So Where Do England Go From Here?
My sports teacher once told me that he took special interest in a player's performances when there was there was little or nothing to play for, as it was in these situations that a sportsman could show his mettle.
After the disastrous third day of the third Test, which defied analysis, it became clear that after six straight wins, England were going to lose this series. The performances of those players who have established their positions in the team would have exasperated my old sports master, while the batting of Collingwood, Bell and in some respects Udal would have impressed him. Flintoff, Pietersen, Vaughan and Trescothick would have been made to do several laps of the outfield, in the knowledge that the showers would be cold when they finally returned to the changing room.
Perhaps the England players have been converted to the media's point of view that the result is the only thing that matters. The meek surrender after lunch on the final day seemed to suggest this and was reminiscent of England's defeat at Lords. Even if the result appears inevitable, those who wear the England jersey should rage against the dying of the light. Every run should be fought for, every wicket should be sold dearly and Pakistan should have been made to earn their victory.
In the words of Garland Rice:
For when the one Great Scorer comes
To write against your name,
He marks - not that you won or lost -
But how you played the game.
The majority of the England team scored poorly today, in more ways than one.
posted by Unknown @ 9:20 pm
4 Comments:
Its amazing..that the 2 people who were not established in the team - Bell and Collingwood, played well... and mind you, they dont have half the talent of the vaughans, flintoffs, pietersens.
Pietersen played terribly this series... Flintoff can't be asked to rescue every test. Its unfair for the media to criticise him. But Pietersen deserves a spanking.
But I guess, the match was lost with Shoaib taking out Trescothik and Vaughan.
My frustrated sentiments entirely. The fact that a determined player can out perform a more talented, but less dedicated peformer, makes cricket a truly wonderful game.
I think you're a little harsh on Pietersen though. He averaged 33.5 this series, which is a little disappointing, but it was his first tour to the sub-continent. The media show double standards with Pietersen. They will praise him for playing an unnecessarily agreessive innings of 158 to win the Ashes at the Oval, but then castigate him for failing to play defensively in Pakistan.
Build him up, then knock him down. The ploy of the talentless journalists, who write about the game.
I am not criticising Pietersen for not playing defensively (pietersen doesn't have a defensive bone in his body) but because he didnt play properly...he was too casual. Am sure the difference between Ashes and now, is that Kevin is now "established". Poor Bell and Paul had to prove themselves and that was the key difference: commitment.
Nevertheless, Pietersen needs a spank :) He reminds me a bit of Yuvraj Singh...Supremely talented, gifted... but a bit casual.
I must admit to my ignorance here Reem, I had to look up Yuvraj Singh on cricinfo He does sound similar to Pietersen, although the number of talented batsmen in the Indian team looks like restricting him to a mainly one-day career.
I notice he played for Yorkshire in the 2003 season without much success (12 innings @ 14.5), which suggests motivational problems as I would have expected a player with his talent to do better at that level.
Post a Comment
<< Home