Are England big game chokers?
There's a great photo at Pommy Tragics of a Sydney bus ad that simply says "The Poms are going to choke" (thanks to Tom for the link). Sage words, indeed! And it begs the question - are England big game chokers?
Pressure is a funny thing. Before the series, England claimed the underdog tag, said Australia were under pressure and they have nothing to lose. But they do have something to lose - the Ashes. The anticipation for the hyped series deflated like a burst balloon when Harmison's first delivery in Brisbane sprayed to second slip (with a trajectory much like a burst balloon). It set the tone for the next two and a half days as England's wayward bowling was only matched by its insipid first innings batting. They snapped out of it by the second innings but the damage was done. The magnitude of the 1st Test failure was dwarved by their collective brain explosion in the 2nd Test. Their huge total of 551 only went to prove that the bigger the first innings, the harder the fall.
It demonstrates the cruel truth of Test cricket - it can take just one bad session to lose a Test match. This is particularly the case when playing Australia who rarely let their opposition squirm out of their grasp once they get into a winning position. It took one morning of poor batting to wipe out 4 previous days in Adelaide. England's problem is while they can equal or better Australia for short periods, they fail to maintain it for the full length of a Test match.
What about 2005, you say? England won the Ashes - how can you maintain they choked? The truth is, England won the series in spite of themselves. They grossly outplayed us in all departments - batting, bowling and fielding. Even then, they couldn't help but offer us chances to win the Ashes back (unfortunately we declined the offer). In Edbaston, we were dead and buried but their bowlers just couldn't finish off our tailenders. At Trent Bridge, they had a whole day to chase a total smaller than what we polished off in 33 overs on Tuesday. In the end, they barely dragged themselves over the line with only Harmison and Simon Jones left in the shed. And once again at the Oval, their batsmen froze like a deer in headlights. Kevin Pietersen offered us multiple chances to put him back in the pavilion - any of those catches taken could've seen the Oval go the same way as the Adelaide Oval. England choked as per usual - the only difference was this one time, we failed to take advantage of it.
So what about the assertion that this is a young team unscarred by past defeats. Obviously, bunkem! Perhaps growing up watching their English heroes destroyed by past Australian greats (many of whom are still in the current team) was a vicarious form of scarring. Or my own personal theory - England's choking tendency is as much a case of nature as nurture.
| Posted by JC on Fri 8 Dec |  3 comments |
I think psychological weakness is the bottom line with the English team. They are quite a few talented players in the side who are psychologically tough -- Flintoff, Pietersen, and Hoggard -- but mental weakness and doubt is infectious. How can England retain a bowler who is supposedly a strike / opening bowler but averaging 200+ and still remain positive? Averaging over 35 in Australian cricket as a strike bowler will get you the chop. The 2007 Macquarie Dictionary will no doubt contain the phrase "Do a Harmison". It's time England made some hard decisions in order to protect the spirit trying to be nurtured by its key players.
Posted by TA on 2006-12-08 11:25:00
Posted by TA on 2006-12-08 11:25:00
Post New Comment
You need to be logged in to post a comment. If you're new, register here. Existing users, login via the right margin.
