It might also be argued that he should have adapted back into consolidator mode for the evening session – when his luck ran out the Sri Lanka innings unraveled, just at the point they looked set to push on.

Still, he’s a batsman with over 11,000 test runs at an average pushing towards 60, so his judgement in such matters must normally be pretty good.

i am aware that christopher henry g. is not the purist’s choice of cricketer full stop, except if you end up discovering a fatal weakness for watching an executioner despatch ball after (tender prey cherry – oh yeah thanks for that shane, nice one dufus) ball and watch bowlers literally get all the piss and vinegar, and ultimately everything else, drained out of them at visible rate from one minute to the next.

fucking hell sorry guys. er, long time no blog and all that. i’ll get my –

oops back on the 13 again (‘n off sick… same cause, otherwise unrelated)

p.s. haven’t read the earlier comments

Your Maj, I can think of plenty of batsmen, sadly none currently in England ranks, who have proven worthy of the epithet “proactive” by their refusal to be cowed into submission by the bowlers when everyone else has been forced quiet. They also go, sometimes unfairly, by such synonymous descriptions as: unorthodox, creative, grabber-of-the-game-by-the-scruff-of-the-neck, a getter-on-with-it, “imposing”, often (but not necessarily) “aggressive” or “inventive”, occasionally (when it comes off) “genius”, more-than-occasionally (though so soon we forgive) YOU STUPID *** WHAT THE **** DID YOU DO THAT FOR?!

Their antonym-players, not mortal enemies but oft-times their great complements and partners in crimemanship, go by such by-words as “cautious”, “watchful”, “stodgy”, “correct”, “responsible” and “consolidator”.

But what you are requiring now, with a player who responds to each ball in the context of the match situation, is perhaps a higher calling altogether. A foot in both camps, the best of both worlds, a truly *all-round* batsman. You need a talent capable of imposing their creative will upon the game even against quality bowling and fielding; a psyche capable when called upon of drawing deep reserves of patience, restraint and responsibility; a watertight technique when sustained application is required; a cricket-sense that can read a match and express their analysis in their play through the magic balance between internal destructive and defensive forces. (And not, as your Maj has correctly and repeatedly pointed out regarding various England players, a quasi-random oscillation between the two modes, frequently manifested as “defend – defend – self-destruct”.)

I’m not sure the word “proactive” adequately captures these specifications. I might lean towards “flexible”, “versatile”, “adaptable” or plain old SELECT THAT MAN YOU BOZOS HE’S A GENIUS.

We had a sentence in mind when we started writing this which was going to present our central point. We now realise it somehow never made it in.

It was something along the lines of: Sometimes you want a batsman who plays the ball on its merits, but it’s also important to have at least one batsman who plays the match situation on its merits.

http://learningisfunblog.wordpress.com/2014/06/20/ronald-and-me/

Perhaps as an extension of that: a “proactive” batsman is one who plays the ball on *his own* merits?

Yep. Absolutely. We hope it happens.

The only thing we’d say about the 200 is that England weren’t stalling when he came in. Bell was at the other end playing smoothly, so it’s not the same sort of a situation. What we’re talking about is when the opposition try and exploit the English reflex to try and ‘dig in’ when things are tough.

I’ve moved on from the 2013/14 Ashes, KC. As has Team England, so we are told.

I liked the look of Root and Ballance last week and believe, from what I have seen so far, that Stokes has got what it takes.