Some analysis of day 1, and why the team matters.

Can I first of all say the one thing I don't want to discuss here is Pietersen. There are already n + 1 threads on the Pietersen saga (which has probably reached the "gate" status by now), and frankly I am sick of it.

What I do want to do is to go some way to explain why a team which is unhappy, as clearly England are (a side so used to winning which suddenly starts losing will necessarily be unhappy, if only for that reason) in general won't perform to the best of their ability.

Some of you may scoff at the very notion of unhappiness: these are professional cricketers, they should be able to perform regardless of their mental state etc. You are to some extent right; certainly every cricketer out there yesterday tried their hardest and gave their absolute all.

It is also right to say that unlike most team sports (e.g. football or rugby) cricket is essentially an individual battle between batsman and bowler. But in this battle their are key support players, where team ethic obviously plays a part. I am talking of course of fielding. And frankly, England's fielding performance yesterday was shoddy.

When Australia brought cricket as a sport (rather than as a skillset, where you could argue that they didn't reach the heights of the fearsome West Indies, and of course their skills were basically based on the rather talented cricketers they had) to new heights in the early to mid noughties, they did so on the back of their fielding. I am not talking about catching, or even misfields vs diving stops. I am talking general fielding standards, the way they used to choke the opposition by attacking every ball, wizzing throws into the keeper over the stumps from everywhere, etc.

Take the 2006/07 ashes side. If McGrath was bowling you would have Clark down at fine-leg; in the slips you had Warne, Ponting, Langer, then Hayden at gully. Then comes the scary bit, the in-field: Clarke, Symonds, Hussey, B. Lee - each of them fearsome athletes, with strong and accurate throws. Quick singles became almost impossible; in fact when Read played a perfectly reasonable drop and run in the final test at Sydney, Symmonds pounced and Panesar was run out by a yard. But beyond runs saved and wickets taken it was the overall effect: as a batsman you couldn't get away from the strike, every shot was pounced upon, balls were rarely (if ever) fumbled, throws were fast and accurate.

The effect is not always measurable, although most recently in the MCG test between Australia and India, I reckon the difference in fielding and running between the wickets cost India 43 runs before the final innings begun. That's 248 they could have been chasing, rather than 291, certainly a real and psychological difference.

So what about yesterday? I didn't start out doing in depth analysis (although I'm sure the England coaches did - over the last couple of years I have been fortunate enough to meet and talk to guys like Chris Taylor (England Lions fielding coach) and Ben Smith (Worcestershire's), so what I'm going to say will certainly have been noted), but I was struck by how untidy England's fielding as a unit was. Sure, Bairstow and Taylor (in particular, but Broad also) made some brilliant stops, and the catching was fine, but beyond that?

In the first dozen or so overs, I counted 4 unncessary long barriers (a practice most coaches now think is not to be encouraged), and 6 balls being fumbled. None of this cost any runs, but it was noticeable. This is in the first few overs, where a lot of balls went through to the keeper, so a non-negligeable percentage of balls were being fumbled. Which is untidy. And although not measurable, does have an effect on the game, it is very different as a batsman to be confronted by fielders swooping on every ball with perfect pick-up and throws, rather than someone lazily getting down into the long-barrier and then not picking it up cleanly.

Then of course, England got on top and the fielding was generally fine. Or if it wasn't I was too busy watching the cricket to notice, but certainly nothing jumped out at me.

But where things really got messy was when Philander came into bat, and IMO England undid much of the excellent work they'd done throughout the day. At one stage Philander had 27 off 31 balls, with only 3 fours. That means he'd scored 15 off 28 without boundaries. He also scored a couple of twos (there may have been more, but I don't think so; if someone has it on V+ I'd be interested to know). That means in the meantime he scored 11 singles off just 26 balls. That is more than 2 out of 5 balls he's scoring singles off. This is not Mike Hussey, this is Vernon Philander, and yet he is scoring off a percentage of balls which would look good in a one-day game (certainly in a powerplay, and as England never had more than 3 fielders on the boundary this is effectively what we were in, although more attacking fielders does mean more gaps) let alone a test match!

Now a few of these singles were hit to the extraordinarily placed deep fielders off Swann. But a significant number (I think more than half) were score with "drop and run" techniques, and should never have been given away. Duminy scored a few also. The worse offender was Trott (3 times I can remember, although I wrote 4 last night, so there may be an instant I've forgotten), and the worse one was the near run-out of Duminy which he missed: Duminy hit it firmly, and straight at Trott, there should never even have been a thought of a single, and Duminy should have been at least a yard and a half short (even granting for the throw missing) yet he more or less made it. Another instance was when Philander dropped it short of Trott at mid-on; when you're at mid-on and you see the batsman play from the crease you know if it's going to you it will be in front and to your right and you anticipate.

But I don't really want to single out Trott, the point I am making is that England were collectively flat-footed. Bell was flat-footed on the boundary (had he not been, Philander may well have been caught off his top-edge hook off Finn quite early on). It was shoddy, it was completely unlike England.

The effects of this are multiple:
- obviously you are giving away runs (not many, but every run matters)
- momentum plays a huge part in cricket, and fielding plays a key part in momentum. England lost a lot of momentum during that partnership last night.
- it lets the bowlers down. Shane Warne used to talk about setting batsmen up, trying to get them out with the 5th delivery of the over: he'd bowl with varying angles, spin, length and judge what he thought the batsman would do, then try to outsmart him. Fast bowlers do the same, we've seen Anderson bowl outswing-outswing-inswing, we've seen Hilfenhaus draw Bopara accross to off-stump then slip in the straight one for the LBW etc. You can't set a batsman up if you're never bowling more than 2 or 3 balls in succession at him.

It was clearly a plan by South Africa during that partnership, and England failed to respond to it. And it was a failing of the team rather than individuals. No one apart from them know why, complacency, morale, whatever. But it could end up very costly.

Starts with those field placings , surely ?

Didn't see the last session , but I can imagine ... have seen England do this quite often , fail to press the tailenders closely enough , fielders back : I don't like it , but it seems to be a deliberate choice to protect the boundaries and allow singles if the batsman is patient...Seems to me rather to under rate the bowlers , and can let the batsmen gain confidence. But I presume they have done some analysis which tells them it pays off more often than not...

Not sure it has anything to do with happiness or otherwise , but I fear it takes away from the general sharpness of the fielding , and can hurt when the batsmen don't co-operate by throwing away their wickets.

alfie wrote:Starts with those field placings , surely ?

Didn't see the last session , but I can imagine ... have seen England do this quite often , fail to press the tailenders closely enough , fielders back : I don't like it , but it seems to be a deliberate choice to protect the boundaries and allow singles if the batsman is patient...Seems to me rather to under rate the bowlers , and can let the batsmen gain confidence. But I presume they have done some analysis which tells them it pays off more often than not...

It wasn't so much the obligatory deep square leg as soon as a tail-ender comes in; it was mid-off/on and point giving away easy singles by not being on their toes. I don't think it was deliberate because the bowlers and Strauss were looking a bit peeved (and trying not to).

As I say , I didn't see it. But I do wonder if the fielders sometimes subconsciously settle into a too relaxed state when they see other deep fielders placed ? Start to see it as a holding action , as it were...So they are waiting to stop an expected hard shot instead of being ready to swoop on a tap and run.

Personally , I prefer to urge my mid off etc in closer at the first sight of a tailender ...let him try and go over and see if he's good enough...Time enough to move 'em back when he demonstrates the will and the skill to hit over the top. It keeps the pressure on the batsman , and has the fielders buzzing...I think the same principle should apply at Test level too ; certainly makes for more entertaining watching.

On similar tact to this thread, which I thoroughly agree with, just watching the Bell and Bairstow partnership and one of the things that has struck me is how well they have run together at the crease. It's just another one of those things that sets the tone for the rest of the innings and let's the opposition know that you are fully turned on and that you are not leaving any runs out there because 10/20 runs could be crucial come fourth innings. And like Dave Brailsford says it is all about marginal gains and they can range from turning ones into twos by running hard, or stopping a single from the opposition because you have set the tone by fielding hard and not fumbling the ball ad all these things add up and will win you matches in the long run. It was something that struck me during the last game that Taylor was in at short leg and Bell wasn't considering Bell is the best I've seen there, and this highlighted for me that perhaps England weren't quite as focused on the little things as they have been (compare it with their meticulous preparation for the Ashes series in Aus) and that they are leaving small things out there that they could be doing better, and they all do add up.

I thought England looked more like a team in the two sessions I caught yesterday.

Great observations Mike.

I was at Lord's today, and must say I was hugely impressed with South Africa in the field. The number of boundaries they stopped in the gully/ backward point region was fantastic and even Tahir made a good diving stop in front of us.

Interesting that you say that the long barrier is no longer encouraged at the highest level. I presume that's because its static rather than dynamic, and puts you in a difficult position to throw the ball in quickly if necessary?

In the team I play in (very low standard) the long barrier is considered a key element to successful fielding - its amazing how many youngsters (and from time to time I've been guilty of this myself) will forget to long barrier and see the ball going straight between their legs!

So you start by saying you'll prove that when a team is unhappy it will perform less well and finish by saying

"No one apart from them know why, complacency, morale, whatever."

Great analysis I agree but hardly proof.

I'm pretty sure it would be empirically impossible to prove whether success breeds happiness or happiness breeds success.

Besides which I could start an argument and say that if a team is too happy (perhaps if a player they dislike has been dropped) they will become lackadaisical and sloppy using exactly the same analysis you've used above.

Very interesting what you say about the long barrier I reckon next time I swoop in like a bird to throw the stumps down only to see the ball rolling away for four I'll quote you if that's okay? x

Shelsey93 wrote:
Interesting that you say that the long barrier is no longer encouraged at the highest level. I presume that's because its static rather than dynamic, and puts you in a difficult position to throw the ball in quickly if necessary?

In the team I play in (very low standard) the long barrier is considered a key element to successful fielding - its amazing how many youngsters (and from time to time I've been guilty of this myself) will forget to long barrier and see the ball going straight between their legs!

Not only. Certainly a two-handed pick up and throw is quicker and more effective when well executed then a long-barrier followed by a throw; and of course the effect on the opposition is different. But it goes a bit deeper than that and more and more we are hearing the long barrier being discouraged at decent (county age-group certainly) levels (this isn't purely my reasoning BTW, it follows conversations with the aforementioned Smith and Taylor):
-when you teach someone the long-barrier you are teaching him to think negatively ("if I miss..."). How often do you see kids go into a long barrier and not really bother putting their hands there cos they know their knee is in the way anyway? You are teaching bad practice.
-if you get a bad bounce it is actually easier to recover if you're not on your knees to start with (try it, try recovering a bad bounce from a long barrier position - unless the bad bounce is particularly kind you're going to struggle).
-frankly (and here is where the argument breaks down at low standards) anyone with decent hand-eye coordination who practices enough should never miss a rolling ball entirely (I would expect them to stop it cleanly at least 9 out of 10, which was what made the constant fumbling by England yesterday baffling).

Then there is the fact that the well executed pick up and throw will have the trail leg as insurance anyway (although I accept it's a much smaller insurance then your two legs stretched out). For me the key point is really the first one: I have far too often seen someone get into a long-barrier position and give away a run as the ball bounces off his knee; for me, the long barrier is really reserved for a ball hit hard, and more or less straight at you.

Hibbz wrote:So you start by saying you'll prove that when a team is unhappy it will perform less well and finish by saying

"No one apart from them know why, complacency, morale, whatever."

Great analysis I agree but hardly proof.

I'm pretty sure it would be empirically impossible to prove whether success breeds happiness or happiness breeds success.

Besides which I could start an argument and say that if a team is too happy (perhaps if a player they dislike has been dropped) they will become lackadaisical and sloppy using exactly the same analysis you've used above.

That's fair. I started writing the article with the intention of "proving" what I said, and as I progressed through it realised there were several other valid interpretations, so ended up just wanting to share some observations, and really convincing people that small things like that do have an effect on the match in question, even if not directly measurable.

Mike Selig wrote:

Hibbz wrote:So you start by saying you'll prove that when a team is unhappy it will perform less well and finish by saying

"No one apart from them know why, complacency, morale, whatever."

Great analysis I agree but hardly proof.

I'm pretty sure it would be empirically impossible to prove whether success breeds happiness or happiness breeds success.

Besides which I could start an argument and say that if a team is too happy (perhaps if a player they dislike has been dropped) they will become lackadaisical and sloppy using exactly the same analysis you've used above.

That's fair. I started writing the article with the intention of "proving" what I said, and as I progressed through it realised there were several other valid interpretations, so ended up just wanting to share some observations, and really convincing people that small things like that do have an effect on the match in question, even if not directly measurable.

That is likewise fair, thanks for sharing especially with regards to the long barrier and I'd have thought the increased athleticism and flexibility of the top players would end up making it redundant at the top level.

Though if it's all the same with you given my increasing girth I'll stick with my preferred method of a size 10 boot.

JDizzle wrote:On similar tact to this thread, which I thoroughly agree with, just watching the Bell and Bairstow partnership and one of the things that has struck me is how well they have run together at the crease. It's just another one of those things that sets the tone for the rest of the innings and let's the opposition know that you are fully turned on and that you are not leaving any runs out there because 10/20 runs could be crucial come fourth innings. And like Dave Brailsford says it is all about marginal gains and they can range from turning ones into twos by running hard ....

Just seen Mike's article and JDizzle's post above. I made a similar point to JD in my post a short while ago on the ''Surrey v Middlesex'' thread in the County Cricket section. There was a superb double hundred partnership today in that game from two young players. The thing that really stood out for me was the excellent running between the wickets, always looking for quick singles and the opportunity to turn ones into twos.

Mike - good and interesting article. I would though have been inclined to steer clear of any reference to 'happiness''. [However, much we dislike it that only tends to prompt thoughts of Pietersen at the current time.)

The key thing to me is that the team is fully and continuously ''switched on'' in the field and, as we've discussed before, each player has respect for all others. I do accept that last bit increases the danger of bringing him again into the debate!

Great article Mike. Another point: bowl better, field less. I though Swann was poor on Thursday. I was at Lords yesterday, and it just looked to me that the SA bowlers looked faster and hungrier than their English counterparts. Perhaps it was my imagination. I thought it was a terrific fightback by Bell, JB and Prior. Kept us in the game for another day at least...