 |
| 'Scuse me umps, what did you think of that one? |
I've been formulating a kernel of an idea for a while now and I'd like to put it out there and invite your thinkings on the subject.
As 'Village Standard' cricketers, we've all been involved in collapses or on the receiving end of hidings. Mostly this is easily explained away because the Oppo 2nd XI vice skippers mate happened to be in Edinburgh that week and he is the third Waugh twin, or maybe the pitch became unplayable at Tea after a seasonal downpour. Sometimes the 13 year old 4th change bowler in Division 7 will go on to become Murali or Warne and never better the 9-1 he took at Arbo. Simply put, there are usually very obvious reasons why one team trounces the other.
Scaling up now to the international stage. The number 1 Test ranked nation have been our southern cousins* for a wee while now (not that you ever hear them mention it). While this noble achievement was reached including the hiding of Australia** down there, the point is often made that there have been no victories over India, Pakistan or Sri Lanka in the back yards of those nations where Pace and Seam fade in the shadow of Turn. While this England mob are rightly ranked at number 1 just now, to move into the more transcendental all-time-great-sides lists, they're going to have to win a series or two against those sides, in those countries.
Therefore the series v Pakistan on neutral, but surely more Pakistan friendly turf has to be viewed as a stern test in the progression of this England side towards the pantheonic debates of all-time great status.
Received wisdom around the first test was that the pitch was decent for batting, but England simply couldn't cope with the regulation spin of Mr Ajmaal and took a horsing inside 3 days. Nothing too irregular, just an age old weakness being exposed once again.
However, in the 2nd Test, as a more professional and resourceful package than sides of yesteryear, England looked to have improved or acclimatised enough to the point where after 3 innings, Boycott (never wrong, ever) had bet his property portfolio on them levelling the series. Ajmaal was no longer a great threat and the England bowling and fielding performance and attitude were more or less at the level they have been for the last 3 years or more. There was very little to suggest what was about to happen.
 |
| England's new number 3? |
As with all arguments, one can select the stats to back up the personal beliefs. I'll stick to just one. Between them, 9 England batsmen could muster only 13 runs in that 4th innings. Once the rot started, there seemed to be a collective infection of the English team and it wasn't just likely that they were rushing headlong towards calamity, but that there was absolutely nothing any of them could do to arrest the decline. The pitch wasn't spitting, the bowlers weren't on fire and the batsmen weren't Chris Martin's. Yet total defeat had somehow become inevitable.
Finally, you will be pleased to know, I'm reaching my point!!!
When a side is in meltdown and it is apparently nothing to do with ability, conditions, history, injuries, circumstance, coaching etc, when there is no obvious reason why an able side, in good mental health and with a track record of dealing with adverse situations begin to absolutely implode, I think there needs to be a name for the syndrome and I'm going to propose the following definition:
Abu Dhabi Downfall - when a sporting team, especially in cricket, succumb to a catastrophic loss of ability and form at the same time leading to inevitable defeat long before the end of the contest.
There is obviously the possibility that you think there was a more obvious reason for such an inept capitulation, I'd counter that any cricket team in any conditions would struggle to do that badly even if they tried to, never mind ones whose players are on about £300k a year.
Thoughts appreciated.
Apologies for those with a shorter attention span, I couldn't fit that into 140 characters.
* I've stated before, do so again now and no doubt will again in the future, that I think the England cricket team has to be renamed. Robert Croft, Eoin Morgan, Mike Denness etc show quite clearly (to me) that it's a British side, not an English one (no need to mention any overseas born 'Englishmen').
**Albeit a transitional Australian side beset by injuries and operating under a Selection Panel that would make its mid-80's English equivalent appear like enlightened tactical genuises.
Posts
