is hard to stop irrelevant of pitch, bowling or conditions. Batsman go in thinking they ar going to get out.

I agree, once the side are in a collapse and perhaps losing seems immanent it can be a snow ball effect on the whole side. Once players bat out side their natural game generally footwork isn't performed at it's required level.

 

[wpdavid]

So, do you all think it's fair to say that the fact they go on to recover in the next match, shows it's just a blip and one of those things?

I don't. 51ao says something pretty clear about the quality of the side - even on their worst off day, sides like Aus, India SA would never make that sort of total. It's an extreme version of what this particular top 6 have been doing for years. If they'd all been averaging 45+ since 2006 then you could say it's a blip, but they haven't and it wasn't: only the extent of it.

How come they've scored so many more in this test? It's a road, the WI attack still isn't all that, and Strauss rode his luck to set up the innings. Yes they've shown a fair amount of character, but things turned out to be in their favour here.

 

[Richard]

Taking out the WI of the 80s, if you go in with no spinner you will lose more then you will win

Taking out West Indies of '76 to '86, there isn't enough data to construct any meaningful hypothesis. Most teams are too keen on the "you must have variation" nonsense to pick an all-seam attack with much regularity.

 

[Richard]

How do you explain such a turn in events?

How is it possible to play so awful in one match (and we're not just talking about one or two players here - it was most of the team) and then play so well in the next?

It's looking like a repeat of 1984 when the England team went on to win the next test by over 200 runs so it's not just a one off and I'm sure other countries have their own examples they could quote . . .

So, in your opinions, how do you think it is possible? How do you account for it all?! What is it that makes such a difference?

Pretty much. It's all great cricket when it happens, but there's a tendency to overreact. An awkward wicket and some top-quality bowling, collapses happen. They happen to every team.

Yeah. The abysmalness of the second-innings collapse (and that's all it was - one bad session, not one bad Test) does show a fair bit about just how poor this batting is, but there's no way you're going to get performances that bad more than once in a blue-moon. England were always going to play much better this time, and the fact that the pitch was a rank road and West Indies missed chances meant the difference was collossal.

Just the way things go sometimes.

 

[Goughy]

Taking out the WI of the 80s, if you go in with no spinner you will lose more then you will win

I believe (without looking) that that isnt true for England 1990s either.

 

[GIMH]

4th innings at Sabina was just variance, England haven't gained 500-odd runs of ability since the 1st test (only like, 30; Bell/Shah )

What 4th innings at Sabina?