The poor relations

Stephen Fay focuses on the failure of nerve afflicting England's end game

MICHAEL ATHERTON was composed, but not contemplative, after the cricketing and commercial disaster at Edgbaston yesterday. When an anonymous, well-spoken lout jogged alongside him as he walked to a press conference, calling him an incompetent and a cheat and demanding his resignation, Atherton put on a pale smile and said nowt. There was not much to say.

England, out for 89 after losing six wickets for 30 runs in 100 minutes, had recorded their fourth second-innings score of less than 100 in the past 18 months.

The question was whether a different explanation could have been given each time, or whether this constituted a disturbing trend in modern English cricket.

Atherton said he hadn't had time to think about it. But the question deserves some thought, because the answer might reveal something about the character, as well as the technique and the luck, of the England team.

The run of awful second- innings totals began against the West Indies in March last year at Port of Spain, when inspired bowling by Curtly Ambrose (six for 24) put England out for 46. At Lord's in July against South Africa, the second innings score was 99. In December in Melbourne, England were all out for 92, and now they have succumbed for 89.

Atherton, Alec Stewart and Graeme Hick have played in all four of these innings; Graham Thorpe in three and Robin Smith in two. His 41 yesterday is the biggest total in 17 innings by any of these top-order batsmen.

They have not been able to meet the basic requirement for Test batsmen, which was fairly stated once again by Wes Hall, the West Indies' manager, after yesterday's game: "Batters have got to occupy the crease; this is nothing new."

These dark days for English cricket occur just as often as the false dawns. In each of these last four series, England have won one game very well: the Fourth Test against the West Indies at Bridgetown (Stewart got a century in both innings); the Third Test against South Africa at The Oval (Devon Malcolm's famous nine for 57); the Fourth Test against Australia at Adelaide last January; and the recent Lord's Test, of course, against this West Indies team.

But England have behaved as though they believe that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, and second-innings collapses are a much more common feature of the English game, at county as well as Test level. Surrey are specialists and Middlesex are familiar with the phenomenon. It happened again on Friday when Leicestershire were out for 67 against the champions, Warwickshire - one team that is not susceptible to such failures.

These poor second-innings scores explain why so many four-day county games end on day three, and they suggest weakness in the head or heart as well as the technique - a lack of commitment or discipline or, in the jargon, "focus".

For Raymond Illingworth the answer is straightforward. After yesterday's press conference, he said that England's problem was not getting enough runs in the first innings.

Illingworth pointed out that county sides have played on the same square at Edgbaston during the current season and been bowled out, like England, for less than 100.

He admitted that, on a pitch of uneven bounce, doubt was bound to enter a batsman's mind, but insisted that the collapse was also due to broken fingers and an hour's batting on Friday night. The fault lay in the pitch, not in our stars, Illingworth said.

So the run of poor second- innings scores is not part of the problem?

"No, definitely not," said Illingworth.

It would be nice to share his certainty.