Rob Key: England didn't toss away hopes of victory against West Indies... our batsmen have got to be braver

There was plenty of debate after stand-in England captain Ben Stokes' decision to bat first against West Indies in Southampton
Getty Images
Rob Key15 July 2020

Let's start by talking about the start of a Test match; the toss. A lot was made of Ben Stokes’s decision to bat first in the First Test under cloudy skies. Some said England lost because of it. Nonsense.

Captains get hammered for their decisions at the toss, but you don’t win or lose a match before it started. Even Nasser Hussain at Brisbane in 2002. Do people really think we would have won if he had opted to bat?

Had Nasser batted we probably would have been rolled and lost in four days. They were a better team. The toss was a red herring.

If you want to create a great era or win the Ashes away, heads or tails does not matter. You have to be better than the opposition with bat and ball, whichever one you are doing first or last.

In the First Test at Southampton, England lost because they did not bat well enough, not because they batted first or picked the wrong bowlers.

These days we think we can plan every last detail. We all think you can look at an app and know the weather for the next two weeks and plan our holiday around it. But things still change.

On Tuesday, I looked at the app and turned up to play golf wearing shorts. I was stood there and it was rodding it down. My point is that you cannot be too prescriptive in cricket, too. Without wishing to go on about golf, you have to play the ball as it lies.

There is no formula for success in Test cricket - it would be boring if there was. You can only play as the scoreboard and conditions dictate. You find a way to score runs, rather than worrying too much about a plan.

Since the start of last winter, England have wanted a steady top three, to protect a middle order of stroke-players. Before that they wanted an attacking top order. I don’t think it’s this simple.

The idea of batting time or batting positively is nonsense. It’s about batting the situation, as it has been since before the time of WG Grace.

When bowlers bowl well there might be periods where you don’t score quickly, and others where you feast. You hear people say it’s good they are facing lots of balls to make it easier for others.

Risky business: England's Zak Crawley provided a welcome change to those batting above him in the First Test at the Ageas Bowl
AP

No great side has ever said that. You cannot just be happy that players in the top three are facing 100 balls. How low have we set the bar?

The only currency is the runs you have scored when you get out. It doesn’t matter whether you score 30 runs per 100 balls or 90. What matters is that you make a game-changing score. England have too many guys getting starts, then getting out.

In England, we climb into batsmen for getting out attacking, but we are happy for them to get out blocking because they are ‘valuing their wicket’. Jolly well done. Not only is it boring to watch, it doesn’t win you many games.

The likes of Alastair Cook and Jonathan Trott were not the most thrilling, attacking batsmen ever, but they had a select few shots they used clinically at every opportunity, so the scoreboard rarely stopped moving.

I would like to see some of England’s batsmen be more brave. In this country, we think that means ‘over-my-dead-body’ batting. But that can be gutless.

In Pictures | England and West Indies take a knee ahead of first Test

1/18

Being brave is taking a calculated risk by playing a shot to put the opposition under pressure.

Take the way they played Roston Chase. I’ll bet Joe Denly walked off after chipping Chase to short midwicket, wishing he had got out trying to whack him onto the Isle of Wight.

Chase is a good cricketer, but you cannot just defend him. Doing so allows pressure to build and the Windies’ excellent pace attack to rest.

Zak Crawley provided a welcome change to those above him because he did not just pat Chase back. He used his feet and reverse-swept. Jason Holder had to change the field.

Taking those calculated risks is what I found hardest about Test cricket. You know that at that level, everyone will come for you if you get out being “reckless”, and it is worse now than it was then because of social media.

There is no way Denly would have played Chase the same way if it was a county game. He would try to take him to the cleaners.

Sometimes I think we don’t appreciate Joe Root’s brilliance, and his return will help England’s batting. I expect he will replace Denly, and I think with Crawley - a good foil for the openers - at no3, England will have better balance.

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in