KM
I’m afraid I just blue myself
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2008
- Messages
- 49,917
Well what i will say is Englands batting line up is nowhere near the strength of Indias who have by a country mile the best batting top 7 in world cricket right now, thats undisputable...but after that id say its as good as any other....Swann coming it at number 9 averages over 35 with the bat...broad at 8 averages over 30...Prior batting at 7 averages 45...thats a hell of a lower order line up straight away...then you have collingwood in the middle order averaging over 45 and obviously Pietersen who is one of the best batsmen in world cricket......Strauss is as good an opener as there is on current form maybe only Gautam Gambier surpasses him right now so id say barring Inida its as good as most others...what it lacks i think is 'star names' more than anything....Collingwoods a prime example of this, a very simple unflashy type of player yet averages over 45 with the bat....a world class batting average.
Australias batting line up has a lot of stella names but i dont think its that great when put under pressure we saw that countless times in the ashes where England bowled them out very cheaply on numerous occasions...same goes for this south african one who really bottle it under pressure....Sri Lanka are soley reliant on 2-3 players to namely Sangakara and Jayawadena.
Fair enough if you think that and there is no doubting the strong depth in England batting but Bell and Pietersen are really too inconsistent(Collingwood's consistency negates that sometimes), your middle order is not so strong or weak as compared to the rest of the teams. I would rate Lanka's middle order(Sangakarra, Jayawardene and Sameeraweera), India, Australia(Clarke, Hussey, Haddin) and possibly South Africa over england.
As I said earlier England have got the foundations of a very good team i.e Reliable openers, good captain, good fielding and very good bowling, if their middle order improves than they can become an excellent team in the future