View Single Post
Old 08-06-2019, 09:55 AM
mhendo is offline
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,458
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
Roy was "playing his natural game". The idea is that you can take a destructive ODI/T20 player and turn them into destructive Test players with minimal modification. It's an idea that has some merit - skill at hitting a ball with the bat should translate from one format to the other - but falls down badly on the shifting risk/reward ratios in the different games.
Not only that, but it's very rare that a batsman in a one-day game is facing a spinner on a fifth-day pitch with cracks and bowlers' follow-through footmarks to deal with. You just have to change your batting technique under those circumstances.

Because I live in the US, and don't follow cricket anywhere near as closely as I used to do when I lived in Australia, I'm not as familiar with the England team as I would have been twenty years ago, when I knew every player and could offer a decent analysis of what changes they might need to make for the second test. Still, based on watching this test, I found this analysis interesting.

His central argument appears to be that this loss can't really be blamed on poor player selection, or on poor performances by the English players. Rather, he argues that English cricket has basically ignored the "red-ball game" in favor of "white-ball talents," and as a result they just don't have enough players who are good enough to really compete at the international test level. I'd be curious to hear what England fans, and other cricket fans who watch more cricket than I do, think about this argument.