Who Needs The Short Game

Who needs shortened forms of the game when Test cricket can walk along such a knife edge?

At Lords, the best new ball bowler in the world, Mohammad Amir, took 4 wickets in nine deliveries, including Pietersen, Collingwood and Morgan for ducks. If you add Swann a little later in the day, he had four English for gozzers after facing only nine balls. Pietersen, his head now full of the fear of failure, did just that after sitting at the non strikers end for an over contemplating the conditions which were heavy and overcast. At the change of over, he was out first ball and to a dreadfully confused drive at a wide ball. Collingwood got a peach of an inswinger and was out on review and Morgan copped one that went the other which he snicked to slip.

Prior stayed with Trott to add 55 but his and Swann departure to a resurgent Aimir left England at 7-105 and in their embarrassment, they could hardly avoid the knives of the press. Many are calling for change but how quickly the English media turn on their heroes. If England are to fail in their quest to defend the Ashes, their print media will need to shoulder some of the blame. Too often, they bay and carp, unprepared to see the big picture and to ride with a player through the troughs as well as the peaks.

Australian press it little better.

The call to sack Cook and include James Hildreth - a man who will certainly tour Australia on a ticket well earned - is the classic case of the simplicity with which many in the media see change. For this to happen, Trott would have to open, Pietersen and Collingwood move up the order so that the talented Hildreth could play in his favoured middle order. Stuff up the batting order instead of persevere? What to do with Pietersen then?

Meanwhile, in the real world at Lords, Aimir had six, England had lost seven, Trott looked as safe as the Bank of England (actually, a damn sight safer) and Sturt Broad was bringing his lanky frame to the crease. Naturally, as you would expect, he batted with little worry and added a near record 9th wicket partnership with Trott. Of course that happened. Completely predictable under the circumstances.

Trott was superb and batted like the best No 3 in Test cricket. His secret is that he likes it tough. When the chips are down, his best batting comes out on show and this effort was his best so far. He drove with great assurance, picking length and line with complete precision, even when the clouds were in and Aimir was rampant. He is a player to content with.

At the other end, Broad, always the improver with the bat, push the ball straight, just getting the ball onto the bat, often driving to the fieldsmen as his confidence grew . His was an example of batting in partnership and not batting for himself. Interesting. I wonder if that old Buckafly Effect is starting to pick up the slack? As the Pakistanis tired - mentally as much as physically - Broad then became the leader in the partnership and eventually became only the third English No 9 to score a century and by close of play, the highest scorer of those.

It was a remarkable day of Test cricket, with all of the drama and the ebb and flow of something written for a great stage. Don't tell me Test cricket is predictable and the short games are not. You have it transposed I supposed.