Andrew Strauss is arguably England’s greatest ever captain. Taking a second-rate team to the top of the world, with two Ashes wins on the way; Strauss has unified a broken dressing-room, and alongside Andy Flower, has created a culture of success in England’s most prosperous team in generations.
However, as brilliant a leader as Strauss has been for England, he’s picked primarily as a batsman, and as a batsman, he’s just not cutting the mustard. No test centuries in 48 innings, and only one since 2009 simply isn’t good enough. For all of his calmness and brilliance in the field as captain, at the crease as an opening batsman, he looks skittish, confused, and bereft of confidence. While he has done an excellent job as captain, he’s been carried as a batsman for a while now, and England can ill afford to do so much longer.
Nobody is doubting Strauss’ aptitude as a captain, or indeed, taking away from his past glories as a batsman. His 161 in a day against Australia in 2009 was as good as it gets, and his 177 against New Zealand in 2008 was the definition of a gutsy, back-against-the-wall century. However, those days of a classy, imperious Strauss dominating attacks seem like very distant memories, and there doesn’t appear to be any signs of them returning.
Is time up for Strauss? Well, as a captain, he can still clearly command respect, make the correct decisions on the field, and be a success. But as a batsman? His dismissal in the second innings this test, where he advanced down the pitch to Herath before chipping a catch to short midwicket (great position by the way) shows all the signs of a scrambled brain. Too many times in his century drought has Strauss got himself in before finding a way to get himself out, and this was a prime example. But is he finished as a batsman completely? Often when a veteran is reaching the end of his career, his eyes go a little and misjudgements creep in (Rahul Dravid getting bowled a lot in the Australia tour springs to mind). But that hasn’t been an issue for Strauss. He has been getting himself in, at least, and it was only last week that he scored an unbeaten century in a tour match. And last summer, after a difficult India series, he went and smashed a double ton for Middlesex.
Strauss may not be completely finished as a batsman, but he hasn’t justified his place as an opener for a while. It’s clear that if here wasn’t the captain, he would have been disposed of a while ago. While there doesn’t seem to be any obvious county openers knocking on the door, Jonathan Trott could be pushed up to open with someone else moving into the middle order. And as Alastair Cook goes from strength to strength as ODI captain, and proving a viable alternative in test colours, the selectors now have a ready-made replacement to take over the proverbial captain’s armband. Andrew Strauss is far from undroppable – a situation which would have been unthinkable only a year ago. While he won’t be booted out midway through a two-match tour, Strauss is going to need some serious runs in the second test, otherwise he may be out of a job come May and the start of the West Indies tests. Strauss’ best knock in an England shirt came when he was one game away from the axe back in 2008, and he may need something similar next week if he’s to retain his place.
Showing posts with label Andy Flower. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andy Flower. Show all posts
Wednesday, 28 March 2012
Saturday, 28 January 2012
Is there need for change after the Abu Dhabi drubbing?
If last week's result was bad, this one was worse. To lose one test heavily is unlucky, but two in a week suggests there is something drastically wrong. The worst thing about it though is that for three and a half days of the test match England were in command, with a handy first innings lead being complemented by some fine second innings bowling, but the game just slipped away from them this morning after being slightly lax in the field and hopelessly abject with the bat. The 72 all out collapse - not even getting half way to the 145 target - was up there with England's biggest headless chicken chases, not knowing whether to stick or twist, they eventually got rolled by a high-class display of spin bowling from Rehman and Ajmal. The calls for change have been made, but who should get a stay of execution, and who should be led to the chopping block?
There is an argument, of course, that there's no need to make any panic decisions based on the first two defeats in over a year. The England of Flower and Strauss don't do panic - they trust in the players that they've picked to go out after failing and turn it around. The consistency of selection over the past few years has been crucial to England's ascent to the top of the rankings, with a settled team able to play without the fear of constantly worrying about their place. And by and large, this has been a good thing. Players like Pietersen, Bell and Cook were eased through lean spells, and the results, and those individual player's performances in 2011 proved the selectors right. While England have performed badly these two weeks in the Gulf, there is a school of thought that if the selectors continue to consistently make consistent selections, those players will turn it around and the wins will come.
To a degree, I agree with those thoughts. Certainly in the case of Bell and Pietersen, two players who've come under a lot of scrutiny this series for four low scores, their exploits over the last year, where they could arguably have been named the world's number one and two test batsmen, shows that they clearly have the class and ability to score lots of runs at test level, and the fact that they've happened to have two poor games in a row doesn't change that. Calls for them to be dropped strike me as ludicrous.
The two players that have had a much longer trough than peak have been Eoin Morgan and Andrew Strauss. While Cook, Pietersen, Bell and Trott can point to (near-enough) 50 or above averages, Morgan doesn't have this to fall back on. Morgan has flattered to deceive so far in his fairly brief test career, but after 15 tests an average of 31 is just not acceptable. Indeed, his first class record in general (averaging 36 from 68 games) is unremarkable to say the least, and certainly doesn't indicate a rapid improvement of scores from the Irishman. Eoin's class and ability in one day cricket is undoubted, and he got into the test team on the back of limited over exploits. However, he simply hasn't cut the mustard in whites for England, and should be dispensed with.
Andrew Strauss is a curious case - as excellent a batsman as he has been on his day, he just hasn't scored anywhere near enough runs for England in recent times. Since his run-a-ball half-century at Sydney this time last year, Strauss has only made one 50 in England colours, and in nine tests has only made 324 runs. For an opening batsman, this isn't good enough. While there have been some reactionary calls for Strauss to go, it shouldn't be forgotten that his batting isn't all that he brings to the team. A born captain and the natural leader of the team, taking Strauss out of the dressing room would leave a chasm that just wouldn't be filled, and could lead to imminent disaster. However, as important as it is that Strauss remains in the team, as it stands, it isn't tenable for the opening batsman to be so out of touch and form. Strauss's play at the moment reminds me of the final throes of Michael Vaughan's England career - so valued as a captain but so scratchy at the crease - incidentally the third test will be the first dead rubber England have constested since the South African series in 2008 that signalled the end for Vaughan.
So what options do England have? The only spare batsman in the England squad at the moment is Ravi Bopara, but replacing Morgan with the equally as frustrating Ravi seems more of a sidewards step than forwards. The England Lions are on tour at the moment, and of their contingent, the likes of James Taylor, Joe Root and Alex Hales have all been tipped for further international recognition. However, my solution for England's ills is a cunning one, and one that may not have even been thought about by the powers that be (probably with good reason). Strauss has really struggled against the new ball over recent times, which is sort of a bad thing for an opener to struggle against. With Morgan looking clueless in the middle order, a fix could be pushing Strauss down the order (thus keeping him in the side), with someone else coming in to open, be it Hales, Steve Davies or even Middlesex's Sam Robson (although I may be slightly biased about that one). England get the benefit of Strauss's captaincy and experience in the middle order, which as Misbah has showed is certainly no bad thing, and in their new opener they have the opportunity to pick someone who is better than Morgan or Bopara. While this is a very unlikely situation, I believe it is the right thing to do, so as such, I am hereby announcing the start of the #straussforsix bandwagon. Feel free to jump on it.
This second defeat is the first time in nearly four years that England have lost back-to-back, and the 74 all out is the lowest score since the 52 all out debacle in Jamaica. England are currently ranked as number one in the world, but can't legitimately lay claim to being the world's best until they address their stark batting issues in the subcontinent. The foundations are there for an excellent side - the bowling especially was absolutely world-class. But England have been carrying players for far too long, and some big decisions need to be made. While Bell and Pietersen do deserve to be in the team after last year's form, nobody should be "undroppable" (just see what being undroppable has done for India's test side...) and a big kick up the arse should help solve a few problems. However, if England genuinely are to be thought of as the world's best, they are going to have to rapidly step up their game in foreign conditions. Whether or not they can do it in time for the final test is debatable, but with seven more tests this calendar year to be held in the subcontinent, something has to be done.
There is an argument, of course, that there's no need to make any panic decisions based on the first two defeats in over a year. The England of Flower and Strauss don't do panic - they trust in the players that they've picked to go out after failing and turn it around. The consistency of selection over the past few years has been crucial to England's ascent to the top of the rankings, with a settled team able to play without the fear of constantly worrying about their place. And by and large, this has been a good thing. Players like Pietersen, Bell and Cook were eased through lean spells, and the results, and those individual player's performances in 2011 proved the selectors right. While England have performed badly these two weeks in the Gulf, there is a school of thought that if the selectors continue to consistently make consistent selections, those players will turn it around and the wins will come.
To a degree, I agree with those thoughts. Certainly in the case of Bell and Pietersen, two players who've come under a lot of scrutiny this series for four low scores, their exploits over the last year, where they could arguably have been named the world's number one and two test batsmen, shows that they clearly have the class and ability to score lots of runs at test level, and the fact that they've happened to have two poor games in a row doesn't change that. Calls for them to be dropped strike me as ludicrous.
The two players that have had a much longer trough than peak have been Eoin Morgan and Andrew Strauss. While Cook, Pietersen, Bell and Trott can point to (near-enough) 50 or above averages, Morgan doesn't have this to fall back on. Morgan has flattered to deceive so far in his fairly brief test career, but after 15 tests an average of 31 is just not acceptable. Indeed, his first class record in general (averaging 36 from 68 games) is unremarkable to say the least, and certainly doesn't indicate a rapid improvement of scores from the Irishman. Eoin's class and ability in one day cricket is undoubted, and he got into the test team on the back of limited over exploits. However, he simply hasn't cut the mustard in whites for England, and should be dispensed with.
Andrew Strauss is a curious case - as excellent a batsman as he has been on his day, he just hasn't scored anywhere near enough runs for England in recent times. Since his run-a-ball half-century at Sydney this time last year, Strauss has only made one 50 in England colours, and in nine tests has only made 324 runs. For an opening batsman, this isn't good enough. While there have been some reactionary calls for Strauss to go, it shouldn't be forgotten that his batting isn't all that he brings to the team. A born captain and the natural leader of the team, taking Strauss out of the dressing room would leave a chasm that just wouldn't be filled, and could lead to imminent disaster. However, as important as it is that Strauss remains in the team, as it stands, it isn't tenable for the opening batsman to be so out of touch and form. Strauss's play at the moment reminds me of the final throes of Michael Vaughan's England career - so valued as a captain but so scratchy at the crease - incidentally the third test will be the first dead rubber England have constested since the South African series in 2008 that signalled the end for Vaughan.
So what options do England have? The only spare batsman in the England squad at the moment is Ravi Bopara, but replacing Morgan with the equally as frustrating Ravi seems more of a sidewards step than forwards. The England Lions are on tour at the moment, and of their contingent, the likes of James Taylor, Joe Root and Alex Hales have all been tipped for further international recognition. However, my solution for England's ills is a cunning one, and one that may not have even been thought about by the powers that be (probably with good reason). Strauss has really struggled against the new ball over recent times, which is sort of a bad thing for an opener to struggle against. With Morgan looking clueless in the middle order, a fix could be pushing Strauss down the order (thus keeping him in the side), with someone else coming in to open, be it Hales, Steve Davies or even Middlesex's Sam Robson (although I may be slightly biased about that one). England get the benefit of Strauss's captaincy and experience in the middle order, which as Misbah has showed is certainly no bad thing, and in their new opener they have the opportunity to pick someone who is better than Morgan or Bopara. While this is a very unlikely situation, I believe it is the right thing to do, so as such, I am hereby announcing the start of the #straussforsix bandwagon. Feel free to jump on it.
This second defeat is the first time in nearly four years that England have lost back-to-back, and the 74 all out is the lowest score since the 52 all out debacle in Jamaica. England are currently ranked as number one in the world, but can't legitimately lay claim to being the world's best until they address their stark batting issues in the subcontinent. The foundations are there for an excellent side - the bowling especially was absolutely world-class. But England have been carrying players for far too long, and some big decisions need to be made. While Bell and Pietersen do deserve to be in the team after last year's form, nobody should be "undroppable" (just see what being undroppable has done for India's test side...) and a big kick up the arse should help solve a few problems. However, if England genuinely are to be thought of as the world's best, they are going to have to rapidly step up their game in foreign conditions. Whether or not they can do it in time for the final test is debatable, but with seven more tests this calendar year to be held in the subcontinent, something has to be done.
Tuesday, 24 January 2012
Bowl dry or roll the dice?
England, it seems, are a team blessed with a veritable battalion of fast bowlers, all good enough to step straight into the test side. This means that while Bresnan, and seemingly Tremlett (according to reports) will miss the second test, England still have the luxury of choice, this time between Steven Finn and Graham Onions.
So with Tremlett looking like he's going to drop out of the team, who should come in? Well, the "let's play two spinners" argument has muted since last week because according to reports, Abu Dhabi is a spinner's graveyard. This, and Team England's stringent determination to never change a winning formula means that Monty's going to spend the next five days mixing up Maximuscle for Stuart Broad.
So it's between Steven Finn and Graham Onions. Leaving aside the sentimentality of Onions, who could play his first test in two years after a career threatening injury, and the next-cab-off-the-rankness of Finn, on a purely cricketing level, who should play?
Both offer very different things as bowlers - Onions is much more of a full-length swing bowler who's fast medium at absolute most, whereas Finn is easily England's quickest, and much more of a bang-it-in bowler. Finn has so much to offer an England test team - he's an aggressive, wicket-taking bowler who can genuinely frighten batsmen with his speed, but he has one obvious Achilles heel. His control. Simply put, Finn does have an annoying habit of gifting runs to the opposition through one or two rank balls per over, which really does count against him.
A lot of England's bowling game-plan is to dry up the runs and utilise the pressure that it creates to take wickets. This was seen only last week, when England dragged Pakistan back (sort of) with the ball by keeping the run rate low and the pressure constantly on - leading to a late flurry of wickets. Unfortunately for the bowlers, who all performed admirably, the batsmen hadn't put anywhere near enough runs on the board, so that will be the priority for Andy Flower, but would England have had the same late-day success had Finn been going at 4 or 5 an over?
Finn's control has improved since his last test outing, and he's developed markedly since he was dropped at Melbourne last winter, but the doubts do still linger. This England set-up don't much like gambling, and they'll see Finn as quite a punt. Onions is the safe choice, but do safe choices win test matches? England are one-nil down, and they'll need to win both of the remaining test matches if they're to come away from the UAE with a series win. It might be harsh to call Onions nothing more than a "steady bowler", but his reliability is what's got him this far - solid if not spectacular. Finn is far more mercurial, and while on a bad day he could go for a few, he'll more often than not chip in with some big wickets while he does so. It goes against England's play it safe attitude, but sometimes it's worth taking a punt, as the rewards could be spectacular.
So with Tremlett looking like he's going to drop out of the team, who should come in? Well, the "let's play two spinners" argument has muted since last week because according to reports, Abu Dhabi is a spinner's graveyard. This, and Team England's stringent determination to never change a winning formula means that Monty's going to spend the next five days mixing up Maximuscle for Stuart Broad.
So it's between Steven Finn and Graham Onions. Leaving aside the sentimentality of Onions, who could play his first test in two years after a career threatening injury, and the next-cab-off-the-rankness of Finn, on a purely cricketing level, who should play?
Both offer very different things as bowlers - Onions is much more of a full-length swing bowler who's fast medium at absolute most, whereas Finn is easily England's quickest, and much more of a bang-it-in bowler. Finn has so much to offer an England test team - he's an aggressive, wicket-taking bowler who can genuinely frighten batsmen with his speed, but he has one obvious Achilles heel. His control. Simply put, Finn does have an annoying habit of gifting runs to the opposition through one or two rank balls per over, which really does count against him.
A lot of England's bowling game-plan is to dry up the runs and utilise the pressure that it creates to take wickets. This was seen only last week, when England dragged Pakistan back (sort of) with the ball by keeping the run rate low and the pressure constantly on - leading to a late flurry of wickets. Unfortunately for the bowlers, who all performed admirably, the batsmen hadn't put anywhere near enough runs on the board, so that will be the priority for Andy Flower, but would England have had the same late-day success had Finn been going at 4 or 5 an over?
Finn's control has improved since his last test outing, and he's developed markedly since he was dropped at Melbourne last winter, but the doubts do still linger. This England set-up don't much like gambling, and they'll see Finn as quite a punt. Onions is the safe choice, but do safe choices win test matches? England are one-nil down, and they'll need to win both of the remaining test matches if they're to come away from the UAE with a series win. It might be harsh to call Onions nothing more than a "steady bowler", but his reliability is what's got him this far - solid if not spectacular. Finn is far more mercurial, and while on a bad day he could go for a few, he'll more often than not chip in with some big wickets while he does so. It goes against England's play it safe attitude, but sometimes it's worth taking a punt, as the rewards could be spectacular.
Thursday, 19 January 2012
One bad game does not a bad team make…
… but that was a really really bad game. England simply didn’t turn up or show any form of application with the bat in either innings, and unfortunately, if the only batsman to score over 17 in both innings is the number nine, you ain’t going to win many test matches.
The New England of Flower and Strauss don’t lose many test matches, but oddly the ones that they do lose are absolute canings. Think Jamaica and Headingley in ’09, Johannesburg and Perth in 2010, and now Dubai in 2012. England, as good as they can be when they apply themselves, are prone to the odd brainfade of a test where nobody turns up and they get hammered. Until these random inconsistent tests are cut out, England’s claims to be the all-conquering best team in the world aren’t quite as strong.
However, as bad as that was, it is just one test. One loss in 13 months for a team who have near-enough consistently swept everyone aside shouldn’t automatically mean that alarm bells should ring and knives be sharpened. Cricinfo have already run an opinion piece calling for Strauss to go, which is downright ludicrous and the definition of “knee-jerk”. Dropping an opener with no obvious replacement is one thing, but to push aside the captain of the number one ranked side after just one loss? Hardly.
The key defeats in Strauss & Flower’s reign are obvious, and have all served a purpose in the ascent of the team. The 51 all out in Jamaica right at the start of the pair’s partnership led to the batsmen sitting down and taking responsibility for their own games, and the numerous double centuries in the past couple of years is a result. The humiliation at Headingley at the hands of Australia, where England went in with five bowlers has seen the side take a formulaic shape which has served them so well. It’s obvious that this defeat has been equally as humbling, but it could lead to an improvement in the way batsmen approach and play spin in the subcontinent – something England have traditionally been very poor at doing.
There’s been a lot of negativity from all concerned about England’s performance, but I’m saying that there shouldn’t be. Yes, it was a poor performance, but these things happen. And England have shown a remarkable tendency for bouncebackability over recent years – the last four defeats have all been immediately followed by innings victories. England will have to show an incredibly dramatic upturn in form to beat Pakistan by an innings in the second test, but it isn’t impossible. England’s bowlers plugged away well, and their tenacity and control over the Pakistan batsmen was commendable. Had they had more runs on the board to contend with, the pressure would have been increased, and greater rewards could have come their ways. And with the bat, well, the only way is up. This is by no means a good day for English cricket, but on the whole, the English team is doing far more things right than wrong, and it isn’t as bad as it all seems.
The New England of Flower and Strauss don’t lose many test matches, but oddly the ones that they do lose are absolute canings. Think Jamaica and Headingley in ’09, Johannesburg and Perth in 2010, and now Dubai in 2012. England, as good as they can be when they apply themselves, are prone to the odd brainfade of a test where nobody turns up and they get hammered. Until these random inconsistent tests are cut out, England’s claims to be the all-conquering best team in the world aren’t quite as strong.
However, as bad as that was, it is just one test. One loss in 13 months for a team who have near-enough consistently swept everyone aside shouldn’t automatically mean that alarm bells should ring and knives be sharpened. Cricinfo have already run an opinion piece calling for Strauss to go, which is downright ludicrous and the definition of “knee-jerk”. Dropping an opener with no obvious replacement is one thing, but to push aside the captain of the number one ranked side after just one loss? Hardly.
The key defeats in Strauss & Flower’s reign are obvious, and have all served a purpose in the ascent of the team. The 51 all out in Jamaica right at the start of the pair’s partnership led to the batsmen sitting down and taking responsibility for their own games, and the numerous double centuries in the past couple of years is a result. The humiliation at Headingley at the hands of Australia, where England went in with five bowlers has seen the side take a formulaic shape which has served them so well. It’s obvious that this defeat has been equally as humbling, but it could lead to an improvement in the way batsmen approach and play spin in the subcontinent – something England have traditionally been very poor at doing.
There’s been a lot of negativity from all concerned about England’s performance, but I’m saying that there shouldn’t be. Yes, it was a poor performance, but these things happen. And England have shown a remarkable tendency for bouncebackability over recent years – the last four defeats have all been immediately followed by innings victories. England will have to show an incredibly dramatic upturn in form to beat Pakistan by an innings in the second test, but it isn’t impossible. England’s bowlers plugged away well, and their tenacity and control over the Pakistan batsmen was commendable. Had they had more runs on the board to contend with, the pressure would have been increased, and greater rewards could have come their ways. And with the bat, well, the only way is up. This is by no means a good day for English cricket, but on the whole, the English team is doing far more things right than wrong, and it isn’t as bad as it all seems.
Friday, 13 January 2012
England's Selection in a Spin
England have won their second warm up match, with the Pakistan Cricket Board XI crumbling to a 100 run defeat at the hands of the-best-team-in-the-world(TM). The big story from the game concerns Monty Panesar, who certainly put forward his case for test selection with 8 wickets in the match. Monty hasn't played tests since THAT game at Cardiff in 2009, but has he given himself a shot at getting into England's XI for the first test starting on Tuesday?
Common cricketing logic dictates that a team touring the subcontinent (yes, this isn't actually the subcontinent, but the pitches will be close enough) play two spinners, which England probably want to do. However, the selectors lives are made much harder with the lack of a genuine all-rounder. If there was a Flintoff style player who is good enough to bat in the top seven as well as being a test-class bowler, then Monty would happily slip into the team alongside Swann, Anderson and Broad, with Eoin Morgan the unlucky batsman to miss out. Sadly this is not the case. England's selection policy has been reserved to say the least over the past few years, with Andy Flower still bearing the mental scars of the horrific Ashes test at Headingley in 2009 where England played five bowlers, had no backbone to their batting, and collapsed miserably. Broad has developed as a batsman (the most recent game against Pakistan where he got 169 is testament to that) but doubts remain as to whether he's consistent enough as a test number seven. While he did score runs against India, that was the first time in a long while that he done anything with the bat, and moving him up the order (especially given Panesar's notorious inability with the blade) could be a recipe for disaster. Seeing as the closest thing England have to a proper all-rounder in Tim Bresnan will be watching the series from the comfort of The North, Flower will be very reticent in vastly altering the shape of the team to accommodate an extra spinner.
Another option would be to play only two seamers, with the dual spin of Panesar and Swann, as they did in the warm-up game (with Tremlett and Onions playing the roles of Anderson and Broad). While there would be a lot of testing spin, rotating the two fast bowlers would be tricky, especially in the new-ball period which seems to offer a lot out in the UAE. England no longer have the handy holding overs of Paul Collingwood to toss the ball to, which would make this option a no-goer as well.
The third way to get Monty back into the England team would be to play him instead of Graeme Swann. Dissenting voices of Swann have mentioned his lack of wickets over the last 12 months, but surely dropping the-best-spinner-in-the-world(TM) would be wrong? Yes, Swann hasn't taken many wickets recently, but that's mainly because the fast bowlers have done the majority of the damage on pretty green pitches. When Swann has needed to step up on a final day (Adelaide v Australia, The Oval v India), he's made match-winning performances to seal victories. Besides, dropping a key player would be very un-England, where the success has come from consistent selection, backing their players, and allowing those in poor trots to come good. Swann may not be in a bad trot, but he hasn't dominated a series in a while, but on the first tour with turning pitches since he decimated Bangladesh two years ago, Swann has the chance to tear them apart, again.
All in all, Monty Panesar won't play. As much as playing two spinners is important in these conditions, there isn't really any way (short of calling up Samit Patel, which they should have done in the first place) of getting two spinners into the team without sacrificing a batsman or a fast bowler. While Panesar took the wickets to win the game, the most important wicket of the match was that of Fawad Alam, who was caught Trott bowled Pietersen. If England go in with only one frontline spinner, Kevin Pietersen will have to turn his arm over a fair bit, and that wicket will give Flower, Strauss and the selectors confidence that he can do his bit. Whether or not they think that after the first test remains to be seen...
Common cricketing logic dictates that a team touring the subcontinent (yes, this isn't actually the subcontinent, but the pitches will be close enough) play two spinners, which England probably want to do. However, the selectors lives are made much harder with the lack of a genuine all-rounder. If there was a Flintoff style player who is good enough to bat in the top seven as well as being a test-class bowler, then Monty would happily slip into the team alongside Swann, Anderson and Broad, with Eoin Morgan the unlucky batsman to miss out. Sadly this is not the case. England's selection policy has been reserved to say the least over the past few years, with Andy Flower still bearing the mental scars of the horrific Ashes test at Headingley in 2009 where England played five bowlers, had no backbone to their batting, and collapsed miserably. Broad has developed as a batsman (the most recent game against Pakistan where he got 169 is testament to that) but doubts remain as to whether he's consistent enough as a test number seven. While he did score runs against India, that was the first time in a long while that he done anything with the bat, and moving him up the order (especially given Panesar's notorious inability with the blade) could be a recipe for disaster. Seeing as the closest thing England have to a proper all-rounder in Tim Bresnan will be watching the series from the comfort of The North, Flower will be very reticent in vastly altering the shape of the team to accommodate an extra spinner.
Another option would be to play only two seamers, with the dual spin of Panesar and Swann, as they did in the warm-up game (with Tremlett and Onions playing the roles of Anderson and Broad). While there would be a lot of testing spin, rotating the two fast bowlers would be tricky, especially in the new-ball period which seems to offer a lot out in the UAE. England no longer have the handy holding overs of Paul Collingwood to toss the ball to, which would make this option a no-goer as well.
The third way to get Monty back into the England team would be to play him instead of Graeme Swann. Dissenting voices of Swann have mentioned his lack of wickets over the last 12 months, but surely dropping the-best-spinner-in-the-world(TM) would be wrong? Yes, Swann hasn't taken many wickets recently, but that's mainly because the fast bowlers have done the majority of the damage on pretty green pitches. When Swann has needed to step up on a final day (Adelaide v Australia, The Oval v India), he's made match-winning performances to seal victories. Besides, dropping a key player would be very un-England, where the success has come from consistent selection, backing their players, and allowing those in poor trots to come good. Swann may not be in a bad trot, but he hasn't dominated a series in a while, but on the first tour with turning pitches since he decimated Bangladesh two years ago, Swann has the chance to tear them apart, again.
All in all, Monty Panesar won't play. As much as playing two spinners is important in these conditions, there isn't really any way (short of calling up Samit Patel, which they should have done in the first place) of getting two spinners into the team without sacrificing a batsman or a fast bowler. While Panesar took the wickets to win the game, the most important wicket of the match was that of Fawad Alam, who was caught Trott bowled Pietersen. If England go in with only one frontline spinner, Kevin Pietersen will have to turn his arm over a fair bit, and that wicket will give Flower, Strauss and the selectors confidence that he can do his bit. Whether or not they think that after the first test remains to be seen...
Tuesday, 18 October 2011
Why Can't England Win ODIs in India?
It's the question on everyone's lips. Or, more pertinently, how can England play so badly only weeks after stuffing India out of sight on a tour where the world champions failed to register one victory?
All of the old excuses have been trotted out. England can't play spin. England don't know how to bowl on the sub-continent. England bat too slowly in India. England throw their wickets away. And to an extent, England have lost their first two games by falling into those very easy to pigeon-hole stereotypes.
But, that's just what they are. Stereotypes. Just because England teams of 3 years, or 30 years ago couldn't play spin or bowl tightly on the subcontinent doesn't mean that every England player to ever pull on the three lions is doomed to fail in India. England are currently producing some of the most technically correct players in generations, which doesn't indicate weaknesses against spin. Any problems England are having, as Alastair Cook touched upon in his post-match interview after the second ODI are confined to the mind. England can't win in India, because they don't believe they can win in India.
Without wanting to go into any psycho-babble, England do appear to have a mental block about playing fifty over cricket. How else can a team that currently dominate two of the three formats seem so far away in the third? How else can players like Kevin Pietersen and Ian Bell, who seem so at ease when in whites appear so out of their depths when in the colours? KP and Bell have come off unbelievable summers in test cricket and could arguably be regarded as the two finest batsmen in the world, yet put them into a fifty over match and they freeze. Pietersen hasn't made an ODI century in three years, Bell in four. Pietersen's place is under threat and Bell can't even get into this England team. How else can this be explained other than a general English mental block to playing ODI cricket?
Yes, there clearly has been a marked improvement in English ODI fortunes. Following the seminal away victory against South Africa in 2009, the Andys Flower and Strauss (and latterly Cook) have turned around English thinking about fifty over cricket, come up with winning strategies and won quite a few series. Since that South African tour, England have lost only one head-to-head series, and that was at the back end of a generation-defining and exhausting Ashes win. Yes, rain did help, but this team have just finished a home summer where they beat both of the World Cup finalists, one of them to nil. So somewhere along the line England are doing something right.
The key, as was said earlier, is in the mind. Other than the 6-1 humiliation to Australia back in 2009, England have won every home ODI series under Andy Flower. West Indies, Australia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and India have all perished. It's no surprise. England feel far more comfortable when at home with green pitches where the swing bowlers can exploit the friendly home surfaces. Just as England have a mental block about playing on the sub-continent, it seems that teams are travelling over to us and having mental blocks about playing on a cold, wet, windy night at Durham.
Two heavy defeats doesn't make this England team a bad one, just as three rain-affected wins over India doesn't make them a great one. Until England master their sub-continental yips, England fans are just going to have to accept that their brave boys are very good at home, but not as good when away. Beating all of those teams at home shows they are a good side, but being humbled by the world champions in their back yard just goes to show how far England have to go before they can really consider themselves ODI contenders.
All of the old excuses have been trotted out. England can't play spin. England don't know how to bowl on the sub-continent. England bat too slowly in India. England throw their wickets away. And to an extent, England have lost their first two games by falling into those very easy to pigeon-hole stereotypes.
But, that's just what they are. Stereotypes. Just because England teams of 3 years, or 30 years ago couldn't play spin or bowl tightly on the subcontinent doesn't mean that every England player to ever pull on the three lions is doomed to fail in India. England are currently producing some of the most technically correct players in generations, which doesn't indicate weaknesses against spin. Any problems England are having, as Alastair Cook touched upon in his post-match interview after the second ODI are confined to the mind. England can't win in India, because they don't believe they can win in India.
Without wanting to go into any psycho-babble, England do appear to have a mental block about playing fifty over cricket. How else can a team that currently dominate two of the three formats seem so far away in the third? How else can players like Kevin Pietersen and Ian Bell, who seem so at ease when in whites appear so out of their depths when in the colours? KP and Bell have come off unbelievable summers in test cricket and could arguably be regarded as the two finest batsmen in the world, yet put them into a fifty over match and they freeze. Pietersen hasn't made an ODI century in three years, Bell in four. Pietersen's place is under threat and Bell can't even get into this England team. How else can this be explained other than a general English mental block to playing ODI cricket?
Yes, there clearly has been a marked improvement in English ODI fortunes. Following the seminal away victory against South Africa in 2009, the Andys Flower and Strauss (and latterly Cook) have turned around English thinking about fifty over cricket, come up with winning strategies and won quite a few series. Since that South African tour, England have lost only one head-to-head series, and that was at the back end of a generation-defining and exhausting Ashes win. Yes, rain did help, but this team have just finished a home summer where they beat both of the World Cup finalists, one of them to nil. So somewhere along the line England are doing something right.
The key, as was said earlier, is in the mind. Other than the 6-1 humiliation to Australia back in 2009, England have won every home ODI series under Andy Flower. West Indies, Australia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and India have all perished. It's no surprise. England feel far more comfortable when at home with green pitches where the swing bowlers can exploit the friendly home surfaces. Just as England have a mental block about playing on the sub-continent, it seems that teams are travelling over to us and having mental blocks about playing on a cold, wet, windy night at Durham.
Two heavy defeats doesn't make this England team a bad one, just as three rain-affected wins over India doesn't make them a great one. Until England master their sub-continental yips, England fans are just going to have to accept that their brave boys are very good at home, but not as good when away. Beating all of those teams at home shows they are a good side, but being humbled by the world champions in their back yard just goes to show how far England have to go before they can really consider themselves ODI contenders.
Sunday, 25 September 2011
Ravi Bopara is Embarrassed
Ravi Bopara is the epitome of a confidence player. So often in and out of the England team, he's never truly felt comfortable in the side, so as such, hasn't felt loved by the English selectors. This lack of inner belief and trust in himself has led to poor performances, and has meant that his great potential just hasn't been lived up too.
Ravi Bopara has only really been given two solid runs in the side. The first, back in 2009, was when new coach Andy Flower told Ravi that he was the man to bat at number three for England, and put his trust and confidence in him. Bopara backed this up by making three successive test centuries. He felt as though he had a place in the team and confidence, and runs flowed.
He's had to wait until this summer for his next prolonged spell in the side. In and out over the last couple of years, he was given his chance for the final two tests of the India series, and then for the subsequent ODIs. While he started slowly, the performances have slowly but surely improved as Ravi is slowly starting to feel loved again by the selectors. A 96 at Lord's - so nearly his maiden ODI ton and comfortably his highest ODI score preceded a valuable 37* at Cardiff to guide England home, and tellingly a 4-10 in the first T20 against the West Indies. England's best ever T20 figures.
It's worth bearing that in mind. Of all of the great bowlers to have represented England over the past six years in T20 cricket, nobody has bowled better than Ravi Bopara did on Friday night. This is some achievement. However, Ravi claims he is "embarrassed" to have collected the accolade, which sort of sums up his mental issue with being in the England team. He just doesn't feel worthy enough to be playing international cricket, let alone excelling at it.
When thinking of Ravi Bopara's mentality, the perfect person to compare him to is Eoin Morgan. Both have extraordinary natural talent, as well as some equally obvious technical flaws. Yet both have had distinctly different careers in international cricket. Ever since taking to the field for England, Morgan has looked as though he belongs. Blessed with a mental fortitude that almost guarantees success, Morgan is extremely comfortable at the highest level, and has reaped the rewards of that. Bopara almost needs someone to constantly remind him that he actually is a very good cricketer, and while he will always be blessed with an extraordinary talent, what isn't so sure is his ability to perform and impress consistently for England. Ravi's feeling of embarrassment at his record figures sums up his attitude, and you get the feeling that had Morgan broken a record that he would be enjoying it rather than feeling bashful about it.
Technically, Eoin Morgan has his limitations. He isn't brilliant to the short ball, and is often very edgy when driving the ball off the front foot. But it's almost assumed that he will be a key player for England over the next few years, purely because he has the state of mind that he is sure to succeed. Ravi Bopara doesn't have this. What Bopara needs is for a prolonged run in the team backed up by good performances. At the moment, he is getting a run in the team, and those performances are beginning to come. With Morgan set to miss out on the next England tours, Bopara will get a few more opportunities in the side, and has a chance to stake a claim for a regular starting role. However, if he is to become one of the world's best - he must radically change his own mentality - stop being embarrassed and start enjoying international cricket. Only then can he become a Morgan.
Ravi Bopara has only really been given two solid runs in the side. The first, back in 2009, was when new coach Andy Flower told Ravi that he was the man to bat at number three for England, and put his trust and confidence in him. Bopara backed this up by making three successive test centuries. He felt as though he had a place in the team and confidence, and runs flowed.
He's had to wait until this summer for his next prolonged spell in the side. In and out over the last couple of years, he was given his chance for the final two tests of the India series, and then for the subsequent ODIs. While he started slowly, the performances have slowly but surely improved as Ravi is slowly starting to feel loved again by the selectors. A 96 at Lord's - so nearly his maiden ODI ton and comfortably his highest ODI score preceded a valuable 37* at Cardiff to guide England home, and tellingly a 4-10 in the first T20 against the West Indies. England's best ever T20 figures.
It's worth bearing that in mind. Of all of the great bowlers to have represented England over the past six years in T20 cricket, nobody has bowled better than Ravi Bopara did on Friday night. This is some achievement. However, Ravi claims he is "embarrassed" to have collected the accolade, which sort of sums up his mental issue with being in the England team. He just doesn't feel worthy enough to be playing international cricket, let alone excelling at it.
When thinking of Ravi Bopara's mentality, the perfect person to compare him to is Eoin Morgan. Both have extraordinary natural talent, as well as some equally obvious technical flaws. Yet both have had distinctly different careers in international cricket. Ever since taking to the field for England, Morgan has looked as though he belongs. Blessed with a mental fortitude that almost guarantees success, Morgan is extremely comfortable at the highest level, and has reaped the rewards of that. Bopara almost needs someone to constantly remind him that he actually is a very good cricketer, and while he will always be blessed with an extraordinary talent, what isn't so sure is his ability to perform and impress consistently for England. Ravi's feeling of embarrassment at his record figures sums up his attitude, and you get the feeling that had Morgan broken a record that he would be enjoying it rather than feeling bashful about it.
Technically, Eoin Morgan has his limitations. He isn't brilliant to the short ball, and is often very edgy when driving the ball off the front foot. But it's almost assumed that he will be a key player for England over the next few years, purely because he has the state of mind that he is sure to succeed. Ravi Bopara doesn't have this. What Bopara needs is for a prolonged run in the team backed up by good performances. At the moment, he is getting a run in the team, and those performances are beginning to come. With Morgan set to miss out on the next England tours, Bopara will get a few more opportunities in the side, and has a chance to stake a claim for a regular starting role. However, if he is to become one of the world's best - he must radically change his own mentality - stop being embarrassed and start enjoying international cricket. Only then can he become a Morgan.
Monday, 15 August 2011
Bunny's Back
Way back in September 2010, I wrote this about Graham Onions. Bunny's always been a personal favourite of mine, whether it's for smearing Aussie stumps with fine swing bowling or defiantly blocking out to save games in South Africa. Onions had forced his way into the England side thanks to some excellence at county level, and had just about got himself into England's first choice test eleven. But disaster struck in the form of a back injury that ruled him out for a season just before the Bangladesh tour, and England moved on since then.
It's fair to say that since Onions last donned an England shirt things have changed. First came Steve Finn, who raced to 50 test wickets in the fastest time possible. Then Chris Tremlett, who's international redemption has seen him become one of the most feared fast bowlers in the world. And then Tim Bresnan, who has turned from bits and pieces seamer to a genuine test all-rounder who averages 45 with the bat and 24 with the ball. And while Onions has been out injured, England moved from also-rans to Ashes winners and World Number Ones. He couldn't have picked a worse time to miss, as England had quite clearly moved on from him.
But, they haven't. With the fourth test against India being quite the dead rubber, it seems that Jimmy Anderson's slight niggle won't be risked. So into the squad comes Graham Onions, the forgotten man of England's success.
A similiar sort of situation happened back the last time England were any good - the heady days of the 2005 Ashes. Simon Jones, who'd been a key quarter of England's fearsome fast four broke down in the fourth test at Trent Bridge, with what proved to be a quite serious injury. In the time it had taken for Jones to get back on a field and prove his fitness, England had moved a long way from the Welshman, and he remained just a memory as England floundered in the post-2005 failures.
Luckily for Onions, he hasn't been forgotten, and is back in the squad for the test starting on Thursday. He may or may not get selected, as the pecking order system used probably has Steven Finn still ahead of him, but it shows he is right back on England's radar. At a time when England's fast bowling pool couldn't be stronger, if Onions comes in and seizes the opportunity as Finn, Tremlett and Bresnan have, there could be quite a few headaches for Andy Flower between now and England's next test appointment in the UAE in the new year.
It's fair to say that since Onions last donned an England shirt things have changed. First came Steve Finn, who raced to 50 test wickets in the fastest time possible. Then Chris Tremlett, who's international redemption has seen him become one of the most feared fast bowlers in the world. And then Tim Bresnan, who has turned from bits and pieces seamer to a genuine test all-rounder who averages 45 with the bat and 24 with the ball. And while Onions has been out injured, England moved from also-rans to Ashes winners and World Number Ones. He couldn't have picked a worse time to miss, as England had quite clearly moved on from him.
But, they haven't. With the fourth test against India being quite the dead rubber, it seems that Jimmy Anderson's slight niggle won't be risked. So into the squad comes Graham Onions, the forgotten man of England's success.
A similiar sort of situation happened back the last time England were any good - the heady days of the 2005 Ashes. Simon Jones, who'd been a key quarter of England's fearsome fast four broke down in the fourth test at Trent Bridge, with what proved to be a quite serious injury. In the time it had taken for Jones to get back on a field and prove his fitness, England had moved a long way from the Welshman, and he remained just a memory as England floundered in the post-2005 failures.
Luckily for Onions, he hasn't been forgotten, and is back in the squad for the test starting on Thursday. He may or may not get selected, as the pecking order system used probably has Steven Finn still ahead of him, but it shows he is right back on England's radar. At a time when England's fast bowling pool couldn't be stronger, if Onions comes in and seizes the opportunity as Finn, Tremlett and Bresnan have, there could be quite a few headaches for Andy Flower between now and England's next test appointment in the UAE in the new year.
Friday, 5 August 2011
Flower's Selection Headache
England's selectors name their squad for the third test against India tomorrow, and they're faced with a dilemma, and his name is Tim Bresnan. After sticking with a tried and tested formula of seven batsmen and four bowlers over the past couple of years, the selectors will have to decide on whether to drastically change policy and shuffle things around, or to stick with traditional and keep the status quo.
Ever since being gubbed at Headingley by the rampant Australians in 2009, Andy Flower has had an obvious reticence to only playing six specialist batsmen. With a long tail starting at seven, England were rolled within 34 overs, and ultimately lost within three days by an innings. Despite containing 'handy' players down the order (with Swann and Broad both sharing slightly face-saving half-centuries), England lacked the safety-net of an extra batsman, and paid the price handsomely. Since then, Flower and Strauss have steadfastly refused to change their preferred shape, which as rigidly defensive as it may be, has clearly wielded great results.
Jonathan Trott is injured, and unlikely to play at Edgbaston. And normally we would just see the "next cab off the rank" in operation, with (probably) James Taylor coming in to the side to maintain the natural order of things. However. Tim Bresnan has just had an excellent game at Trent Bridge, with a five-wicket haul and a 90 certainly adding weight to the argument that he is a true test all-rounder. It would almost appear illogical to drop him after the game he's just had, if not downright cruel. So with Trott out should England move Bresnan up to seven and go with only the six out-and-out batsmen?
Things certainly seem to be in Bresnan's favour. Even though he may arguably be a touch too high at number seven, with Swann and Broad below him, there's certainly a tail that can wag viciously. Having Matt Prior at number six isn't an issue, as he's proven in the past that he's plenty good enough to bat there, and England have enough batsmen in top form to afford to add an extra bowler. The shape could still work if Chris Tremlett doesn't pass fit, with Steven Finn ready and waiting to step into the breach, and either way England would have a very strong batting and bowling line-up.
Headingley 2009 still haunts Andy Flower, and the scars of that performance have been evident in the team selections ever since. However, it's surely impossible to omit Bresnan, and the return of Tremlett would give them a very big headache. However, the injury to Trott gives England the opportunity to have their cake and eat it, and to rearrange the shape of the side. With India on the ropes, England must go out and finish them off, and the best way to do so is with an aggressive line-up. It just remains to be seen whether Andy Flower makes the brave call in changing the policy, or the safe one in sticking with the usual.
Ever since being gubbed at Headingley by the rampant Australians in 2009, Andy Flower has had an obvious reticence to only playing six specialist batsmen. With a long tail starting at seven, England were rolled within 34 overs, and ultimately lost within three days by an innings. Despite containing 'handy' players down the order (with Swann and Broad both sharing slightly face-saving half-centuries), England lacked the safety-net of an extra batsman, and paid the price handsomely. Since then, Flower and Strauss have steadfastly refused to change their preferred shape, which as rigidly defensive as it may be, has clearly wielded great results.
Jonathan Trott is injured, and unlikely to play at Edgbaston. And normally we would just see the "next cab off the rank" in operation, with (probably) James Taylor coming in to the side to maintain the natural order of things. However. Tim Bresnan has just had an excellent game at Trent Bridge, with a five-wicket haul and a 90 certainly adding weight to the argument that he is a true test all-rounder. It would almost appear illogical to drop him after the game he's just had, if not downright cruel. So with Trott out should England move Bresnan up to seven and go with only the six out-and-out batsmen?
Things certainly seem to be in Bresnan's favour. Even though he may arguably be a touch too high at number seven, with Swann and Broad below him, there's certainly a tail that can wag viciously. Having Matt Prior at number six isn't an issue, as he's proven in the past that he's plenty good enough to bat there, and England have enough batsmen in top form to afford to add an extra bowler. The shape could still work if Chris Tremlett doesn't pass fit, with Steven Finn ready and waiting to step into the breach, and either way England would have a very strong batting and bowling line-up.
Headingley 2009 still haunts Andy Flower, and the scars of that performance have been evident in the team selections ever since. However, it's surely impossible to omit Bresnan, and the return of Tremlett would give them a very big headache. However, the injury to Trott gives England the opportunity to have their cake and eat it, and to rearrange the shape of the side. With India on the ropes, England must go out and finish them off, and the best way to do so is with an aggressive line-up. It just remains to be seen whether Andy Flower makes the brave call in changing the policy, or the safe one in sticking with the usual.
Tuesday, 2 August 2011
2005 v 2011 - Who's Better?
With the current England side looking like it's going to be the best in the world in a couple of weeks, it's natural to wonder if it's the best England side in living memory. Of course, the biggest opposition to that claim is the victors of the greatest series - the class of 2005. Captained by Vaughan, inspired by Freddie at his best and packed with big names, the 2005 vintage battled and beat the best side in the world.
The 2011 lot are also playing the team who are at the summit of test cricket. However, unlike 2005, instead of scraping tight fought victories, they're destroying all before them and sauntering to big wins. This doesn't automatically make the 2011 team better than their 2005 contemporaries, as it's plainly obvious that the opposition in '05 of Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist, Ponting et al are on a slightly higher plain than the current touring Indian side.
However, for me, if the two best England sides of the 21st century were to meet, there'd only be one winner. As good as the 2005 team were, they managed to win the Ashes while carrying a few players. Ashley Giles, a man who's runs at Trent Bridge and the Oval make him a hero amongst men, was hardly the most threatening spinner of the ball. You don't get called the Wheely Bin for nothing. And the 2005 edition of Ian Bell is a far cry from the hardened run-machine currently seen, with a freckly rabbit-in-the-headlights a more apt description. In 2011, there simply isn't that. Everybody pulls their weight.
However, we won't know the true ability of the 2011 side for quite a while. Back in 2005, having won the Ashes, England had the world at their feet. However, a combination of taking their eyes off the ball, untimely injuries and the gradual aging of players meant the side drifted apart and world domination was not reached. As such, the 2005 side is seen as just a one-off - a side that was put together with winning the Ashes in mind, and ultimately they achieved their goal. The key for Andy Flower and Andrew Strauss is to create a legacy - a side that dominates world cricket for years to come.
The 2011 lot are also playing the team who are at the summit of test cricket. However, unlike 2005, instead of scraping tight fought victories, they're destroying all before them and sauntering to big wins. This doesn't automatically make the 2011 team better than their 2005 contemporaries, as it's plainly obvious that the opposition in '05 of Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist, Ponting et al are on a slightly higher plain than the current touring Indian side.
However, for me, if the two best England sides of the 21st century were to meet, there'd only be one winner. As good as the 2005 team were, they managed to win the Ashes while carrying a few players. Ashley Giles, a man who's runs at Trent Bridge and the Oval make him a hero amongst men, was hardly the most threatening spinner of the ball. You don't get called the Wheely Bin for nothing. And the 2005 edition of Ian Bell is a far cry from the hardened run-machine currently seen, with a freckly rabbit-in-the-headlights a more apt description. In 2011, there simply isn't that. Everybody pulls their weight.
However, we won't know the true ability of the 2011 side for quite a while. Back in 2005, having won the Ashes, England had the world at their feet. However, a combination of taking their eyes off the ball, untimely injuries and the gradual aging of players meant the side drifted apart and world domination was not reached. As such, the 2005 side is seen as just a one-off - a side that was put together with winning the Ashes in mind, and ultimately they achieved their goal. The key for Andy Flower and Andrew Strauss is to create a legacy - a side that dominates world cricket for years to come.
Monday, 1 August 2011
My Take on the Bell Run-Out
I won't make this a long-winded thing because I know absolutely every cricket fan with access to the internet has already voiced their opinions on the incident already, but just because I can, here's my two cents worth.
Massive credit to India. They didn't have to repeal the appeal. With the game situation as it was, they knew just how important the wicket of Ian Bell would be, and in the laws of the game, they had taken it. It would have been easy for them to do nothing, or to argue that they'd done nothing wrong in whipping the bails off and appealing. From what we heard from Rahul Dravid, the whole team felt distinctly uneasy at getting the wicket that way, and the unanimous decision was made to recall Bell.
However, as sporting as India clearly were, England certainly didn't cover themselves in glory. Bell's celebrations when reaching 150 were, given the reprieve he'd been granted, a touch over-exuberant, and he seemed to show a tragic lack of self-awareness when not taking responsibility for his part in it in the interviews at the end. And Andy Flower and Andrew Strauss probably shouldn't have put pressure on the Indian dressing room to change the decision - at the end of the day it was completely up to India to decide and nothing to do with Strauss or Flower.
We all know the whole situation could have been avoided had Ian Bell simply waited for some sort of signal from the umpires, or for the ball to be thrown in from the boundary. However, once he didn't do that, India were well within their rights to knock the bails off, and the umpires were totally correct in giving him out. There's no denying that Bell was certainly very foolish, and the way he argued his way out of the situation rather than holding his hands up and admitting his error didn't look brilliant. However, the odd situation shouldn't take away from a fine innings - one of the best we'll see in test cricket this year, and what could be a match-winning one.
All in all, while the ICC statement praises one side, only one has come out of this in credit. India, who lest we forget are the number one side in the world, certainly set the benchmark for the way cricket should be played, and for that, they should be applauded from the rooftops. The spirit of cricket, in some quarters at least, is certainly alive and well.
Massive credit to India. They didn't have to repeal the appeal. With the game situation as it was, they knew just how important the wicket of Ian Bell would be, and in the laws of the game, they had taken it. It would have been easy for them to do nothing, or to argue that they'd done nothing wrong in whipping the bails off and appealing. From what we heard from Rahul Dravid, the whole team felt distinctly uneasy at getting the wicket that way, and the unanimous decision was made to recall Bell.
However, as sporting as India clearly were, England certainly didn't cover themselves in glory. Bell's celebrations when reaching 150 were, given the reprieve he'd been granted, a touch over-exuberant, and he seemed to show a tragic lack of self-awareness when not taking responsibility for his part in it in the interviews at the end. And Andy Flower and Andrew Strauss probably shouldn't have put pressure on the Indian dressing room to change the decision - at the end of the day it was completely up to India to decide and nothing to do with Strauss or Flower.
We all know the whole situation could have been avoided had Ian Bell simply waited for some sort of signal from the umpires, or for the ball to be thrown in from the boundary. However, once he didn't do that, India were well within their rights to knock the bails off, and the umpires were totally correct in giving him out. There's no denying that Bell was certainly very foolish, and the way he argued his way out of the situation rather than holding his hands up and admitting his error didn't look brilliant. However, the odd situation shouldn't take away from a fine innings - one of the best we'll see in test cricket this year, and what could be a match-winning one.
All in all, while the ICC statement praises one side, only one has come out of this in credit. India, who lest we forget are the number one side in the world, certainly set the benchmark for the way cricket should be played, and for that, they should be applauded from the rooftops. The spirit of cricket, in some quarters at least, is certainly alive and well.
Friday, 29 July 2011
Morgan's Place No Pressing Issue
The nature of the English cricket press is that there always needs to be someone sweating over their place. Last summer, it was Alastair Cook, but he then went on to have the winter to end all winters. The spotlight then moved to Kevin Pietersen, who has since refound his top form. Last week it was Stuart Broad who was the next in line to be throw overboard, instead he's had a few of his best days in test cricket. So who's next on death row as the cricket press bottle spins onto it's next target? Well, after three failures in a row, it's going to be Eoin Morgan.
Eoin Morgan, for all of his ODI success, has had a quiet start to his test career. Other than the excellent ton against Pakistan last summer, he's yet to stamp his mark on test cricket and firmly assert himself as England's number six batsman. When Paul Collingwood retired, a space opened up in the England batting order, and the selectors chose Morgan; basically saying that he was their man to play in the middle order for the next few years. This wasn't that long ago.
England have been actually doing pretty well in test cricket over the past while, so there aren't many players who are under pressure for their place in the team. However, as there always needs to be someone in trouble (otherwise there is no story), Morgan is the man they've picked.
Techically, there's a lot that Eoin Morgan has to work on. But there's no denying that he is an absolute class batsman who can score a lot of runs, and has the perfect temprament for test cricket. In three innings this series, Morgan's had a couple of dubious decisions, and ended up with three low scores. This doesn't automatically make him a bad player or that he should be dropped. These things happen. It wasn't that long ago he was being backed as a permanenent member of the England team for years to come - so what's changed?
England's selectorial policy under Andy Flower has been as far removed from the knee-jerk as possible, with players going through lean spells being nursed back into form and returning to past glories. Eoin Morgan may not have the illustrious record of some of his teammates, but he certainly has the same ability. And it was only last month that Flower, Geoff Miller, and Strauss confirmed this by picking him for the Sri Lanka series.
England haven't got where they are today by making snap decisions and dropping out of form players. Eoin Morgan may be in a slight trough and James Taylor may be on the crest of a wave, but there's no need for impulsive change for changes sake on the back of one poor day of test cricket. Luckily, I think the selectors and Andy Flower know that, but the real issue is whether the press know that too.
Eoin Morgan, for all of his ODI success, has had a quiet start to his test career. Other than the excellent ton against Pakistan last summer, he's yet to stamp his mark on test cricket and firmly assert himself as England's number six batsman. When Paul Collingwood retired, a space opened up in the England batting order, and the selectors chose Morgan; basically saying that he was their man to play in the middle order for the next few years. This wasn't that long ago.
England have been actually doing pretty well in test cricket over the past while, so there aren't many players who are under pressure for their place in the team. However, as there always needs to be someone in trouble (otherwise there is no story), Morgan is the man they've picked.
Techically, there's a lot that Eoin Morgan has to work on. But there's no denying that he is an absolute class batsman who can score a lot of runs, and has the perfect temprament for test cricket. In three innings this series, Morgan's had a couple of dubious decisions, and ended up with three low scores. This doesn't automatically make him a bad player or that he should be dropped. These things happen. It wasn't that long ago he was being backed as a permanenent member of the England team for years to come - so what's changed?
England's selectorial policy under Andy Flower has been as far removed from the knee-jerk as possible, with players going through lean spells being nursed back into form and returning to past glories. Eoin Morgan may not have the illustrious record of some of his teammates, but he certainly has the same ability. And it was only last month that Flower, Geoff Miller, and Strauss confirmed this by picking him for the Sri Lanka series.
England haven't got where they are today by making snap decisions and dropping out of form players. Eoin Morgan may be in a slight trough and James Taylor may be on the crest of a wave, but there's no need for impulsive change for changes sake on the back of one poor day of test cricket. Luckily, I think the selectors and Andy Flower know that, but the real issue is whether the press know that too.
Thursday, 28 July 2011
The Horse for the Course or the Young Buck?
Last week at Lord's, the only selectorial decision England had to make was whether Stuart Broad or Tim Bresnan should make the third seamer spot. And with Broad having a blinder at HQ and Chris Tremlett seemingly ruled out due to injury, Bresnan is again embroiled in a fight for that final fast-bowling position in the side.
His opposition this week is Steven Finn, the fastest Englishman to 50 test wickets, but still lacks that little bit of control so desired by Strauss and Flower. The argument for Finn is a good one - he does have a great knack of taking wickets, and with a bit of extra height and bounce he could be England's ENFORCER (not that they need one).
However, things are stacked in Tim's favour. For one, he doesn't have to partake in a long late night drive from London to Nottingham the night before the game, so can instead tuck up in bed and get an early night. He also has much more of an ability to swing the ball; so much so that he was England's "horses for courses" swing bowler at Melbourne, incidentally replacing Finn. With a green top prepared and Trent Bridge historically being a swingers haven, Bresnan should surely be favourite. Add to that the fact that Finn didn't even make the 12 man squad for this game and that Messrs Flower and Strauss favour the "next cab off the rank" selectorial policy (they don't mind a bit of jargon, do they?) it's all certainly pointing towards Bresnan getting the nod at 10.30 tomorrow morning.
So Steven Finn's going to have to make the 105 mile journey from Lord's to Trent Bridge all in vain. He's spent more time on the motorways than playing for England this summer, and while he's not quite there in terms of getting into the team, he's showing willing and his knocking on the door is certainly getting louder. Sadly it seems he's just going to have to keep knocking and remaining patient for a little bit longer yet. Bresnan, however, has the chance to show why he did so well in the final two Ashes tests, and firmly show just how good a test bowler he can be for England.
His opposition this week is Steven Finn, the fastest Englishman to 50 test wickets, but still lacks that little bit of control so desired by Strauss and Flower. The argument for Finn is a good one - he does have a great knack of taking wickets, and with a bit of extra height and bounce he could be England's ENFORCER (not that they need one).
However, things are stacked in Tim's favour. For one, he doesn't have to partake in a long late night drive from London to Nottingham the night before the game, so can instead tuck up in bed and get an early night. He also has much more of an ability to swing the ball; so much so that he was England's "horses for courses" swing bowler at Melbourne, incidentally replacing Finn. With a green top prepared and Trent Bridge historically being a swingers haven, Bresnan should surely be favourite. Add to that the fact that Finn didn't even make the 12 man squad for this game and that Messrs Flower and Strauss favour the "next cab off the rank" selectorial policy (they don't mind a bit of jargon, do they?) it's all certainly pointing towards Bresnan getting the nod at 10.30 tomorrow morning.
So Steven Finn's going to have to make the 105 mile journey from Lord's to Trent Bridge all in vain. He's spent more time on the motorways than playing for England this summer, and while he's not quite there in terms of getting into the team, he's showing willing and his knocking on the door is certainly getting louder. Sadly it seems he's just going to have to keep knocking and remaining patient for a little bit longer yet. Bresnan, however, has the chance to show why he did so well in the final two Ashes tests, and firmly show just how good a test bowler he can be for England.
Sunday, 10 July 2011
Kiesy Keeping His Confidence Up
I've deliberately not written anything about Middlesex's T20 campaign on here this year, partly because we've been so awful and we've been trying to keep it on the down low, and also because I've been writing exclusively (and officially) about it here. However, this piece is going to reference it slightly, so be warned.
Today at Southgate, Middlesex took on Somerset. Turning out for Somerset was Craig Kieswetter. Having played a big part in winning the ODI series against Sri Lanka for England yesterday at Old Trafford, Craig hopped in the Kiesmobile (that picture there)
and got down to the picturesque outground for the T20.
I've seen Craig keep wicket on a few occasions, and the jury's often been out. Picked for England purely on the basis of him being a big hitting opener rather than for any fancy glovework, I'd always felt Kieswetter's keeping wasn't quite up to standard. And he probably felt it too. You can always tell immediately when a wicket-keeper is actually any good, because he exudes a confidence that radiates around the field. You just know that if the ball goes up, it's going to land safely in his gloves. If the batsman strays even momentarily from his ground, you know the keeper will have whipped off the bails before he regains his safety. At the level Kieswetter is playing, anyone given the gloves will be good enough, but every now and again you come across someone with that little something special.
My first sighting of Craig Kieswetter keeping wicket was last summer in an ODI against Australia. The highs of the World T20 were long forgotten as Craig's struggles at the top of the order in English conditions had taken hold, and the press were targetting him. He hadn't scored many all series, and the spectre of Steve Davies loomed large. And as such, while his keeping wasn't terrible, he clearly didn't command the field. A couple of spills were soon followed by a couple of drops, and suddenly he looked very miserable. His poor batting continued, and he was not long later dropped for Davies and forgotten.
Fast forward to today's T20. Kieswetter's keeping had been impressive through the ODI series against Sri Lanka - the first time he'd been in the side since being dropped 12 months ago. But at Southgate, everything went through him. Whatever was happening in the field, everyone was looking at him. While it wasn't a faultless display he exuded a confidence that suggested he wasn't going to spill any chances or muff up any run outs. And he took a couple of excellent catches which ultimately swung the momentum back towards his side. He didn't score many runs but he still seemed the main attraction.
It just goes to show what a bit of confidence can do. Doing well in one of his disciplines has given a boost to the other, and as such is in fine form. Being told by Andy Flower that he is to be the first choice ODI keeper gave Kieswetter the freedom and confidence to excel in the ODI series, and the high score has given him far more confidence in the field. Which will then rub off on his batting. Which will then give him more of an aura whilst keeping. It's a continuous cycle of self-belief that can only benefit Craig and England going forward.
The difference between Kieswetter against Australia last year and Sri Lanka this is huge. Last year he struggled immensely against the moving ball and the requirements of a 50 over opener compared to a twenty20 one. This year (albeit against a weaker Sri Lankan attack) he's looked composed, assured, and has scored a weight of runs that suggests he's going to be around for a long time. This may have started as a post about Middlesex's hard-earned point (from a tie, nonetheless) against Somerset, but it's mostly been about Craig Kieswetter. Something that England's ODI cricket might be all about for quite a while to come...
Today at Southgate, Middlesex took on Somerset. Turning out for Somerset was Craig Kieswetter. Having played a big part in winning the ODI series against Sri Lanka for England yesterday at Old Trafford, Craig hopped in the Kiesmobile (that picture there)
and got down to the picturesque outground for the T20.
I've seen Craig keep wicket on a few occasions, and the jury's often been out. Picked for England purely on the basis of him being a big hitting opener rather than for any fancy glovework, I'd always felt Kieswetter's keeping wasn't quite up to standard. And he probably felt it too. You can always tell immediately when a wicket-keeper is actually any good, because he exudes a confidence that radiates around the field. You just know that if the ball goes up, it's going to land safely in his gloves. If the batsman strays even momentarily from his ground, you know the keeper will have whipped off the bails before he regains his safety. At the level Kieswetter is playing, anyone given the gloves will be good enough, but every now and again you come across someone with that little something special.
My first sighting of Craig Kieswetter keeping wicket was last summer in an ODI against Australia. The highs of the World T20 were long forgotten as Craig's struggles at the top of the order in English conditions had taken hold, and the press were targetting him. He hadn't scored many all series, and the spectre of Steve Davies loomed large. And as such, while his keeping wasn't terrible, he clearly didn't command the field. A couple of spills were soon followed by a couple of drops, and suddenly he looked very miserable. His poor batting continued, and he was not long later dropped for Davies and forgotten.
Fast forward to today's T20. Kieswetter's keeping had been impressive through the ODI series against Sri Lanka - the first time he'd been in the side since being dropped 12 months ago. But at Southgate, everything went through him. Whatever was happening in the field, everyone was looking at him. While it wasn't a faultless display he exuded a confidence that suggested he wasn't going to spill any chances or muff up any run outs. And he took a couple of excellent catches which ultimately swung the momentum back towards his side. He didn't score many runs but he still seemed the main attraction.
It just goes to show what a bit of confidence can do. Doing well in one of his disciplines has given a boost to the other, and as such is in fine form. Being told by Andy Flower that he is to be the first choice ODI keeper gave Kieswetter the freedom and confidence to excel in the ODI series, and the high score has given him far more confidence in the field. Which will then rub off on his batting. Which will then give him more of an aura whilst keeping. It's a continuous cycle of self-belief that can only benefit Craig and England going forward.
The difference between Kieswetter against Australia last year and Sri Lanka this is huge. Last year he struggled immensely against the moving ball and the requirements of a 50 over opener compared to a twenty20 one. This year (albeit against a weaker Sri Lankan attack) he's looked composed, assured, and has scored a weight of runs that suggests he's going to be around for a long time. This may have started as a post about Middlesex's hard-earned point (from a tie, nonetheless) against Somerset, but it's mostly been about Craig Kieswetter. Something that England's ODI cricket might be all about for quite a while to come...
Just How Good Actually Are England At ODIs?
England have won the best-of-five series against World Cup finalists Sri Lanka 3-2. In two of the games they were awful. And in three of them they were brilliant. What does this tell us about how good England are? Haven't a clue.
England's ODI form over the past 18 months has actually been pretty decent. A great win out in South Africa. Wins against Bangladesh home and away, followed by another series victory against a strong Pakistani outfit. So had England turned a corner from the 20 odd years of ODI mediocrity? Well, not according to a 6-1 drubbing in Australia and a poor World Cup. But there are the excuses of a tired team fatigued after a heavy winter plagued by big injuries to key players. And as bad as we were in the defeats to Ireland, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, England were immense in wins against South Africa and the West Indies (and in the tie against India), which counter-balance out the dross. So we're no closer to actually working out if we're any good.
Everyone sort of knew that England weren't that good at the World Cup, and that changes needed to be made. But cosmetic changes of Cook and Kieswetter in for Strauss and Prior aside, there isn't anything that glaringly obvious wrong about this England ODI side (now that Luke Wright has been cast into the international hinterland). Were we a decent team who were doing things right but just had a poor World Cup. Or not?
And then we have just had the Sri Lanka series. In the first game, England were great. In games two and three, they were horrible. And then everything was right with the world as they won the final two to clinch the series. So are England actually good at ODIs?
Well, yes. And at the same time, no. England are just so inconsistent that it's nigh on impossible to sum up their limited over performances in one neat sentence. Nobody knows what side will turn up. Will it be the lifeless side of leaky bowlers and plodding batsmen who are barely competitve, or a side of world-beating nerve-holding six-hitting wicket-taking flying-catching renegades who blitz the opposition and have won the game in an hour? Consistency, and the persuit of it, is surely what the Flower-Cook combo will be striving for in ODI cricket over the next few years, yet it is what has remained the most elusive element of English limited over recent history.
Can England go on and win in their next ODI series against World Champions India? Absolutely. But at the same time, they could get absolutely humped. So in answer to my early question, just how good are England at ODIs? Because I haven't got a bloody clue...
England's ODI form over the past 18 months has actually been pretty decent. A great win out in South Africa. Wins against Bangladesh home and away, followed by another series victory against a strong Pakistani outfit. So had England turned a corner from the 20 odd years of ODI mediocrity? Well, not according to a 6-1 drubbing in Australia and a poor World Cup. But there are the excuses of a tired team fatigued after a heavy winter plagued by big injuries to key players. And as bad as we were in the defeats to Ireland, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, England were immense in wins against South Africa and the West Indies (and in the tie against India), which counter-balance out the dross. So we're no closer to actually working out if we're any good.
Everyone sort of knew that England weren't that good at the World Cup, and that changes needed to be made. But cosmetic changes of Cook and Kieswetter in for Strauss and Prior aside, there isn't anything that glaringly obvious wrong about this England ODI side (now that Luke Wright has been cast into the international hinterland). Were we a decent team who were doing things right but just had a poor World Cup. Or not?
And then we have just had the Sri Lanka series. In the first game, England were great. In games two and three, they were horrible. And then everything was right with the world as they won the final two to clinch the series. So are England actually good at ODIs?
Well, yes. And at the same time, no. England are just so inconsistent that it's nigh on impossible to sum up their limited over performances in one neat sentence. Nobody knows what side will turn up. Will it be the lifeless side of leaky bowlers and plodding batsmen who are barely competitve, or a side of world-beating nerve-holding six-hitting wicket-taking flying-catching renegades who blitz the opposition and have won the game in an hour? Consistency, and the persuit of it, is surely what the Flower-Cook combo will be striving for in ODI cricket over the next few years, yet it is what has remained the most elusive element of English limited over recent history.
Can England go on and win in their next ODI series against World Champions India? Absolutely. But at the same time, they could get absolutely humped. So in answer to my early question, just how good are England at ODIs? Because I haven't got a bloody clue...
Monday, 20 June 2011
Picking The Bones Out of England v Sri Lanka
Nimal Mendis! Michael Ondaatje! Prof. Cyril Ponnamperuma! Can you hear me Prof. Cyril Ponnamperuma? Your boys have taken one hell of a beating!
Googling eminent Sri Lankans aside, England have won the first test series of the summer 1-0. That makes it their fifth test series victory in a row, (which makes it seven out of eight since Andy Flower took over permanently - and the other one was a draw), but weirdly it seems like they've won by default. Other than a mad couple of hours as Sri Lanka imploded at Cardiff, all three tests could / should have been drawn, which probably would have been the apt result to what's been a fairly unsatisfactory series.
Dogged by poor ticket sales, poor wickets and worse weather, the opening salvo to the English summer of cricket has been not much more than a very damp squib. While England did play the better cricket, Sri Lanka did what they had to do to not lose the games, and but for a mindless collapse, would have saved the series very easily. Sri Lanka were unfairly underestimated before the start, and while there were some iffy performances, there were some flashes of brilliance which shows just how difficult a task England will have in the subcontinent when they take Sri Lanka on in their back yard this winter.
England will take a lot out of this series, even if the series is unlikely to make it to a 7 disk DVD collection. England were on top in all three games, and but for the rain would have won them all. In Cardiff they got a lead, applied the pressure and forced a result, and were attempting to do so at both Lord's and the Rose Bowl. The bowling was hit and miss, with some brilliance in amongst some utter filth but the one constant was the excellent batting. Strauss aside, each of England's seven bats produced this series, and are looking a very formidable outfit. And while the Anderson-less bowlers struggled at Lord's, man-of-the-series Tremlett came of age in his first home series in four years, producing some quite exquisite displays. In partnership with Anderson, England have a new-ball duo that can frighten any team in the world. (As long as Tremlett is actually given the new ball).
It was by far a vintage series for England, and while the series failed to capture the imagination of the general public, England got an awful lot out of it. Ultimately, this series was a warm-up for the Indian tests later this summer, and all England needed to do was to limber up ahead of it. Most of the batsmen got runs, and most of the bowlers took wickets. They continued that winning (or at least, not losing) feeling, and come out of the series with far more answers than questions. In the annals of time this won't be seen as one of the classic test series, but going forward, this could be one of the classic England teams.
Sunday, 12 June 2011
England's New One-Day Direction
This morning England name their first post-World Cup One Day squad. In effect, with the start of a new World Cup cycle starting here, this is an opportunity for a blank canvas in terms of England's limited over cricket, with new players given the chance to prove themselves and old players who couldn't hack it given the boot. This could be a defining squad announcement for England, as the established order swept aside and a new generation welcomed in. This will certainly be the squad with the most new faces until this similiar situation in four years time. I've written about who should or shouldn't be in the limited over squad quite a few times, but seeing as this is a chance to reevaluate England's ODI squad, I've reevaluated who I'd put in there myself.
For me, before picking the squad, there should only be one definite on the list - and that's the captain. While personally I would have liked someone else to have done the job, the selectors have gone for Alastair Cook, so at this moment in time, he's the only name on the board. And seeing as Stuart Broad is going to be T20 captain, he can be in there too. Other than that, past reputations should count for nothing, and the selectors should be ruthless in picking the best One Day players in the country, regardless of past glories (or not).
The first thing to think about is the balance of the team. England had a muddled ODI strategy going into the World Cup that kept chopping and changing - it was evident that they didn't know what their prefered team was. Did they want 6 or 7 out-and-out batsmen? Did they want one, two, three or even four all-rounders? Did they want one spinner, or three? Did they want the wicket-keeper to open? The strategy wasn't so much as wrong but clouded by indecision. So Andy Flower needs to set his stall out and pick a tactic for success. For my team, I've gone for 6 batsmen (of whom one can bowl), a wicket-keeper at seven, and four bowlers. There should be plenty of depth to both the batting and the bowling, and I think it is the most balanced side possible for ODI cricket.
The first name I'm going to pick is my wicket-keeper. England's use of wicket-keepers has been as muddled as anything else, with Prior, Davies and Kieswetter all getting jettisoned in the 12 months leading into the World Cup, before Prior was eventually selected. Personally, it's between Kieswetter and Davies, but I'd rather have Craig Kieswetter in down the order where he can give the final throes of an innings real impetus. While he was found out against the harder new ball in English conditions last summer, Kieswetter is a far better bet when the ball (and the bowlers) are a little more tired, and he can be a great 'finisher' down the order.
Batting wise, Alastair Cook is selected due to his captaincy, and opening alongside him I'd pick Alex Hales. Hales is a big hitter, which would be needed alongside the more sedate Cook, and has had an excellent start to the season. A lot is expected of him, and I think the time is certainly right to get him into the England team in order to improve his nascent game and gain invaluable experience.
While I said past reputations shouldn't come into it, my 3, 4 and 5 are straight from the World Cup. Jonathan Trott, for all of the accusations about a slow scoring rate is an incredible accumulator who can really anchor the innings. And Kevin Pietersen and Eoin Morgan would walk into any One Day team in the world (although judgement still to be passed about KP's mental state).
The last jigsaw piece of my middle order would be Samit Patel - unthinkable not too long ago, but after shedding (some) pounds and seemingly winning favour by getting into the Lions squad, Patel may have earned redemption. Clearly talented enough, the only question mark would be over his fitness, but if he's done enough to suggest to Andy Flower that he's ready then he should be brought in. Good with the ball but better with the bat, Patel is the sort of player that adds real balance to the team and can be England's trump card.
In terms of the bowling, Graeme Swann gets in as he is the best spinner in the country. Stuart Broad also plays because he is the T20 captain, as well as being a very good ODI player. And the other two fast bowling spots I'd give to Jade Dernbach and Chris Woakes. Dernbach has really impressed over the past year, both at Surrey and with the Lions, and has very quickly become a very accomplished one day bowler. And Woakes has already played a few times for England, and is already a very good player who will only continue to increase as he matures.
Perhaps the highest profile absentees are Ian Bell, Matt Prior and Jimmy Anderson. All stalwarts of England sides over the past few years, they've been passed over for various reasons. Prior is a very good attacking batsman, but has a distinctly ordinary ODI record, and should be moved aside to allow someone else a go. Bell is fast becoming one of the best test batsmen in the world, and I would love to have him in any England side (it wasn't that long ago I was campaigning for him to captain the ODI team) but I can't really see a space for him in this team. However, if Pietersen continues declining or Trott is brutally killed by Bob Willis then Bell would be the man to fill the vacant position. And Anderson's ODI form has tailed off significantly, and we saw all too clearly the poor perfomances in the Australian ODIs and the World Cup, which were almost certainly due to overkill and tiredness. A break from cricket after each test series would keep Jimmy fighting fit and fresh and would certainly benefit him in the long run.
England have a real opportunity with the announcements of the limited over sides today to turn over a new leaf and start again with One Day cricket. In the T20 side we might see Jason Roy or Ben Stokes, and there could be some new faces in the 50 over team too. Today's squad is a significant one, as it really sets the course for England's one day direction over the next four years. Let's just hope that the destination is the World Cup.
My ODI team:
Alastair Cook (c)
Alex Hales
Jonathan Trott
Kevin Pietersen
Eoin Morgan
Samit Patel
Craig Kieswetter
Chris Woakes
Stuart Broad
Graeme Swann
Jade Dernbach
For me, before picking the squad, there should only be one definite on the list - and that's the captain. While personally I would have liked someone else to have done the job, the selectors have gone for Alastair Cook, so at this moment in time, he's the only name on the board. And seeing as Stuart Broad is going to be T20 captain, he can be in there too. Other than that, past reputations should count for nothing, and the selectors should be ruthless in picking the best One Day players in the country, regardless of past glories (or not).
The first thing to think about is the balance of the team. England had a muddled ODI strategy going into the World Cup that kept chopping and changing - it was evident that they didn't know what their prefered team was. Did they want 6 or 7 out-and-out batsmen? Did they want one, two, three or even four all-rounders? Did they want one spinner, or three? Did they want the wicket-keeper to open? The strategy wasn't so much as wrong but clouded by indecision. So Andy Flower needs to set his stall out and pick a tactic for success. For my team, I've gone for 6 batsmen (of whom one can bowl), a wicket-keeper at seven, and four bowlers. There should be plenty of depth to both the batting and the bowling, and I think it is the most balanced side possible for ODI cricket.
The first name I'm going to pick is my wicket-keeper. England's use of wicket-keepers has been as muddled as anything else, with Prior, Davies and Kieswetter all getting jettisoned in the 12 months leading into the World Cup, before Prior was eventually selected. Personally, it's between Kieswetter and Davies, but I'd rather have Craig Kieswetter in down the order where he can give the final throes of an innings real impetus. While he was found out against the harder new ball in English conditions last summer, Kieswetter is a far better bet when the ball (and the bowlers) are a little more tired, and he can be a great 'finisher' down the order.
Batting wise, Alastair Cook is selected due to his captaincy, and opening alongside him I'd pick Alex Hales. Hales is a big hitter, which would be needed alongside the more sedate Cook, and has had an excellent start to the season. A lot is expected of him, and I think the time is certainly right to get him into the England team in order to improve his nascent game and gain invaluable experience.
While I said past reputations shouldn't come into it, my 3, 4 and 5 are straight from the World Cup. Jonathan Trott, for all of the accusations about a slow scoring rate is an incredible accumulator who can really anchor the innings. And Kevin Pietersen and Eoin Morgan would walk into any One Day team in the world (although judgement still to be passed about KP's mental state).
The last jigsaw piece of my middle order would be Samit Patel - unthinkable not too long ago, but after shedding (some) pounds and seemingly winning favour by getting into the Lions squad, Patel may have earned redemption. Clearly talented enough, the only question mark would be over his fitness, but if he's done enough to suggest to Andy Flower that he's ready then he should be brought in. Good with the ball but better with the bat, Patel is the sort of player that adds real balance to the team and can be England's trump card.
In terms of the bowling, Graeme Swann gets in as he is the best spinner in the country. Stuart Broad also plays because he is the T20 captain, as well as being a very good ODI player. And the other two fast bowling spots I'd give to Jade Dernbach and Chris Woakes. Dernbach has really impressed over the past year, both at Surrey and with the Lions, and has very quickly become a very accomplished one day bowler. And Woakes has already played a few times for England, and is already a very good player who will only continue to increase as he matures.
Perhaps the highest profile absentees are Ian Bell, Matt Prior and Jimmy Anderson. All stalwarts of England sides over the past few years, they've been passed over for various reasons. Prior is a very good attacking batsman, but has a distinctly ordinary ODI record, and should be moved aside to allow someone else a go. Bell is fast becoming one of the best test batsmen in the world, and I would love to have him in any England side (it wasn't that long ago I was campaigning for him to captain the ODI team) but I can't really see a space for him in this team. However, if Pietersen continues declining or Trott is brutally killed by Bob Willis then Bell would be the man to fill the vacant position. And Anderson's ODI form has tailed off significantly, and we saw all too clearly the poor perfomances in the Australian ODIs and the World Cup, which were almost certainly due to overkill and tiredness. A break from cricket after each test series would keep Jimmy fighting fit and fresh and would certainly benefit him in the long run.
England have a real opportunity with the announcements of the limited over sides today to turn over a new leaf and start again with One Day cricket. In the T20 side we might see Jason Roy or Ben Stokes, and there could be some new faces in the 50 over team too. Today's squad is a significant one, as it really sets the course for England's one day direction over the next four years. Let's just hope that the destination is the World Cup.
My ODI team:
Alastair Cook (c)
Alex Hales
Jonathan Trott
Kevin Pietersen
Eoin Morgan
Samit Patel
Craig Kieswetter
Chris Woakes
Stuart Broad
Graeme Swann
Jade Dernbach
Monday, 6 June 2011
Finn's Nifty Fifty
Today, Steven Finn broke a long-standing record by becoming the fastest man in English test history to get to 50 test wickets. At just 22 years and 63 days, and in his 12th test match, Finn has broken the previous record (set by Ian Botham) by 6 months. Pretty good going.
So for someone who clearly takes wickets, and has an average of 26, why hasn't Finn been in the team? Dropped after Perth and only back in here thanks to Jimmy Anderson's injury, Finn hasn't nailed down a place in the team, and chances are he'll drop out again when Anderson returns.
The key stat to look at is Finn's run rate in tests. 3.97. While he has a very handy knack of taking wickets, he does leak runs, and with a lot of England's plans revolving around keeping it tight and creating pressure, having a leaky bowler who is spraying it around can undo all of the hard work created at the other end. At the time of being dropped during the Ashes, Finn was the leading wicket taker of the series, but at what cost? His economy rates Down Under don't make pretty reading - 3.71, 6.25, 4.43, 3.33, 4.61, 5.73. While England valued his wickets, they went for the more frugal Tim Bresnan at Melbourne, and the rest is history.
But, while Finn struggles to stem the flow of runs, he does have that very happy knack of taking wickets. 50 wickets in 12 matches is testament to that. Finn is a young man, and is still learning his craft as a fast bowler. No doubt in time he'll be able to keep it tight and bowl far more consistently, but at the moment he sprays it around far too often. When Anderson, or even Bresnan becomes fit again, the question has to be whether England value a man who will take wickets at a high tariff, or create pressure and be less effective but more cheap.
It is a tricky one. Ultimately it's wickets that win test matches, and Finn takes wickets. But a lot of England's plans revolve around stifling the opposition, and forcing mistakes caused by scoreboard pressure. While Tremlett and Broad hardly covered themselves in glory this test match, normally England's attack is a much less generous proposition, and may have winkled out a few more wickets yesterday thanks to a low run rate forcing Sri Lankans to take risks attempting to force the pace.
Will Finn be dropped to make way when Anderson returns? Probably. The Andocracy have made it clear what their plans are for successful test cricket, and they can't afford to have one leaky bowler conceding over a hundred each innings. But will Steven Finn take hundreds more test wickets for England? Absolutely. Finn is still learning his craft, and there's nowhere more unforgiving than in test cricket. As Finn matures and grows in experience, any question about him being an expensive bowler will be out of the window, and he'll be an automatic pick as part of England's attack. But he quite clearly isn't there yet (as Matt Prior's 25 byes can testify) and what Finn needs to do is to go away from the glare of international cricket for a while, and just bowl. He's been very good in taking his first 50 test wickets. He'll be excellent as he takes his next few hundred.
So for someone who clearly takes wickets, and has an average of 26, why hasn't Finn been in the team? Dropped after Perth and only back in here thanks to Jimmy Anderson's injury, Finn hasn't nailed down a place in the team, and chances are he'll drop out again when Anderson returns.
The key stat to look at is Finn's run rate in tests. 3.97. While he has a very handy knack of taking wickets, he does leak runs, and with a lot of England's plans revolving around keeping it tight and creating pressure, having a leaky bowler who is spraying it around can undo all of the hard work created at the other end. At the time of being dropped during the Ashes, Finn was the leading wicket taker of the series, but at what cost? His economy rates Down Under don't make pretty reading - 3.71, 6.25, 4.43, 3.33, 4.61, 5.73. While England valued his wickets, they went for the more frugal Tim Bresnan at Melbourne, and the rest is history.
But, while Finn struggles to stem the flow of runs, he does have that very happy knack of taking wickets. 50 wickets in 12 matches is testament to that. Finn is a young man, and is still learning his craft as a fast bowler. No doubt in time he'll be able to keep it tight and bowl far more consistently, but at the moment he sprays it around far too often. When Anderson, or even Bresnan becomes fit again, the question has to be whether England value a man who will take wickets at a high tariff, or create pressure and be less effective but more cheap.
It is a tricky one. Ultimately it's wickets that win test matches, and Finn takes wickets. But a lot of England's plans revolve around stifling the opposition, and forcing mistakes caused by scoreboard pressure. While Tremlett and Broad hardly covered themselves in glory this test match, normally England's attack is a much less generous proposition, and may have winkled out a few more wickets yesterday thanks to a low run rate forcing Sri Lankans to take risks attempting to force the pace.
Will Finn be dropped to make way when Anderson returns? Probably. The Andocracy have made it clear what their plans are for successful test cricket, and they can't afford to have one leaky bowler conceding over a hundred each innings. But will Steven Finn take hundreds more test wickets for England? Absolutely. Finn is still learning his craft, and there's nowhere more unforgiving than in test cricket. As Finn matures and grows in experience, any question about him being an expensive bowler will be out of the window, and he'll be an automatic pick as part of England's attack. But he quite clearly isn't there yet (as Matt Prior's 25 byes can testify) and what Finn needs to do is to go away from the glare of international cricket for a while, and just bowl. He's been very good in taking his first 50 test wickets. He'll be excellent as he takes his next few hundred.
Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Too many Cooks...
So The Sun have leaked the news which we expect to hear officially tomorrow - that Alastair Cook will be named as England's new ODI captain. This is a bit of a pain.
Basically, the story states how Andrew Strauss will step aside from ODIs in order to spend more time with the family and allow him to prolong his test captaincy, which isn't much of a shock. English ODI cricket is always geared towards the next World Cup, and Strauss knows that he won't be a part of the next World Cup. So he's prepared to step aside in an arrangement that suits him, as it gives him more time with his young family, and it suits the team, as it allows them to give a new captain plenty of chance to gain experience and be able to mould the side. This part of the story isn't an issue for me.
But Cook getting the nod would be. Yes, everything about Cook screams "England Captain Material", but quite simply, he hasn't been in the ODI team, and as such, shouldn't be named as ODI captain. Cook wasn't named in the World Cup squad, or even the squads for series against Australia, Pakistan, Bangladesh or Australia again. The selectors quite clearly think there are better ODI players than Alastair Cook and rightly or wrongly (almost certainly wrongly considering Luke Wright is one of the players who they felt was better) if Cook wasn't good enough last month, why would he suddenly be considered good enough this?
It's not as though England are lacking potential candidates from players already in the ODI side. My choice, Ian Bell, has grown huge amounts in maturity, and has captained very successfully at county level with Warwickshire. Kevin Pietersen, as murkily as it all transpired to be last time, is very astute and beat South Africa 4-0 in his only home ODI series. Jimmy Anderson, Stuart Broad and Graeme Swann are all very tactically aware, and captaincy could bring out the best in them. Mick Yardy is one of county cricket's most respected skippers. So there's hardly any shortage of candidates of players who have regularly been part of the ODI team. So why look to bring in a player who previously wasn't considered good enough?
OK, I know there's a very large elephant in the room - namely the appointment in 2009 of Andrew Strauss as England's captain across the boards when he hadn't played ODIs for 2 years. But Strauss took over as captain at a time of turmoil in English cricket, and it was imperative that there was as much stability as possible at the top. This quite clearly is no longer the case, and a specialist captain rather than a member of the ODI team who could take over is no longer feasible. Rightly or wrongly, Cook wasn't deemed good enough to play as a batsman previously, and if the selectors are sticking to their original decisions, they're effectively weakening the team in order to shoehorn in a captain.
Cook would probably have replaced Andrew Strauss with the retirement of Strauss in any case, but to pick a man who's position in the team would be under question isn't the way forward. What if Cook struggles for runs in his first few series? Would he still be kept in if he's not pulling his weight in the team, just because he's captain? Cook will one day lead England in test cricket, and will no doubt be an excellent leader for us, but at this time he probably isn't the right appointment for the ODI leadership.
And don't even get me started on the apparent decision to keep Paul Collingwood as T20 captain...
Basically, the story states how Andrew Strauss will step aside from ODIs in order to spend more time with the family and allow him to prolong his test captaincy, which isn't much of a shock. English ODI cricket is always geared towards the next World Cup, and Strauss knows that he won't be a part of the next World Cup. So he's prepared to step aside in an arrangement that suits him, as it gives him more time with his young family, and it suits the team, as it allows them to give a new captain plenty of chance to gain experience and be able to mould the side. This part of the story isn't an issue for me.
But Cook getting the nod would be. Yes, everything about Cook screams "England Captain Material", but quite simply, he hasn't been in the ODI team, and as such, shouldn't be named as ODI captain. Cook wasn't named in the World Cup squad, or even the squads for series against Australia, Pakistan, Bangladesh or Australia again. The selectors quite clearly think there are better ODI players than Alastair Cook and rightly or wrongly (almost certainly wrongly considering Luke Wright is one of the players who they felt was better) if Cook wasn't good enough last month, why would he suddenly be considered good enough this?
It's not as though England are lacking potential candidates from players already in the ODI side. My choice, Ian Bell, has grown huge amounts in maturity, and has captained very successfully at county level with Warwickshire. Kevin Pietersen, as murkily as it all transpired to be last time, is very astute and beat South Africa 4-0 in his only home ODI series. Jimmy Anderson, Stuart Broad and Graeme Swann are all very tactically aware, and captaincy could bring out the best in them. Mick Yardy is one of county cricket's most respected skippers. So there's hardly any shortage of candidates of players who have regularly been part of the ODI team. So why look to bring in a player who previously wasn't considered good enough?
OK, I know there's a very large elephant in the room - namely the appointment in 2009 of Andrew Strauss as England's captain across the boards when he hadn't played ODIs for 2 years. But Strauss took over as captain at a time of turmoil in English cricket, and it was imperative that there was as much stability as possible at the top. This quite clearly is no longer the case, and a specialist captain rather than a member of the ODI team who could take over is no longer feasible. Rightly or wrongly, Cook wasn't deemed good enough to play as a batsman previously, and if the selectors are sticking to their original decisions, they're effectively weakening the team in order to shoehorn in a captain.
Cook would probably have replaced Andrew Strauss with the retirement of Strauss in any case, but to pick a man who's position in the team would be under question isn't the way forward. What if Cook struggles for runs in his first few series? Would he still be kept in if he's not pulling his weight in the team, just because he's captain? Cook will one day lead England in test cricket, and will no doubt be an excellent leader for us, but at this time he probably isn't the right appointment for the ODI leadership.
And don't even get me started on the apparent decision to keep Paul Collingwood as T20 captain...
Tuesday, 3 May 2011
Flower's Five Big Calls for 2011
With the news that Andy Flower has extended his contract as England team director, and with a busy summer of cricket ahead, there are a few decisions to be made about English cricket. While English cricket is certainly not at a crossroads, decisions do have to be made in order for England to succeed in the long run, and it's imperative that Flower gets them right. So I've had a look at what the 5 biggest decisions that Flower has to make this summer are, and how he should make them.
1. ODI captaincy
Andrew Strauss has been an excellent leader of England since taking the captaincy full-time 2 years ago, and he's also performed very well in ODI cricket. However, with an ever growing amount of international cricket taking it's toll, and Strauss knowing he won't be around for the 2015 World Cup, now appears to be the time to either stick or twist. If Strauss wants to stay on and play ODI cricket, it would make sense to have him in as captain, but if he decides to hang up his blue pads in order to prolong his test career, Flower needs to name a replacement. FEC Alastair Cook isn't currently in the England ODI side which may hold him back from getting the nod, and there are pros and cons for a number of candidates. There's a growing clamour for a return for Kevin Pietersen, as well as Stuart Broad, Jimmy Anderson, Ian Bell and even Graeme Swann. Flower has to get this decision right, as consistently chopping and changing the captaincy in the lead up to the 2015 WC can only be a negative issue.
2. Replacement for Collingwood
Paul Collingwood was a big part of England's test middle order for a number of years, and probably rightly retired from the format following the Ashes. While the bowling has been mixed and shaken about over the past few years, England's top seven has been incredibly settled, and now Flower needs to choose a replacement for Collingwood. The "man in possession", Eoin Morgan (who deputised for the injured Ian Bell against Pakistan) is probably more of a one-day player than a test batsman, perhaps something that could also be levelled at one of the other contenders Ravi Bopara. James Hildreth is a dark horse, but has no international experience which could count against him. Whoever is selected will need to perform immediately against very strong opposition in Sri Lanka and India, so Flower will have to get the selection spot on.
3. Fast bowling
England have the luxury of having a real strength in depth of fast bowlers, with Anderson, Broad, Finn, Bresnan, Tremlett and even Onions all vying for a probable three places in the team. Anderson and Broad appear definites, leaving the others fighting it out over the remaining place. All have impressed in the past year, and this selection could be one of Flower's toughest assignments.
4. ODI openers
We saw in the World Cup (and the Australia series immediately preceding it) that England struggled to get the right formula in terms of an opening partership. Strauss, Pietersen, Prior and Bell were all used, and with none of them guaranteed of their place in the team going forwards (and only Strauss being a "natural" opener) picking the two men at the top must be a real worry for Flower. Should be stick with the tried and trusted of Strauss and Cook or Davies, or look outside the box to a Hales or Chopra? The future of Strauss will help him decide, but changes will be needed if England are to succeed as an ODI team.
5. T20 captaincy
Currently Paul Collingwood is England's T20 captain. While it was only 12 months ago that he was hailed as the inspiration behind England's World T20 win, Collingwood's international career appears to be over, so as such will need to be replaced as the T20 skipper. While Flower's decision can be made much easier if Strauss steps aside from limited over cricket, leaving space for a joint captaincy, a real headache will be created if he decides to stay, with Flower needing to give someone the T20 captaincy. Again, the same candidates for the ODI captaincy will be in the running, and this decision could potentially be very awkward if Strauss wants to keep playing ODIs.
1. ODI captaincy
Andrew Strauss has been an excellent leader of England since taking the captaincy full-time 2 years ago, and he's also performed very well in ODI cricket. However, with an ever growing amount of international cricket taking it's toll, and Strauss knowing he won't be around for the 2015 World Cup, now appears to be the time to either stick or twist. If Strauss wants to stay on and play ODI cricket, it would make sense to have him in as captain, but if he decides to hang up his blue pads in order to prolong his test career, Flower needs to name a replacement. FEC Alastair Cook isn't currently in the England ODI side which may hold him back from getting the nod, and there are pros and cons for a number of candidates. There's a growing clamour for a return for Kevin Pietersen, as well as Stuart Broad, Jimmy Anderson, Ian Bell and even Graeme Swann. Flower has to get this decision right, as consistently chopping and changing the captaincy in the lead up to the 2015 WC can only be a negative issue.
2. Replacement for Collingwood
Paul Collingwood was a big part of England's test middle order for a number of years, and probably rightly retired from the format following the Ashes. While the bowling has been mixed and shaken about over the past few years, England's top seven has been incredibly settled, and now Flower needs to choose a replacement for Collingwood. The "man in possession", Eoin Morgan (who deputised for the injured Ian Bell against Pakistan) is probably more of a one-day player than a test batsman, perhaps something that could also be levelled at one of the other contenders Ravi Bopara. James Hildreth is a dark horse, but has no international experience which could count against him. Whoever is selected will need to perform immediately against very strong opposition in Sri Lanka and India, so Flower will have to get the selection spot on.
3. Fast bowling
England have the luxury of having a real strength in depth of fast bowlers, with Anderson, Broad, Finn, Bresnan, Tremlett and even Onions all vying for a probable three places in the team. Anderson and Broad appear definites, leaving the others fighting it out over the remaining place. All have impressed in the past year, and this selection could be one of Flower's toughest assignments.
4. ODI openers
We saw in the World Cup (and the Australia series immediately preceding it) that England struggled to get the right formula in terms of an opening partership. Strauss, Pietersen, Prior and Bell were all used, and with none of them guaranteed of their place in the team going forwards (and only Strauss being a "natural" opener) picking the two men at the top must be a real worry for Flower. Should be stick with the tried and trusted of Strauss and Cook or Davies, or look outside the box to a Hales or Chopra? The future of Strauss will help him decide, but changes will be needed if England are to succeed as an ODI team.
5. T20 captaincy
Currently Paul Collingwood is England's T20 captain. While it was only 12 months ago that he was hailed as the inspiration behind England's World T20 win, Collingwood's international career appears to be over, so as such will need to be replaced as the T20 skipper. While Flower's decision can be made much easier if Strauss steps aside from limited over cricket, leaving space for a joint captaincy, a real headache will be created if he decides to stay, with Flower needing to give someone the T20 captaincy. Again, the same candidates for the ODI captaincy will be in the running, and this decision could potentially be very awkward if Strauss wants to keep playing ODIs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)