With Us, the Force Is – Day Three at the Ageas Bowl

Jimmy-Anderson

Whisper it quietly, but we might actually win this test match. Now there’s something we haven’t said for a long time. About eleven months in fact.

The force is definitely with our team for a change. Since November last year, the Sith have been winning the battle: how else can you explain the success of guys like David Warner? There was something very dark at work.

Now all of a sudden, Yoda’s boys are back in business. Our batsmen’s wickets seem to be protected by an invisible force-field – Cook, Bell and Buttler could / should have all been out for ducks – whilst the umpires seemed to fall for the old “Out? That’s not the decision you’re looking for” trick. Weak minded fools, obviously.

Our good fortune with the bat has now translated into good fortune with the ball. Just as India seemed to be establishing a reasonable platform, Sharma and Rahane hit innocuous balls from Moeen Ali straight up in the air.

With the new ball due a few overs later, Jimmy and Broad pressed home the advantage they were unable to seize at Lord’s.

I wish I could tell you how England have managed to turn this around. But I can’t. It’s inexplicable really. We were bloody awful in the second test, but have played extremely well in this one.

Maybe it’s the genius of Peter Moores? Maybe Cook has eaten more spinach that usual? Or maybe the senior players finally got a kick up the arse?

I really don’t know (although I suspect it’s not the former). What I do know, however, is that luck seems more integral to cricket than any other sport. If you’re a batsman, you either play and miss or you edge it. It’s a fine margin. Sometimes things go for you; sometimes they don’t. It really is in the lap of the Gods.

One thing that good cricketers do, however, is take advantage of good fortune. England have most certainly done this. We’ve actually been quite ruthless.

One of my bugbears about Flower’s teams in 2012 and 2013 was their ability to establish brilliant platforms but then throw it away. 250-2 became 400 all out on far too many occasions. It was therefore really satisfying to see the boys finally construct a really big total – and as we all know, scoreboard pressure is a buggar for the opposition and gives the bowling team a huge lift.

It will be interesting to see if we enforce the follow on tomorrow (if we can take the final two Indian wickets cheaply of course). My instinct is to bat again. Our bowlers need rest. It’s a long series.

Furthermore, the opportunity to bat again under absolutely no pressure will do Cook and Robson, who are possibly the shakiest batsmen in the team right now, the world of good.

Unless there’s bad weather around, I’m generally not a fan of the follow on. Small run chases on day five are too much to bear. Plus I’ve never understood why anyone would want to squander the advantage of bowling last on a wearing pitch.

However, if there’s one thing I’ve learned about England over the last couple of years, it’s that they’ll do the opposite of what I personally think is best.

Cook has taken criticism of his negative captaincy to heart. What better way to show the naysayers that you’re proactive and positive than enforcing the follow on and going for the jugular?

We’ll see …

James Morgan

 

14 comments

  • Why is it okay for England to wear ‘Help for Heoes’ logo on their collar and it’s not okay for Ali to wear a wristband saying ‘free gaza’????????

    • It’s that old clap trap about keeping politics out of sport. What they really mean is “Keep politics that I don’t like or care about out of sport.”

      As for what is different about this Test , simple. A very toothless attack, on a very flat pitch in hot weather. That has allowed England to create scoreboard pressure. If they decide to bat again it will interesting to see how braved the declaration will be.

    • He also wore a wristband saying Free Palestine. That is a contentious issue. Help for Heroes is a charity and should not be used as a political statement. If Ali had worn a wristband highlighting a Gaza charity that would have been a good idea. Humanitarian, helping the wounded and saving lives. No problem with that.

      • totally naive and ignorant – since when is the military not political – cricket only a game , hey – get in line behind Giles Clarke

      • All about perspective. HfH is inextricably linked with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you’re one of India’s 150,000,000+ Muslims you might think it political. Likewise, Pakistan is bombed daily as part of a war we’re involved in. Would they consider it so neutral, or could it be perceived as political?

        • The fact is that HfH have always been about support for the individuals who are injured in service, rather than the rights or wrongs of the war they’re involved in.

          • If the Pakistani team turned up wearing the logo of a charity which represented the military which took part – and is still taking part – in a bombing campaign of our country, would we find that provocative/political, or just say they just support the soldiers, not the war?

            • I take your point, but hopefully a charity that represented injured veterans would be seen for what it is by all.

              There are idiots on all sides though.

      • But Telegraph readers are sanctimonious hypocrites over the issue of politics in sport. In the 80s the typical Tory believed cricketers should go to South Africa. “Politics and sport should not mix” they cried. Conveniently forgetting that their beloved leader Mrs Thatcher had called for British athletes to boycott the Moscow Olympics.

        It was quite funny watching the same “politics in sport shouldn’t mix” brigade demanding the England Cricket team boycott Zimbabwe a few years ago.

        They are very one eyed in how they see the world. I once tried to ask one of these reactionaries how he would feel if the English football team would play an IRA team. He was most indignant. “Of course they should not play an IRA team, that is quite different.”

        As I say, it is only politics they don’t like or does not effect them they think should not mix with sport.

        • I find both the Telegraph and the Guardian depressing more often than I’d like. The readerships are two sides of the same coin, but both desperately denying they have anything in common.

  • Enjoyed the article very much but do not agree about the follow on. Bowlers schedule is heavy. Long hot day in the field. Tired legs and Broad carrying an injury. Jordan not contributing. Support Cook and Robson going in again with Buttler at 3.

    • Jenny. I said I hope we don’t enforce the follow on, but suspect we might. I agree with you :-)

  • The follow on is not necessary in this day and age if the batsmen are prepared to push the scoring rate along and set up a decent score. Then its up to the captain to judge a decent time to declare.

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

copywriter copywriting