CT Match 4 (v Aus): To Attack Or Not To Attack?

2/10/09 - Australia won by 9 wickets.

The mini-revival is over. Despite the impressive efforts of Luke Wright and Tim Bresnan, England lost this match because of their batting in the first 20 overs - during which they lost six wickets - and the inability of their bowlers to match the penetration demonstrated by Pakistan in skittling Australia in their final group game.

Bresnan's inclusion meant England entered the match looking a breakthrough bowler light. However, the brutal simplicity of his batting - in compiling 80 from 76 balls - was the major factor in his team posting a vaguely competitive score, even if it did seem about 40 runs below par.

Much debate centered around the approach of the top order, who tried to play with an attacking freedom which led to the loss of too many early wickets, despite runs flowing at a slick rate. They played their shots, and whilst few were reckless and the boundary found with refreshing regularity, the tactic did not appear to change despite the mounting wickets column. Was this the right approach?

I believe so. For a start, it worked against Sri Lanka, and - most devastatingly - against the hosts. It is also favourable when compared to the top-order's mindset at England's last major 50-over tournament, the 2007 World Cup. The cautious approach adopted by the top-order in that tournament hampered England badly. Such was the negativity and prizing of wickets-in-hand above all else, that against South Africa, in the Super Eights, England were 9-0 after 7 overs.

If going after the opposition early on works, it puts a team in a fantastic position to win a match. The same simply can't be said of platform-building defence and timidity.

Should England have adapted the approach as the wickets began to tumble? Possibly. Collingwood is usually ideal for that role, and maybe he could have consolidated for a few overs when he entered the fray in the 12th over. But he's in fine form, and understandably backed himself as he shot to 34 from 30 balls. His wicket was a huge blow, but he was pursuing a match-winning innings - an admirable, and, given his form, realistic mindset to be in.

Right tactic, poor execution. On Sky, Nick Knight - unsurprisingly in support of the positive batting - said he thought if England maintained the approach they'd win more games than they lose. That would be an improvement.