The psychology of England’s rearguard action

The Third Test result was England’s third unlikely draw in 6 months, and the second of the series in South Africa – that sort of frequency suggests that it’s no fluke, and it could start having an impact on opposition tactics.

Smith should have set a smaller target

England’s tactics in this series has been to pick six batsmen, and the strength of their tail has been crucial on a number of occasions, and not least at Newlands where Graham Onions and Graeme Swann were left to see out the last few overs.

Andrew Strauss’ men are building a reputation as a side that is difficult to bowl out. It’s not a given that they’ll score huge numbers of runs, but the likes of Paul Collingwood, Ian Bell and Alastair Cook are proving difficult to dislodge when their backs are against the proverbial wall.

South Africa set an enormous total of 466 for England to win the match, and it was so unlikely that they would get there that they didn’t bother trying.

Instead, Strauss and Cook kicked off the innings with a very slow-scoring partnership, defending relentlessly to kill time. Brigadier Block and Ian Bell then occupied the crease for hours without troubling the scorers too often, and the more they blocked, the more frustrated Graeme Smith’s team became.

So what can the opposition do? They need to give England a chance to win the game. If Smith had set a target of 350, by the time Strauss and Cook had put on 100 runs without loss, thoughts would have started to turn to winning the game – and the series.

With victory in sight, Colly, Bell and everyone else would have been more inclined to play a few shots, and thus more inclined to give away their wicket in pursuit of a win.

The other obvious benefit of a smaller target is that it allows more time to get those final wickets to win the game, having taken less time to amass a lead.

It’s a risky strategy, but a smaller target may have left Smith in a more agreeable mood at the end of the Third Test.

What do you think? What sort of total would you have set?

January 8, 2010