India Test series review - Atherton, Strauss and Ian Chappell round table

[King]

England's Andrew Strauss and our regular columnist Mike Atherton are joined by the former Australian captain Ian Chappell as they look back on the India Test series. Scyld Berry: chairs the debate. More... India Test series review By Scyld Berry, Sunday Telegraph Last Updated: 11:19pm BST 18/08/2007 Page 1 of 3 Have your say Read comments Chappell: Once your wicketkeeper starts to cost you, he's got to go. Matt Prior is 25, he's got no footwork, and there's no reason to think he'll get better. Scoreboard: Third Test | Video: Collingwood interview In pics: India win series on English soil Test series averages Strauss: (leaping to defence) I don't think you can get a good idea of how good a player is after only a few Tests. Clearly there are aspects of his game which you are not happy about but he's a pretty motivated character and he will work hard on them. Chappell: The English theory is terribly flawed. You want someone like Adam Gilchrist but Gilly was actually a wicketkeeper - a keeper who happened to be a very good batsman - and he transferred to Perth because he couldn't get the wicketkeeping job at New South Wales. If I were an England selector, I'd look to play Andrew Flintoff at seven, Chris Read at eight and three other bowlers. Strauss: There's a general trend in world cricket towards wicketkeeper/batsmen -Dhoni, Kamran Akmal, Sangakkara … Chappell: But that doesn't mean it's right - they are all forgetting the fact that Gilchrist is actually a wicketkeeper. Berry: Prior dropped a couple of chances in the Headingley Test, which England won, and another couple at the Oval, which England drew. It's a bit early to conclude that he is costing games. Strauss: I feel that he's got under some people's skin in the media and he hasn't been given the settling-in period which new players deserve. Atherton: There's a problem of perception here. If a player is perceived to be a wicketkeeper/batsman, he's judged more harshly than a pure wicketkeeper. Prior has had a couple of bad days, and I think when you retire you forget the bad days you had as a player. I had plenty of bad days myself so I'm not about to crucify a guy. Berry: It was significant he batted well in the brief time he had on Monday afternoon. Atherton: That was a big tick. It was a test of temperament and at the Oval he went noticeably quiet after dropping those two catches. More misery in store for feeble England Chappell: (to Strauss) Was part of the reason Prior was selected the fact that he's got a lot to say? Strauss: (surely a future diplomat) I think part of the reason was that the selectors wanted to get away from the Chris Read v Geraint Jones issue. Berry: If England have to play five bowlers in Sri Lanka, and Flintoff is not fit, the keeper would have to bat at number six and Read couldn't do that but Prior could. Atherton: Why couldn't Paul Collingwood be the third seamer in Galle if not Kandy? Chappell: Why do you need five bowlers? Monty Panesar is two bowlers in one. He takes wickets for you and he keeps it tidy. He'd be as happy as a pig in **** if he bowls 30 overs in a day - he'll be the happiest man on the field. Four specialist bowlers to bowl 80 overs a day, and fill-ins for the other 10. Atherton: I'd query whether quick bowlers are fitter than they used to be. They might look better with their tops off and do more work in the gym. Berry: (to Strauss) Did the ball swing more in the series against India than any other series you've played in? If so, shouldn't we make allowances for Prior's keeping for that reason? Strauss: I've never seen the ball swing and seam so much after passing the bat. There were loads of occasions when Dhoni didn't even try to take it down leg-side. A brief interlude ensues in which the panel discuss whether Prior or Dhoni is the better keeper. Or may be 'discuss' is too strong for an argument on 'did, didn't, did, didn't' lines. Strauss: The angles India bowled took us by surprise. I'd never had a left-arm fast bowler bowl round the wicket at me before, and swinging it both ways. It demanded a completely new technique. Berry: Weren't you given videos of Zaheer Khan and RP Singh bowling round the wicket in Bangladesh in May? Chappell: Why do batsmen now back up without watching the ball in the bowler's hand? You're handicapping yourself if you don't. Strauss: As batsmen we found Zaheer Khan hid the ball very well from the top of his bowling mark. There wasn't even a glimpse when he raised his bowling arm and occasionally he flipped it over in his hand between then and delivery. Even as the non-striker you couldn't see which was the shiny side. At Trent Bridge when Vaughan and I were batting, we were trying to help each other out but couldn't pick it up. Another interlude while the experts discuss watching the ball out of the hand, and practise unusual grips to the consternation of an Eastern European waitress. Flipping the seam over in the delivery swing to deceive batsmen (and waitresses) requires real sleight of hand. Berry: Were England surprised by the quality of India's opening batsmen as well as their left-arm swing bowlers? Strauss: When they batted the pitch was often at its best but fair credit to them, they made the most of their advantage. I don't think they were better players than we expected them to be. Chappell: Any time you can find an aggressive opening batsman it's a huge advantage to a team, and Dinesh Karthik has got that ability to counter-attack the new ball. During the break for food the conversation turns to golf. Collingwood scored a 69 at Loch Lomond last week, while Australia's captain Ricky Ponting is 'huge off the tee'. Berry: (to Strauss) To what extent, if any, would you attribute to mental staleness the tendency of England's batsmen to get out when set, especially at the Oval? You've been playing since the away series against India in March last year. Strauss: Over the course of the series that was our biggest problem - guys getting out for 40s, 50s, 60s. When you're out there in the middle of a Test I don't think you can blame mental tiredness. Maybe it's a trend if it happens over a few months but not in a one-off Test. Chappell: Isn't that what happened against Australia? Atherton: In his case [strauss] I felt he's weary. Strauss: The thing about playing non-stop is you don't have time to stand back and look at your game objectively, although I suppose it's great if you're in good nick. Chappell: That's a very valid point and what the fools in administration don't understand. Bowlers need a breather to get over niggles, batsmen need to go back to the nets and play at a lower level to sort out a problem and re-build confidence. You can't do it in a Test series, you've got to live with what you've got. Everybody's in the same boat. Berry: Excuse me! The Australians haven't bowled a ball since the World Cup finished in April. Atherton: Coaches have to be more inventive in giving players a break. Chappell: I'd do that in conjunction with the guy. Strauss: After the West Indies series I was pretty jaded. Berry: What are the symptoms? Strauss: The symptoms are that you go out there and you're a little bit zombified. When you are sharp, you are looking at the ball all the time and feel ahead of the game. When you aren't, you're half a step behind. Atherton: It manifests itself in decision-making, that's the sign of mental weariness. Strauss: That's why I've such respect for Sachin Tendulkar who's been doing it for 18 years. Berry: Anyone for jelly beans? Chappell: The first thing, it was very childish and, secondly, if I was in the opposition I'd get a bit pissed off in case they got into the pitch. Strauss: I think we learnt our lesson. It won't happen again in a hurry, given the reaction. Berry: (to Chappell and Atherton) Have you two seen sweets and rubbish left on the pitch before? Chappell: Not in international cricket. In ordinary tour matches, when cricketers are bored, they're the same as other human beings and get childish. Atherton: Not in Test cricket. In county cricket there have been lots of schoolboy japes. Berry: (to Strauss) Do England regret their over-rate at Lord's - 28 overs on that Monday morning? Strauss: There are always what-ifs. We got nine wickets down with an hour and a half left so we'd have won if it hadn't rained. In the morning we played at the tempo we thought would win the match. Chappell: Over-rates in world cricket are a disgrace and I haven't heard of a fine since cocky was an egg (this, apparently, is an Australianism for 'a long time'). But you need permanent sight-boards at both ends so you don't have to move screens, and get rid of TV replays when a fielder hits the rope - if the ball touches the rope, it's four, if not, it isn't. Compromise on the administrators' side then tell the players to bowl so many overs in the day, otherwise the captain misses the next match. Atherton: (mellowing after a glass of wine and determined to wind Chappell up) Over-rates are a red herring. There are more runs scored in a day now than in your time, and fewer draws. Run-rates have shot up since your day… Chappell: (rising) Absolute frog-****! What about Bradman scoring 300 in a day? Atherton: I said in your day! Chappell: Your knowledge of cricket history is abysmal, and I'll tell you another thing, mate… Exit Strauss, hurriedly.

[King]

I don't quite like the way Chappell passes judgment on players. Freakin head long, good for nothing cricket observer he is. So often he's been proved wrong but he can't quite think as of date and always is struck in the 60s and 70s. You can see he can't think beyond the good old days.

[The Outsider]

I have never been able to understand how he gets all these important contracts.

[Chandan]

I have never been able to understand how he gets all these important contracts.

Important contacts?? Such as?

[The Outsider]

Important contacts?? Such as?

He was/is in the Channel 9 commentary team, writes for cricinfo and some major Australian newspaper (SMH I think) as well.

[Chandan]

Same as Ravi Shastri and Gavaskar commentating for ESPN and writing for HT. Isn't it?

[The Outsider]

Same as Ravi Shastri and Gavaskar commentating for ESPN and writing for HT. Isn't it?

Pretty much but they don't spew half as much garbage as Chappell does.

[Chandan]

Pretty much but they don't spew half as much garbage as Chappell does.

Gavaskar does. He disappointed me hugely on this tour in his commentary and most of his columns are not worth reading!

[Ram]

Gavaskar does. He disappointed me hugely on this tour in his commentary and most of his columns are not worth reading!

As i keep saying often , Gavaskar doesnt know a THING about this game , except batting. His commentary is so batsman-ship oriented. He is there just for his stature.

[Chandan]

At least he told us something about the opening batting, what problem Stauss might have been going through and such thing. But he spoke a lot of garbage (things which didn't make sense and Gavaskar thought they were witty) in this tour. And his columns are worse. Most of the time he'd keep on harping about irrelevent issues!

[Guest dada_rocks]

This guy was howling sachin using words like he seems disinterested.. suddenly has gone quiet again.. bonafide idiot in my book.... so one bradman million years ago used to score at fast clip and that makes it up for over all 2.5 run an over scoring rate of yore.

[monkeyfood]

Sounds like a typicqal cricinfo article if you ask me sry if it offends