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...
Showing posts with label Colly. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Colly. Show all posts
Friday, 13 January 2012
Friday, 12 August 2011
Bopara the Nearly Man
Ravi Bopara is the sort of man who you imagine steps on a lot of rakes. A good batsman, handy bowler, and by all accounts fairly amiable chap, Bopara just has the unfortunate knack of just being a nearly man.
For a player so obviously talented as he is, Bopara's England career has never ignited as it should have. Part of it has been down to his personal behaviour and attitude, but it's also been down to his being at the right place, but often at the wrong time. And his failure to grab hold of the opportunity when the chance presents itself.
After being in and out of the test team following his 2007 debut, the three consecutive test centuries in 2009 should have been the launchpad for him being a mainstay in the England team for decades. With Bell out of the team and Bopara bang in form, Ravi had the chance to nail down his place and become a test regular. However, he didn't seize the opportunity, and was out of the team before the Ashes series finished. Thanks to the rise of Jonathan Trott and the resurgence of Ian Bell in what became a very well settled England middle order, Bopara didn't get another chance for another two years.
After the 2010/11 Ashes, Paul Collingwood retired from his spot in the England middle order. Bopara, more mature and worldly wise by now, chose to turn down the riches of the IPL to stay and fight for the test position. His direct competitor, Eoin Morgan, went off to the IPL, but hit 193 for the England Lions against Sri Lanka, and made the spot instead. Again Ravi had to wait.
In the second test against India, Jonathan Trott rolled his collarbone, and was ruled out of this third test. This time, Ravi was sent for. And on a day where Cook made 294 and Morgan made 100, Bopara failed, with a scratchy looking seven. Trott will most likely come back in for the fourth test, and with England's middle order looking incredibly settled, Ravi may have another two years to wait until he gets his next bat in a test for England. And with James Taylor, Jonny Bairstow and plenty of others floating around who may usurp him in the pecking order, it's not inconceivable that this is the last test Ravi Bopara plays.
To be a successful test cricketer, you have to take your chances when you get them. The prime example of that is Tim Bresnan - a man who's never nailed down a permanent position in England's test team but averages 45 with the bat and 24 with the ball. He's almost made it impossible to be dropped. At a time where England are looking set to dominate world cricket, chances will be few and far between, and Tim Bresnan's seized the opportunities given to him with those big hands. Ravi Bopara, however, hasn't done that. Test cricket is a harsh place at the best of times, but with England's pool of talent so strong at the moment it's positively ruthless. On his day, Bopara can be an excellent batsman, but he just hasn't proved that for England. He may get another chance in the future and take it, but until then, Ravi Bopara will be the ultimate unfulfilled talent - England's nearly man.
For a player so obviously talented as he is, Bopara's England career has never ignited as it should have. Part of it has been down to his personal behaviour and attitude, but it's also been down to his being at the right place, but often at the wrong time. And his failure to grab hold of the opportunity when the chance presents itself.
After being in and out of the test team following his 2007 debut, the three consecutive test centuries in 2009 should have been the launchpad for him being a mainstay in the England team for decades. With Bell out of the team and Bopara bang in form, Ravi had the chance to nail down his place and become a test regular. However, he didn't seize the opportunity, and was out of the team before the Ashes series finished. Thanks to the rise of Jonathan Trott and the resurgence of Ian Bell in what became a very well settled England middle order, Bopara didn't get another chance for another two years.
After the 2010/11 Ashes, Paul Collingwood retired from his spot in the England middle order. Bopara, more mature and worldly wise by now, chose to turn down the riches of the IPL to stay and fight for the test position. His direct competitor, Eoin Morgan, went off to the IPL, but hit 193 for the England Lions against Sri Lanka, and made the spot instead. Again Ravi had to wait.
In the second test against India, Jonathan Trott rolled his collarbone, and was ruled out of this third test. This time, Ravi was sent for. And on a day where Cook made 294 and Morgan made 100, Bopara failed, with a scratchy looking seven. Trott will most likely come back in for the fourth test, and with England's middle order looking incredibly settled, Ravi may have another two years to wait until he gets his next bat in a test for England. And with James Taylor, Jonny Bairstow and plenty of others floating around who may usurp him in the pecking order, it's not inconceivable that this is the last test Ravi Bopara plays.
To be a successful test cricketer, you have to take your chances when you get them. The prime example of that is Tim Bresnan - a man who's never nailed down a permanent position in England's test team but averages 45 with the bat and 24 with the ball. He's almost made it impossible to be dropped. At a time where England are looking set to dominate world cricket, chances will be few and far between, and Tim Bresnan's seized the opportunities given to him with those big hands. Ravi Bopara, however, hasn't done that. Test cricket is a harsh place at the best of times, but with England's pool of talent so strong at the moment it's positively ruthless. On his day, Bopara can be an excellent batsman, but he just hasn't proved that for England. He may get another chance in the future and take it, but until then, Ravi Bopara will be the ultimate unfulfilled talent - England's nearly man.
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.
Saturday, 25 June 2011
England's Twenty20 Identity
Amongst all of the doom and gloom surrounding England's One Day side, it's easy to forget that England are actually not that bad at T20s. Apparently we're World Champions, and World Record holders for the most consecutive wins. So we must be doing something right.
However, since our last T20 game, it's all change. Captain and mainstay of the side Paul Collingwood is no more, and has been replaced at the top by Stuart Broad. We're entering a brave new world of English T20 cricket, but we shouldn't forget what got us to this point in the first place.
England went into the World T20 with a clear plan of attack, with five bowlers who knew they'd bowl 4 overs each, two explosive openers given the licence to blaze away, and a middle order set in stone. As has been repeated an infinite amount of times since, England played an "in your face" aggressive style of cricket; were big-hitters with the bat, clever with the ball, and hawkish in the field.
For this T20 game today at Bristol, Sidebottom, Yardy, Bresnan and Collingwood miss out from the mainstays of the World T20 victories, for a variety of different reasons. However, it's important that while personnel may have changed, the way England play doesn't. England have developed a winning formula for T20 cricket, and while players may come and go, it's important that the brand of play doesn't. Dernbach will come in for Sidebottom, Patel in for Yardy, Woakes in for Bresnan and Bell in for Collingwood.
Today under Stuart Broad, England start a new era of T20 cricket. However, it's vital that it is a case of evolution, not revolution.
However, since our last T20 game, it's all change. Captain and mainstay of the side Paul Collingwood is no more, and has been replaced at the top by Stuart Broad. We're entering a brave new world of English T20 cricket, but we shouldn't forget what got us to this point in the first place.
England went into the World T20 with a clear plan of attack, with five bowlers who knew they'd bowl 4 overs each, two explosive openers given the licence to blaze away, and a middle order set in stone. As has been repeated an infinite amount of times since, England played an "in your face" aggressive style of cricket; were big-hitters with the bat, clever with the ball, and hawkish in the field.
For this T20 game today at Bristol, Sidebottom, Yardy, Bresnan and Collingwood miss out from the mainstays of the World T20 victories, for a variety of different reasons. However, it's important that while personnel may have changed, the way England play doesn't. England have developed a winning formula for T20 cricket, and while players may come and go, it's important that the brand of play doesn't. Dernbach will come in for Sidebottom, Patel in for Yardy, Woakes in for Bresnan and Bell in for Collingwood.
Today under Stuart Broad, England start a new era of T20 cricket. However, it's vital that it is a case of evolution, not revolution.
Monday, 23 May 2011
We All Dream of a Team of Brendan Nash
Whenever an innings is in danger of total subsidence, someone needs to put up their hands and fight. West Indies, reduced to 77-4 chasing an unrealistic amount of runs and with over a day left to save the series win, were on the brink. Step forward Brendan Paul Nash.
Every team needs a Brendan Nash. They may not be the most elegant or pretty strokemaker. They may go through horrible runs of form and not contribute anything for years. But when their team needs them most, they stand up and are counted.
Nestling in every test batting order, amongst the flashy extroverts and the powerful big hitters should be one gusty nurdler who just refuses to get out. No matter what's thrown at them (literally, in the case of Saeed Ajmal), using a solid defence and an immaculate ability to leave the ball, they can spend hour upon hour battling for their team.
Nash hasn't been in the greatest of form. His scores leading up to the final innings so far in this two match series were 5, 3 and 6. But his team were staring down the barrel, and he knew what he had to do.
The performances of the gutsy match saver are as important as the extravagant match winner. Would England have won the Ashes in 2009 without Paul Collingwood's nine hour vigil at Cardiff in the first test? Yes, Jonathan Trott scored the runs at the Oval to take back the urn, but without Brigadier Block's sheer gritty determination, it would have been Ricky Ponting hailed as the captain of all captains, not Andrew Strauss.
Brendan Nash is currently only 30 runs and 64 balls into saving the series for the West Indies, and he probably won't, but you wouldn't count against his sheer bloody-mindedness actually carrying the day for his adopted nations. Players like Nash are the essence of test cricket - those who won't stop fighting until the final wicket has been taken or the final over bowled. You can keep your powerplays, pinch-hitters and DLF Maximums - Brendan Nash is real cricket. And long may it continue.
Every team needs a Brendan Nash. They may not be the most elegant or pretty strokemaker. They may go through horrible runs of form and not contribute anything for years. But when their team needs them most, they stand up and are counted.
Nestling in every test batting order, amongst the flashy extroverts and the powerful big hitters should be one gusty nurdler who just refuses to get out. No matter what's thrown at them (literally, in the case of Saeed Ajmal), using a solid defence and an immaculate ability to leave the ball, they can spend hour upon hour battling for their team.
Nash hasn't been in the greatest of form. His scores leading up to the final innings so far in this two match series were 5, 3 and 6. But his team were staring down the barrel, and he knew what he had to do.
The performances of the gutsy match saver are as important as the extravagant match winner. Would England have won the Ashes in 2009 without Paul Collingwood's nine hour vigil at Cardiff in the first test? Yes, Jonathan Trott scored the runs at the Oval to take back the urn, but without Brigadier Block's sheer gritty determination, it would have been Ricky Ponting hailed as the captain of all captains, not Andrew Strauss.
Brendan Nash is currently only 30 runs and 64 balls into saving the series for the West Indies, and he probably won't, but you wouldn't count against his sheer bloody-mindedness actually carrying the day for his adopted nations. Players like Nash are the essence of test cricket - those who won't stop fighting until the final wicket has been taken or the final over bowled. You can keep your powerplays, pinch-hitters and DLF Maximums - Brendan Nash is real cricket. And long may it continue.
Monday, 9 May 2011
Poor Colly
I've written a few times about my admiration for the man that is Paul Collingwood. He's been an exceptional, unwavering servant to English cricket, and has achieved an incredible amount - arguably more than any other English cricketer ever. While it may probably be time for him to hang up his international boots, it shouldn't be forgotten that Collingwood led England to a World T20 triumph, and the world record for consecutive T20 wins. All in the last year.
Collingwood has subsequently been replaced as England put Broad in charge of the T20 team in their captaincy triumvirate, and while it may be the right decision going forward with a World T20 in 2012 that Collingwood probably wouldn't be around for, you do have to feel for the man that led England to unrivalled success in the shortest form.
In this article from the BBC Website, Collingwood speaks of the "hurt" caused by the decision to axe him from his position in favour of Broad.
"I was full of optimism about trying to regain my form and my place in the one-day side... I felt a bit uneasy when I took the call (from Geoff Miller)"
"The problem was, try as I might, I couldn't think what else he would need to see me about. Then again I thought to myself, 'Hang on, I've been captain of a side who've won the World Cup and set a world record. Can they really sack me after that? ... I had been trying to convince myself that it wasn't going to be the news I feared. But unfortunately it was."
"We had met so early because I had to get to London to present ITV4's IPL coverage. But once the meeting was over, I had to call the studio and tell them I couldn't go on. I felt bad about letting them down, but I was in a state."
As obvious a decision it was to replace Collingwood given his startling loss of form and increasing injury issues, your heart has to go out to a man who has given his all for his country over a decade, and feels very let down by circumstances. I'm not advocating Collingwood staying in his role, as things move on, and I'm not slating Geoff Miller for the way he handled it (in fact, by meeting Collingwood in person it seems as though it was handled very well). But my heart goes out to someone who has given so much to English cricket, and feels so let down by it today. Sorry Colly.
Collingwood has subsequently been replaced as England put Broad in charge of the T20 team in their captaincy triumvirate, and while it may be the right decision going forward with a World T20 in 2012 that Collingwood probably wouldn't be around for, you do have to feel for the man that led England to unrivalled success in the shortest form.
In this article from the BBC Website, Collingwood speaks of the "hurt" caused by the decision to axe him from his position in favour of Broad.
"I was full of optimism about trying to regain my form and my place in the one-day side... I felt a bit uneasy when I took the call (from Geoff Miller)"
"The problem was, try as I might, I couldn't think what else he would need to see me about. Then again I thought to myself, 'Hang on, I've been captain of a side who've won the World Cup and set a world record. Can they really sack me after that? ... I had been trying to convince myself that it wasn't going to be the news I feared. But unfortunately it was."
"We had met so early because I had to get to London to present ITV4's IPL coverage. But once the meeting was over, I had to call the studio and tell them I couldn't go on. I felt bad about letting them down, but I was in a state."
As obvious a decision it was to replace Collingwood given his startling loss of form and increasing injury issues, your heart has to go out to a man who has given his all for his country over a decade, and feels very let down by circumstances. I'm not advocating Collingwood staying in his role, as things move on, and I'm not slating Geoff Miller for the way he handled it (in fact, by meeting Collingwood in person it seems as though it was handled very well). But my heart goes out to someone who has given so much to English cricket, and feels so let down by it today. Sorry Colly.
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.
Monday, 18 April 2011
Hildreth for England?
Today, the Official England Cricket Facebook page launched their new picture for the 2011 season. As well as the standard pictures of Steve Finn hugging Graeme Swann, and Lottie Edwards directing people, there other picture is of James Hildreth.
What can we read into this? That Hildreth is the man to fill Paul Collingwood's void in the test team? It's speculative, and unlikely, but as teenage gossip mongerers everywhere know, once something's Facebook official, it's pretty much guaranteed.
For more Facebook related shenanigans, 'like' the Short Midwicket Official Facebook page
What can we read into this? That Hildreth is the man to fill Paul Collingwood's void in the test team? It's speculative, and unlikely, but as teenage gossip mongerers everywhere know, once something's Facebook official, it's pretty much guaranteed.
For more Facebook related shenanigans, 'like' the Short Midwicket Official Facebook page
Sunday, 3 April 2011
2011 County Players To Watch - Knocking On England's Door
The County Championship gets going on Friday, and after I named my three young bucks ready to make their mark, I've now picked three others who have been consistently at the top of their games over the past few years, and will all be clamouring for international honours should the chance arise...
Knocking on England's Door
James Hildreth - Somerset: After a season last year where he scored a ridiculous amount of runs, as well as scoring well for the Lions, Hildreth can't be far away from getting a call up. Helped by the handy batting conditions down at Taunton (as well as the freedom that being in a successful side gives to batting), don't count out Hildreth being called upon to fill Paul Collingwood's vacant spot in the test team if he sets off the county season at a good pace...
Jimmy Adams - Hampshire: 30 years old Jimmy Adams has certainly left his push for England recognition late, but could yet be a surprise pick. After a frankly ridiculous pair of T20 tons pushed him into the spotlight, Adams may be a dark horse to come in at the top of England's ODI order if there is a re-think in the summer. It may be unlikely, and one good summer does not a good player make, but Adams certainly isn't completely out of the running for one final shot at international glory.
Jade Dernbach - Surrey: It may be an obvious one to pick the guy who got called into the World Cup squad, but Dernbach really does tick the boxes for an ODI bowler. Keeps it tight, check. Good slower ball, check. Pretty nippy, check. South African, check. Jade seems to have the full package, and has improved leaps and bounds in the last few years, and must certainly be on the radar after excelling for the Lions and being called into the World Cup squad. And for a much better view of Jade, read Surrey Cricket Blog's thoughts on him. He's much more qualified to speak about Jade.
Check back later for some more county players to watch...
Knocking on England's Door
James Hildreth - Somerset: After a season last year where he scored a ridiculous amount of runs, as well as scoring well for the Lions, Hildreth can't be far away from getting a call up. Helped by the handy batting conditions down at Taunton (as well as the freedom that being in a successful side gives to batting), don't count out Hildreth being called upon to fill Paul Collingwood's vacant spot in the test team if he sets off the county season at a good pace...
Jimmy Adams - Hampshire: 30 years old Jimmy Adams has certainly left his push for England recognition late, but could yet be a surprise pick. After a frankly ridiculous pair of T20 tons pushed him into the spotlight, Adams may be a dark horse to come in at the top of England's ODI order if there is a re-think in the summer. It may be unlikely, and one good summer does not a good player make, but Adams certainly isn't completely out of the running for one final shot at international glory.
Jade Dernbach - Surrey: It may be an obvious one to pick the guy who got called into the World Cup squad, but Dernbach really does tick the boxes for an ODI bowler. Keeps it tight, check. Good slower ball, check. Pretty nippy, check. South African, check. Jade seems to have the full package, and has improved leaps and bounds in the last few years, and must certainly be on the radar after excelling for the Lions and being called into the World Cup squad. And for a much better view of Jade, read Surrey Cricket Blog's thoughts on him. He's much more qualified to speak about Jade.
Check back later for some more county players to watch...
Monday, 28 March 2011
England's Captaincy Conundrum
I awoke this morning to see a barrage of tweets about how Stuart Broad would be an awful England ODI captain, and should never be given the proverbial armband should Strauss step down / get booted out. After rubbing the sleep from my eyes, I saw the article that's prompted all of the hoo-hah, as Michael Vaughan "backs Broad for ODI captain" (which, incidentally, has mispelt Alastair Cook's name - not a great show from the Beeb), who thinks that if Strauss is given the proverbial heave ho from the ODI captaincy, then Broad is the man to replace him. I'm not sure if I agree with Virge, so let's have a look at the potential candidates should Strauss (as now expected) hands over the ODI reigns.
Stuart Broad
Broad's case for inclusion is made fairly well by Vaughan - he's passionate, fiery, and has time on his side to really shape this England team going forward. However, Broad is prone to often overstepping the mark thanks to his temper, which may not be the best example for a captain to be setting for his team (although, Ricky Ponting's been doing it for years). However, it could be seen that the captaincy is "the making of Broad" - forcing him to really watch his behaviour and channel his anger into taking wickets rather than having strops. Choosing Broad would be a surprise decision, and it could be a great success over the next few years. However, if he starts throwing his toys out the pram, his captaincy could be a disaster.
Alastair Cook
It's not even worth starting a sentence about Alastair Cook and captaincy without using the acronym FEC. But that's the term he's had to cope with all of his career, and given he was the man chosen to lead last year's tour of Bangladesh, the powers that be evidently see him as a future leader of England. (The cricket team, although if his post Ashes popularity continues, it could quite well be of the country). His tactical and mental credentials are sound enough, but the only drawback for Cook is that he hasn't been in the ODI team at all over the past two years, which would make it very difficult for him to walk straight back in as captain. While England do have form of shoehorning captains straight back into the team (see Strauss in 2009) Cook hasn't been playing ODIs for a reason, and the selectors need to decide whether weakening the team with a specialist captain is going to be more successful than giving the captaincy to someone less suited but a regular fixture.
Graeme Swann
Swann has probably been the fans choice (or, at least this fan's choice), and would obviously love to do it. His enthusiasm would rub off on the players, and we've seen by the way that he sets his own fields that he clearly has a very switched on cricket brain. However, the only downside is that he may not take the captaincy seriously enough - or if he did, that his "buffoonery" would be stunted. A Swann without the Sprinkler? The captaincy may be a burden which could make Swanny lose his mojo, and while he would be great fun as captain, I'd prefer to see him make jokes and take wickets to keeping straight faced under pressure from the ECB and not bowl as well.
Jimmy Anderson
While he missed the last few games of the World Cup, Anderson will still feel like a regular fixture in this England side, and given his reported displeasure at being passed over in favour of Cook for the Bangladesh captaincy last year, clearly fancies himself. (As captain). Jim would certainly have the respect of the dressing room as well as potentially being inspirational in the field, but what could hold him back immediately is that he is no longer 100% guaranteed of his place in the side. If he was given those assurances, he'd certainly be one of the leading candidates, as he does tick a lot of boxes.
Ian Bell
Bell has really grown leaps and bounds in maturity over the past 18 months, and seemed to have been given much more responsibility from Cap'n Strauss this World Cup. After being in the international arena for a good 6 or so years, Bell has progressed into becoming a senior player, and he also has the advantage of having time on his side, as he is still only 28. Bell's got a great track record - having steered Warwickshire to a CB40 win last year, and would get my vote to replace Strauss as ODI captain.
Rob Key
OK, this isn't going to happen - but why not? If England were going to bring in Cook as a specialist captain, why not forget him and go straight to the top, and get Big Keysy back. Just a thought.
Paul Collingwood
If Colly was five years younger and still churning out the runs, then yes. But surely his international career is over? However, Durham Paul is still England's T20 captain, so would be in the hat at least. But if chosen as captain, England would be making a long term committment to Colly, and long term are words which wouldn't suit Collingwood at all. He had his chance as ODI captain, and won't be called for again.
Andrew Strauss
Technically Strauss still is ODI captain, and given the success he's had over the past two years as England captain, it's not beyond the realms of improbability that the selectors write off the World Cup as "one of those things" and back Strauss to lead going forward. Whether Strauss wants to lead is another question, but he's certainly not disgraced himself since taking over, and could still be England captain when they next take to the field.
So there you have it. My head says Bell, my heart says Swann, but my belly says Rob Key. Thoughts?
Stuart Broad
Broad's case for inclusion is made fairly well by Vaughan - he's passionate, fiery, and has time on his side to really shape this England team going forward. However, Broad is prone to often overstepping the mark thanks to his temper, which may not be the best example for a captain to be setting for his team (although, Ricky Ponting's been doing it for years). However, it could be seen that the captaincy is "the making of Broad" - forcing him to really watch his behaviour and channel his anger into taking wickets rather than having strops. Choosing Broad would be a surprise decision, and it could be a great success over the next few years. However, if he starts throwing his toys out the pram, his captaincy could be a disaster.
Alastair Cook
It's not even worth starting a sentence about Alastair Cook and captaincy without using the acronym FEC. But that's the term he's had to cope with all of his career, and given he was the man chosen to lead last year's tour of Bangladesh, the powers that be evidently see him as a future leader of England. (The cricket team, although if his post Ashes popularity continues, it could quite well be of the country). His tactical and mental credentials are sound enough, but the only drawback for Cook is that he hasn't been in the ODI team at all over the past two years, which would make it very difficult for him to walk straight back in as captain. While England do have form of shoehorning captains straight back into the team (see Strauss in 2009) Cook hasn't been playing ODIs for a reason, and the selectors need to decide whether weakening the team with a specialist captain is going to be more successful than giving the captaincy to someone less suited but a regular fixture.
Graeme Swann
Swann has probably been the fans choice (or, at least this fan's choice), and would obviously love to do it. His enthusiasm would rub off on the players, and we've seen by the way that he sets his own fields that he clearly has a very switched on cricket brain. However, the only downside is that he may not take the captaincy seriously enough - or if he did, that his "buffoonery" would be stunted. A Swann without the Sprinkler? The captaincy may be a burden which could make Swanny lose his mojo, and while he would be great fun as captain, I'd prefer to see him make jokes and take wickets to keeping straight faced under pressure from the ECB and not bowl as well.
Jimmy Anderson
While he missed the last few games of the World Cup, Anderson will still feel like a regular fixture in this England side, and given his reported displeasure at being passed over in favour of Cook for the Bangladesh captaincy last year, clearly fancies himself. (As captain). Jim would certainly have the respect of the dressing room as well as potentially being inspirational in the field, but what could hold him back immediately is that he is no longer 100% guaranteed of his place in the side. If he was given those assurances, he'd certainly be one of the leading candidates, as he does tick a lot of boxes.
Ian Bell
Bell has really grown leaps and bounds in maturity over the past 18 months, and seemed to have been given much more responsibility from Cap'n Strauss this World Cup. After being in the international arena for a good 6 or so years, Bell has progressed into becoming a senior player, and he also has the advantage of having time on his side, as he is still only 28. Bell's got a great track record - having steered Warwickshire to a CB40 win last year, and would get my vote to replace Strauss as ODI captain.
Rob Key
OK, this isn't going to happen - but why not? If England were going to bring in Cook as a specialist captain, why not forget him and go straight to the top, and get Big Keysy back. Just a thought.
Paul Collingwood
If Colly was five years younger and still churning out the runs, then yes. But surely his international career is over? However, Durham Paul is still England's T20 captain, so would be in the hat at least. But if chosen as captain, England would be making a long term committment to Colly, and long term are words which wouldn't suit Collingwood at all. He had his chance as ODI captain, and won't be called for again.
Andrew Strauss
Technically Strauss still is ODI captain, and given the success he's had over the past two years as England captain, it's not beyond the realms of improbability that the selectors write off the World Cup as "one of those things" and back Strauss to lead going forward. Whether Strauss wants to lead is another question, but he's certainly not disgraced himself since taking over, and could still be England captain when they next take to the field.
So there you have it. My head says Bell, my heart says Swann, but my belly says Rob Key. Thoughts?
Saturday, 26 March 2011
Where To Now for England?
So yet another World Cup has slipped away for England, and another World Cup where England have failed to reach expectations. After somehow squeaking through the groups, England folded meekly against a Sri Lankan side who were just better than them.
A World Cup is the end of a four year cycle in international cricket - a four year cycle where plans are set, players blooded and markers set. England, sadly, haven't performed anywhere near the high standards that are expected of them. However, with the end of the previous cycle, England go home from this World Cup knowing that a new cycle is beginning. So what of the 19 men who flew out to be part of England's squad this World Cup?
Andrew Strauss (captain)
Strauss as a batsman had a good start to the World Cup. The 141 against India was as good as any innings this World Cup, and nearly guided England to victory. However, since that big score, Strauss has been slightly found out as an opening batsman, as he struggles to play spin from the off. Facing spinners who were opening the bowling bogged Strauss down, and he struggled from there. As a captain, however, as sacreligious as it is to say, Strauss has been pretty poor. The games against Ireland and Bangladesh were lost by England rather than being won by the opposition, and Strauss's captaincy left an awful lot to be desired. After their last few World Cups, England's captains have stepped aside to allow others to take the team forward, and there is a growing school of thought that Strauss should be allowed to focus on his test captaincy (which to Strauss's credit, is amongst the best in the world). If England want a radical overhaul post World Cup, it would make sense for a 'flagship' change in ODI policy, and the end of Strauss's ODI career (again) may well be that headline announcement.
Kevin Pietersen
News of KP's ODI retirement broke before the World Cup, and while he did perform OK while he was there, the fact that he picked up another injury while doing so may help encourage Kev that ODI cricket is too much of an unnecessary hindrance to his career. While he did contest thoughts of his premature ODI retirement, he also didn't appear to put up much of a fight when he picked up his injury, when (allegedly) many of the team officials felt that he could have stayed on. He opened the innings in the games that he did play in, but it was a 'quick-fix' approach that wouldn't have lasted post World Cup. I'd doubt whether KP will ever open the innings for England again, and would doubt further if he'd ever play ODI cricket either.
Jonathan Trott
England's shining light this World Cup, and the main reason they got this far. Thoughts that he bats too slowly for ODIs are ridiculous - without his runs England simply wouldn't have been competitive in most of their games. A good ODI side need a steady accumulator at number 3, and Trott is just that. His place is more than safe going forwards.
Ian Bell
The man who should have been opening for England throughout the World Cup, Bell was finally given his chance at the top in the final game. Seemed to be war weary from being the only Englishman to have played in every single game of the winter marathon from October to March. But he is a classy player, and should be given a longer run at the top of the order post WC. A man with lots of international experience, and with a growing maturity, Bell could be a major candidate is the captaincy is vacated. And you know what, I'd support it.
Paul Collingwood
Collingwood looked finished as an international player during the Ashes, and hasn't dispelled those feelings. Colly simply has nothing left to give, which doesn't detract from his great career, but enough is enough. And if someone else is moved to the ODI captaincy, surely Colly would be replaced as T20 skipper, which would put the final nail in the coffin for Collingwood.
Ravi Bopara
Should have been a mainstay in the ODI side, but only took an injury to Morgan to get him into the squad. Performed well when there - England's best batting all-rounder who should become a first choice fixture from now on. Given the selectors apparent retiscence to picking him, whether he does or not is doubtful.
Matt Prior
Clearly isn't an international opener, seen repeatedly over the Australia series / World Cup, and shouldn't ever be used as such again. Pity that the final England game was the only game where he was used properly as the finisher that he is. Prior was average this World Cup, and will likely be replaced by Davies after the World Cup.
Tim Bresnan
Bres bowled well - especially against India - but isn't good enough to spearhead an international attack, as proved in the absence of Broad and Anderson. Still a useful prospect in ODI cricket, however, and will no doubt be a big part of the attack going forwards.
Graeme Swann
Swann at times looked like the world class spinner that he is, but let frustration get the better of him at others. Will obviously be a huge part of the team post World Cup.
Stuart Broad
Looked really good before getting injured at the worst possible time. Real shame that he had to go home, and will be back in the side when his injury clears up.
Jimmy Anderson
A weird one this. Anderson came into the World Cup on the crest of a wave with supreme confidence, but left it with his reputation in serious doubt. Touted as the leader of the attack and the man to win the World Cup for England (after winning us the Ashes) he underwhelmed spectacularly, and looked a shadow of himself. Looked jaded and in need of a rest, and maybe a break would be the best thing for him, before triumphantly returning in the summer as the good old Jimmy Anderson that we know and love.
Michael Yardy
Sadly left the World Cup early for reasons which may see him never pull on an England shirt again, but without wanting to appear as heartless as Geoffrey Boycott, he may not have ever done so again anyway. He didn't bowl well enough for an international bowler, and didn't bat well enough to even bat at number seven. England have better options regardless of Yardy's mental state, and depression or not, I'd be surprised to see Yardy play for England again.
Ajmal Shahzad
Overawed against India, awesome against Bangladesh, and really unlucky to pick up an injury just as he'd earned his spot in the starting eleven. Whether he makes a first choice eleven post World Cup remains to be seen, but will no doubt play many more times for England.
James Tredwell
Did well against West Indies, and looked threatening-ish against Sri Lanka, but Tredwell isn't the second (or third) best spinner in England. There are better options available, and given the selectors use of him only as the complete last resort, I'd again be surprised if he were to play internationally again.
Luke Wright
Luke Wright is Luke Wright. Dropping him is the most obvious thing in the world, but he is Luke Wright, which probably means he'll take over as captain.
Eoin Morgan
England were too hasty to deselect him, and he has proved that he should be playing every ODI game for England. No worries there.
Chris Tremlett
Drafted into the World Cup squad on the back of good performances in the Ashes, but his overall One Day record suggests that he's not really good enough in the colours for England. His indifferent two games, where wickets were rather scare (to be non-existent) suggests that ODIs aren't his game. England have other, better options, and will use them ahead of Trem going forward.
Jade Dernbach
Came in when Shahzad went home, and didn't play. However, his selection over the likes of Woakes and Finn suggest he is very firmly on the radar for future honours.
Adil Rashid
Only after the Yardy withdrawal did the bandwagon eventually get what they wanted. Still obviously something stopping him playing (perhaps an attitude problem) but can be a big part of England's team, as he is good enough to bowl as the second spinner behind Swann and bat at number seven - something Yardy and Tredwell failed to do. Should play more regularly, but will need to prove that he is ready before the sharks start circling once more.
So where can England go from here. Incidentally, the team that knocked us out are out next opponents, as we face Sri Lanka in a series in the summer. We may have a new captain, exciting new bowlers or dashing new batsmen. We may have more of the same. But at the moment, the best place for England to go now... is home. This team have been on the road since October, with no rest. They're clearly pining for home, and it must have had some effect of the performances. England do have the basis of a good ODI side, and given a good break and a few tweaks, they can become one of the best in the world. That's almost what makes this World Cup performance more disappointing - the fact that we do have good players. We should have done better. But only when the preparation (by which I mean a settled side who know what their roles are months in advance as well as coming into a World Cup refreshed) is right can England really make a mark in a World Cup. We've now got 4 years to get it right for next time.
A World Cup is the end of a four year cycle in international cricket - a four year cycle where plans are set, players blooded and markers set. England, sadly, haven't performed anywhere near the high standards that are expected of them. However, with the end of the previous cycle, England go home from this World Cup knowing that a new cycle is beginning. So what of the 19 men who flew out to be part of England's squad this World Cup?
Andrew Strauss (captain)
Strauss as a batsman had a good start to the World Cup. The 141 against India was as good as any innings this World Cup, and nearly guided England to victory. However, since that big score, Strauss has been slightly found out as an opening batsman, as he struggles to play spin from the off. Facing spinners who were opening the bowling bogged Strauss down, and he struggled from there. As a captain, however, as sacreligious as it is to say, Strauss has been pretty poor. The games against Ireland and Bangladesh were lost by England rather than being won by the opposition, and Strauss's captaincy left an awful lot to be desired. After their last few World Cups, England's captains have stepped aside to allow others to take the team forward, and there is a growing school of thought that Strauss should be allowed to focus on his test captaincy (which to Strauss's credit, is amongst the best in the world). If England want a radical overhaul post World Cup, it would make sense for a 'flagship' change in ODI policy, and the end of Strauss's ODI career (again) may well be that headline announcement.
Kevin Pietersen
News of KP's ODI retirement broke before the World Cup, and while he did perform OK while he was there, the fact that he picked up another injury while doing so may help encourage Kev that ODI cricket is too much of an unnecessary hindrance to his career. While he did contest thoughts of his premature ODI retirement, he also didn't appear to put up much of a fight when he picked up his injury, when (allegedly) many of the team officials felt that he could have stayed on. He opened the innings in the games that he did play in, but it was a 'quick-fix' approach that wouldn't have lasted post World Cup. I'd doubt whether KP will ever open the innings for England again, and would doubt further if he'd ever play ODI cricket either.
Jonathan Trott
England's shining light this World Cup, and the main reason they got this far. Thoughts that he bats too slowly for ODIs are ridiculous - without his runs England simply wouldn't have been competitive in most of their games. A good ODI side need a steady accumulator at number 3, and Trott is just that. His place is more than safe going forwards.
Ian Bell
The man who should have been opening for England throughout the World Cup, Bell was finally given his chance at the top in the final game. Seemed to be war weary from being the only Englishman to have played in every single game of the winter marathon from October to March. But he is a classy player, and should be given a longer run at the top of the order post WC. A man with lots of international experience, and with a growing maturity, Bell could be a major candidate is the captaincy is vacated. And you know what, I'd support it.
Paul Collingwood
Collingwood looked finished as an international player during the Ashes, and hasn't dispelled those feelings. Colly simply has nothing left to give, which doesn't detract from his great career, but enough is enough. And if someone else is moved to the ODI captaincy, surely Colly would be replaced as T20 skipper, which would put the final nail in the coffin for Collingwood.
Ravi Bopara
Should have been a mainstay in the ODI side, but only took an injury to Morgan to get him into the squad. Performed well when there - England's best batting all-rounder who should become a first choice fixture from now on. Given the selectors apparent retiscence to picking him, whether he does or not is doubtful.
Matt Prior
Clearly isn't an international opener, seen repeatedly over the Australia series / World Cup, and shouldn't ever be used as such again. Pity that the final England game was the only game where he was used properly as the finisher that he is. Prior was average this World Cup, and will likely be replaced by Davies after the World Cup.
Tim Bresnan
Bres bowled well - especially against India - but isn't good enough to spearhead an international attack, as proved in the absence of Broad and Anderson. Still a useful prospect in ODI cricket, however, and will no doubt be a big part of the attack going forwards.
Graeme Swann
Swann at times looked like the world class spinner that he is, but let frustration get the better of him at others. Will obviously be a huge part of the team post World Cup.
Stuart Broad
Looked really good before getting injured at the worst possible time. Real shame that he had to go home, and will be back in the side when his injury clears up.
Jimmy Anderson
A weird one this. Anderson came into the World Cup on the crest of a wave with supreme confidence, but left it with his reputation in serious doubt. Touted as the leader of the attack and the man to win the World Cup for England (after winning us the Ashes) he underwhelmed spectacularly, and looked a shadow of himself. Looked jaded and in need of a rest, and maybe a break would be the best thing for him, before triumphantly returning in the summer as the good old Jimmy Anderson that we know and love.
Michael Yardy
Sadly left the World Cup early for reasons which may see him never pull on an England shirt again, but without wanting to appear as heartless as Geoffrey Boycott, he may not have ever done so again anyway. He didn't bowl well enough for an international bowler, and didn't bat well enough to even bat at number seven. England have better options regardless of Yardy's mental state, and depression or not, I'd be surprised to see Yardy play for England again.
Ajmal Shahzad
Overawed against India, awesome against Bangladesh, and really unlucky to pick up an injury just as he'd earned his spot in the starting eleven. Whether he makes a first choice eleven post World Cup remains to be seen, but will no doubt play many more times for England.
James Tredwell
Did well against West Indies, and looked threatening-ish against Sri Lanka, but Tredwell isn't the second (or third) best spinner in England. There are better options available, and given the selectors use of him only as the complete last resort, I'd again be surprised if he were to play internationally again.
Luke Wright
Luke Wright is Luke Wright. Dropping him is the most obvious thing in the world, but he is Luke Wright, which probably means he'll take over as captain.
Eoin Morgan
England were too hasty to deselect him, and he has proved that he should be playing every ODI game for England. No worries there.
Chris Tremlett
Drafted into the World Cup squad on the back of good performances in the Ashes, but his overall One Day record suggests that he's not really good enough in the colours for England. His indifferent two games, where wickets were rather scare (to be non-existent) suggests that ODIs aren't his game. England have other, better options, and will use them ahead of Trem going forward.
Jade Dernbach
Came in when Shahzad went home, and didn't play. However, his selection over the likes of Woakes and Finn suggest he is very firmly on the radar for future honours.
Adil Rashid
Only after the Yardy withdrawal did the bandwagon eventually get what they wanted. Still obviously something stopping him playing (perhaps an attitude problem) but can be a big part of England's team, as he is good enough to bowl as the second spinner behind Swann and bat at number seven - something Yardy and Tredwell failed to do. Should play more regularly, but will need to prove that he is ready before the sharks start circling once more.
So where can England go from here. Incidentally, the team that knocked us out are out next opponents, as we face Sri Lanka in a series in the summer. We may have a new captain, exciting new bowlers or dashing new batsmen. We may have more of the same. But at the moment, the best place for England to go now... is home. This team have been on the road since October, with no rest. They're clearly pining for home, and it must have had some effect of the performances. England do have the basis of a good ODI side, and given a good break and a few tweaks, they can become one of the best in the world. That's almost what makes this World Cup performance more disappointing - the fact that we do have good players. We should have done better. But only when the preparation (by which I mean a settled side who know what their roles are months in advance as well as coming into a World Cup refreshed) is right can England really make a mark in a World Cup. We've now got 4 years to get it right for next time.
Wednesday, 16 March 2011
The West Indies Crunch Match - Preview
So the big decider is upon us. The biggest game of England's World Cup, until the next one (assuming we get another). I'm sure you all know the calculations by now. England must win, but hope that South Africa beat Bangladesh. (Technically England could tie, and go through on NRR if Bangladesh lose. Or beat West Indies heavily, hope India beat West Indies heavily, and sneak past the Islanders on NRR. But that's unlikely). But to even stand a chance, England must win.
I've spoken to death about how Swann should open, and Tredwell should come into England's team. Sadly, I've also spoken about England's cowardly selections, which makes big high risk changes unlikely. So for Swann to open, Tredwell to come in, or the selectors generally doing something out of the comfort zone would be a big surprise, so we're probably going to still see Prior opening and Collingwood at 7/8. Mainly because the selectors do not like admitting they are wrong, and changing it only three days after the Bangladeshi defeat would be an admittance that they got it badly wrong.
Which makes the rumours that Jimmy Anderson will be dropped surprising. Anderson has been in awful form, and had someone less senior than him been performing like he has, they would have been bombed out of the team long ago. However, Anderson is the supposed leader of the attack, and as such, has been an untouchable in the starting eleven. However, there have been calls for Tremlett to come in for Anderson, which as justified as they may be, England's cowardly selections thus far mean a big high risk decision like dropping Anderson would be a big shock - especially given there is no safety net from here on in. Luckily (or unluckily) Ajmal Shahzad has the squits, so a controversial and difficult for the selectors could be avoided, as Tremlett could replace Shahzad if Aj is unable to play.
As with the previous game, there have been calls for England to play three spinners, but for me this would be a wrong call. England have lacked a pace man in the middle overs, and while three spinners could strangle the West Indies, playing only Bresnan and Tremlett/Shahzad/Anderson for the opening overs and at the death would be a mistake, as we've seen how easily milked Yardy and Collingwood have been when pace has been taken off the ball in the middle overs. But I'd still like to see an attacking spinner in Tredwell play - especially if Swann opens (which allows England to bat properly down to seven, and play a proper five man attack).
It will be a crunch game for England, and they will massively up their game to beat a West Indies side who are on a good run of form. Don't forget - the WIndies do need to win themselves, or they suddenly have a very difficult game against India at the weekend. England, however, have been gloriously inconsistent, which makes it very difficult to predict how they'll do in any given game. I do hope they roll the dice and make some brave decisions, but as long as England win, I wouldn't care if Luke Wright opened the bowling and batting, and took over as captain.
Come on England!
I've spoken to death about how Swann should open, and Tredwell should come into England's team. Sadly, I've also spoken about England's cowardly selections, which makes big high risk changes unlikely. So for Swann to open, Tredwell to come in, or the selectors generally doing something out of the comfort zone would be a big surprise, so we're probably going to still see Prior opening and Collingwood at 7/8. Mainly because the selectors do not like admitting they are wrong, and changing it only three days after the Bangladeshi defeat would be an admittance that they got it badly wrong.
Which makes the rumours that Jimmy Anderson will be dropped surprising. Anderson has been in awful form, and had someone less senior than him been performing like he has, they would have been bombed out of the team long ago. However, Anderson is the supposed leader of the attack, and as such, has been an untouchable in the starting eleven. However, there have been calls for Tremlett to come in for Anderson, which as justified as they may be, England's cowardly selections thus far mean a big high risk decision like dropping Anderson would be a big shock - especially given there is no safety net from here on in. Luckily (or unluckily) Ajmal Shahzad has the squits, so a controversial and difficult for the selectors could be avoided, as Tremlett could replace Shahzad if Aj is unable to play.
As with the previous game, there have been calls for England to play three spinners, but for me this would be a wrong call. England have lacked a pace man in the middle overs, and while three spinners could strangle the West Indies, playing only Bresnan and Tremlett/Shahzad/Anderson for the opening overs and at the death would be a mistake, as we've seen how easily milked Yardy and Collingwood have been when pace has been taken off the ball in the middle overs. But I'd still like to see an attacking spinner in Tredwell play - especially if Swann opens (which allows England to bat properly down to seven, and play a proper five man attack).
It will be a crunch game for England, and they will massively up their game to beat a West Indies side who are on a good run of form. Don't forget - the WIndies do need to win themselves, or they suddenly have a very difficult game against India at the weekend. England, however, have been gloriously inconsistent, which makes it very difficult to predict how they'll do in any given game. I do hope they roll the dice and make some brave decisions, but as long as England win, I wouldn't care if Luke Wright opened the bowling and batting, and took over as captain.
Come on England!
Monday, 14 March 2011
Paul Collingwood's 300
Being the sentimental fool that I can be, I was reading through some Paul Collingwood tribute posts (he's not dead, but his career is). He's a man who has retired from tests, and after falling out of form and out of the team, looks as though he won't play for England after this World Cup.
One one of the posts I was reading, someone commented that Collingwood was only a few games away from becoming England's most capped player ever. After doing some well constructed research, I found that by playing against Bangladesh on Sunday, Colly reached his 300th game for England - only three behind serial record holder Alec Stewart. A pretty big achievement that went unnoticed amidst the carnage of England's defeat.
Of all of the hundreds and thousands of players to have pulled on the three lions to represent their country, only two have done it more than 300 times. While that may appear small fry compared to Sachin Tendulkar's 627 caps, don't ignore the gravity of that achievement. A regular in England colours for over a decade is remarkable - especially considering the vast amount of players that have been tried and discarded since he made his debut against Pakistan in 2001.
While a dip in form towards the end of his 300 games may give some the opinion that he was nothing more than a gutsy battler, Colly has been so much more than that. His batting at times could be sublime, with some brilliant hundreds in both ODIs and tests, picking up 15 tons and 49 fifties (so far). A cool head in the middle order, Collingwood could be relied upon to recover after a top-order failure, or push on in a position of strength. And his vigil at Cardiff in '09 showed the sheer determination of the man to never give his wicket away for his country.
His bowling was underrated - especially in ODIs, where his medium pacers gave selectors the luxury of playing an extra batsman. While he could pick up prodigious swing (somehow taking a six-fer against Bangladesh in 2005) in his earlier days, the older Collingwood has stuck more to off-cutters, using all of his experience to tie batsmen down (as well as picking up 111 ODI wickets). While he may not have been as threatening as other members of the attack, he would be a useful foil for established bowlers, and would always be willing to turn his arm over, irregardless of the situation.
And who can forget his fielding - athletic, agile and always alert, Colly was the greatest fielder in the generation where fielding became just as important as the other disciplines. Always prone to a stunning one-hander, Colly has remained just as nimble in the field from his first appearance to his most recent.
A dip in form has seen Colly's place questioned for the first time in years, and has seen him go in and out of the team. Added to that the fact that England may not progress further in this World Cup than their final group game against the West Indies, and Collingwood's bid to make a historic 304th appearance suddenly looks unlikely (he would have to play in every game up and including the final - assuming England get there). Becoming England's record appearance maker wouldn't make him England's greatest player (far from it), but it would be nice to see Collingwood get a reward for all of the hard graft he has put in for his country over the past ten years. A man who has won three Ashes and led England to a maiden World Cup, Collingwood deserves all of the plaudits in the world, but sadly he hasn't got many for making his 300th appearance. So on behalf of England supporters - thanks Colly.
And just to tarnish that nice post, here's the main reason I did this post...
"THIS... IS... DURHAM!"
(Thanks to Hannah for the picture)
One one of the posts I was reading, someone commented that Collingwood was only a few games away from becoming England's most capped player ever. After doing some well constructed research, I found that by playing against Bangladesh on Sunday, Colly reached his 300th game for England - only three behind serial record holder Alec Stewart. A pretty big achievement that went unnoticed amidst the carnage of England's defeat.
Of all of the hundreds and thousands of players to have pulled on the three lions to represent their country, only two have done it more than 300 times. While that may appear small fry compared to Sachin Tendulkar's 627 caps, don't ignore the gravity of that achievement. A regular in England colours for over a decade is remarkable - especially considering the vast amount of players that have been tried and discarded since he made his debut against Pakistan in 2001.
While a dip in form towards the end of his 300 games may give some the opinion that he was nothing more than a gutsy battler, Colly has been so much more than that. His batting at times could be sublime, with some brilliant hundreds in both ODIs and tests, picking up 15 tons and 49 fifties (so far). A cool head in the middle order, Collingwood could be relied upon to recover after a top-order failure, or push on in a position of strength. And his vigil at Cardiff in '09 showed the sheer determination of the man to never give his wicket away for his country.
His bowling was underrated - especially in ODIs, where his medium pacers gave selectors the luxury of playing an extra batsman. While he could pick up prodigious swing (somehow taking a six-fer against Bangladesh in 2005) in his earlier days, the older Collingwood has stuck more to off-cutters, using all of his experience to tie batsmen down (as well as picking up 111 ODI wickets). While he may not have been as threatening as other members of the attack, he would be a useful foil for established bowlers, and would always be willing to turn his arm over, irregardless of the situation.
And who can forget his fielding - athletic, agile and always alert, Colly was the greatest fielder in the generation where fielding became just as important as the other disciplines. Always prone to a stunning one-hander, Colly has remained just as nimble in the field from his first appearance to his most recent.
A dip in form has seen Colly's place questioned for the first time in years, and has seen him go in and out of the team. Added to that the fact that England may not progress further in this World Cup than their final group game against the West Indies, and Collingwood's bid to make a historic 304th appearance suddenly looks unlikely (he would have to play in every game up and including the final - assuming England get there). Becoming England's record appearance maker wouldn't make him England's greatest player (far from it), but it would be nice to see Collingwood get a reward for all of the hard graft he has put in for his country over the past ten years. A man who has won three Ashes and led England to a maiden World Cup, Collingwood deserves all of the plaudits in the world, but sadly he hasn't got many for making his 300th appearance. So on behalf of England supporters - thanks Colly.
And just to tarnish that nice post, here's the main reason I did this post...
"THIS... IS... DURHAM!"
(Thanks to Hannah for the picture)
Friday, 11 March 2011
Scared Selections
England's selectors are notoriously conservative. They just don't like to make brave calls. Obviously I don't want them to make high risk selection decisions every week, but a calculated gamble would be nice every now and again.
I'm not just talking about the current World Cup. England just don't make big, surprise decisions. The lack of any young, exciting batsmen who've played well at county level in this England ODI side (perhaps excluding Morgan) who've played in the last few years is testament to the fact that they don't like to mess around with the status quo. Prime example - Steve Davies; a player who could be a fantastic attacking wicket-keeper but was unproven, was dropped to make way for Matt Prior, a man who wouldn't be such a gamble, but wouldn't pay off spectacularly as much as Davies could.
If we look at this game (v Bangladesh), England had some big decisions to make. England needed a new opener and a new fast bowler, and could mix the spin-bowling options about. I touted Swann to open - a school of thought that was gathering pace. Opening with Swann would be a gamble, but it could pay off spectacularly. South Africa and a few other nations have had success with three spinners, and there were rumours that England could go that way. However, instead of bringing in Tredwell, England bizarrely brought in Collingwood, a man who is horribly out of form with the bat but is part of the establishment, and as such, is worth playing as he can be "relied upon".
England's scared selections annoyed me. This was a genuine chance to do something bold and exciting, yet the team that was put out was a cowardly choice. Prior, who has failed many times as an opener, was promoted, just because it was the least risky thing for the selectors to do. And Collingwood coming in (and batting at number eight) suggests that they knew Yardy needed to go, but were too scared to pick the mercurial James Tredwell. It seems that the selectors would prefer England to fail miserably (as they have done many times) with a stable eleven, than to roll the dice and risk being attacked for making bad decisions.
Well here's my message to the selectors. Don't be scared. Don't be scared to open with Swann, play Tredwell, or finally put Collingwood out of his misery. Don't be scared to call up Adil Rashid, Jimmy Adams, James Hildreth or even Samit Patel. England may win this game v Bangladesh with Collingwood at 8 and Prior opening, but it's a formula that has been proven to not work against the bigger teams. England will not win this World Cup with this team. Albert Einstein said that the "definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". So selectors. Do something different. Roll the dice. We'll thank you for it when we win the World Cup.
I'm not just talking about the current World Cup. England just don't make big, surprise decisions. The lack of any young, exciting batsmen who've played well at county level in this England ODI side (perhaps excluding Morgan) who've played in the last few years is testament to the fact that they don't like to mess around with the status quo. Prime example - Steve Davies; a player who could be a fantastic attacking wicket-keeper but was unproven, was dropped to make way for Matt Prior, a man who wouldn't be such a gamble, but wouldn't pay off spectacularly as much as Davies could.
If we look at this game (v Bangladesh), England had some big decisions to make. England needed a new opener and a new fast bowler, and could mix the spin-bowling options about. I touted Swann to open - a school of thought that was gathering pace. Opening with Swann would be a gamble, but it could pay off spectacularly. South Africa and a few other nations have had success with three spinners, and there were rumours that England could go that way. However, instead of bringing in Tredwell, England bizarrely brought in Collingwood, a man who is horribly out of form with the bat but is part of the establishment, and as such, is worth playing as he can be "relied upon".
England's scared selections annoyed me. This was a genuine chance to do something bold and exciting, yet the team that was put out was a cowardly choice. Prior, who has failed many times as an opener, was promoted, just because it was the least risky thing for the selectors to do. And Collingwood coming in (and batting at number eight) suggests that they knew Yardy needed to go, but were too scared to pick the mercurial James Tredwell. It seems that the selectors would prefer England to fail miserably (as they have done many times) with a stable eleven, than to roll the dice and risk being attacked for making bad decisions.
Well here's my message to the selectors. Don't be scared. Don't be scared to open with Swann, play Tredwell, or finally put Collingwood out of his misery. Don't be scared to call up Adil Rashid, Jimmy Adams, James Hildreth or even Samit Patel. England may win this game v Bangladesh with Collingwood at 8 and Prior opening, but it's a formula that has been proven to not work against the bigger teams. England will not win this World Cup with this team. Albert Einstein said that the "definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". So selectors. Do something different. Roll the dice. We'll thank you for it when we win the World Cup.
Wednesday, 16 February 2011
KP - an opener?
So after appointing Matt Prior to the England side and saying that he will open in the World Cup, England have obviously had a change of heart. In the 7th ODI, Steve Davies opened With Prior at 6, and now Kevin Pietersen has, in the game against Canada. Because England have made a big and obvious change in batting line-up so close to the World Cup, you'd think that this is now the direction we're going in (although you can never really tell). While it was glaringly obvious that Matt Prior isn't an international opener, and I commend Team England for being brave and making a big call such as promoting KP, I probably think they've made the wrong call.
Kevin Pietersen is a world-class player. Absolutely brilliant batsman. But is he an opener? Well, given the fact that in six years of international cricket he's never done it, it seems an odd time to thrust such a responsibility onto him. Don't forget, opening the innings is a very different proposition to batting anywhere else in the order. To come directly in to powerplay overs, with the bowlers fired up bowling at their fastest with a new, hard ball and being asked to score quickly is a much different challenge to coming in later on in the order, when a big lead could already be on the board, with the ball soft, bowlers tired and part-timers in operation.
I'm not saying it's something Kevin Pietersen can't do, because as the top class international batsman that he is, I'm sure he'll adapt. However, I'm not sure it's the best thing for England to do.
For my money, experience is everything. While KP has the experience of over 100 ODIs, he doesn't have much experience (either at international or county level) of opening the innings. Whereas Jonathan Trott, Ian Bell and Ravi Bopara have all opened, both for their respective domestic sides, and sparingly for England. While they may not be out and out openers; they've been there, done that, and know what to do. Which is more than can be said about KP.
But suitability for the role aside, the biggest mistake in promoting Pietersen isn't what it adds to the top of the order; it's what's taken away from the middle order. KP has become such a world reknowned batsman by coming in two down, and either rebuilding the innings with much needed stability, or continuing an already good start and firing England to a high score. While admittedly he hasn't been in the richest vein of form recently, there were signs in the 7 match marathon against Australia that he can do it (when he's bothered). Taking such an established part of England's batting plans out of the middle order the week after Eoin Morgan was ruled out of the World Cup (and given Paul Collingwood's continued horror run of form), suddely that England middle order doesn't look so solid.
While I applaud the English selectors for making an obviously bold decision, I think that Pietersen is the wrong man to open alongside Cap'n Strauss. I'd much rather see Bell or Bopara face the new-ball instead. But if England bat as badly as they did against Canada, the order shouldn't really make too much difference. That's probably the thing they'll need to work on first.
Kevin Pietersen is a world-class player. Absolutely brilliant batsman. But is he an opener? Well, given the fact that in six years of international cricket he's never done it, it seems an odd time to thrust such a responsibility onto him. Don't forget, opening the innings is a very different proposition to batting anywhere else in the order. To come directly in to powerplay overs, with the bowlers fired up bowling at their fastest with a new, hard ball and being asked to score quickly is a much different challenge to coming in later on in the order, when a big lead could already be on the board, with the ball soft, bowlers tired and part-timers in operation.
I'm not saying it's something Kevin Pietersen can't do, because as the top class international batsman that he is, I'm sure he'll adapt. However, I'm not sure it's the best thing for England to do.
For my money, experience is everything. While KP has the experience of over 100 ODIs, he doesn't have much experience (either at international or county level) of opening the innings. Whereas Jonathan Trott, Ian Bell and Ravi Bopara have all opened, both for their respective domestic sides, and sparingly for England. While they may not be out and out openers; they've been there, done that, and know what to do. Which is more than can be said about KP.
But suitability for the role aside, the biggest mistake in promoting Pietersen isn't what it adds to the top of the order; it's what's taken away from the middle order. KP has become such a world reknowned batsman by coming in two down, and either rebuilding the innings with much needed stability, or continuing an already good start and firing England to a high score. While admittedly he hasn't been in the richest vein of form recently, there were signs in the 7 match marathon against Australia that he can do it (when he's bothered). Taking such an established part of England's batting plans out of the middle order the week after Eoin Morgan was ruled out of the World Cup (and given Paul Collingwood's continued horror run of form), suddely that England middle order doesn't look so solid.
While I applaud the English selectors for making an obviously bold decision, I think that Pietersen is the wrong man to open alongside Cap'n Strauss. I'd much rather see Bell or Bopara face the new-ball instead. But if England bat as badly as they did against Canada, the order shouldn't really make too much difference. That's probably the thing they'll need to work on first.
Sunday, 6 February 2011
England's Muddled Thinking
OK, so this hasn't been a vintage ODI series for England. That's probably safe to say. There have been injuries - tons of them, which has no doubt disrupted the well laid out plans for success both in this series and in the World Cup. But, despite this, England's selectorial committee have made some pretty odd u-turns during the course of this series, which leaves their 15 man World Cup squad which was only picked a few weeks ago looking a little confused.
Let's start with Matt Prior. England discarded him as wicket keeper first for Craig Kieswetter, then Steve Davies. Fine. They evidently thought that Davies was the man for the job, both as a wicket-keeper and as an opener. However, after the first ODI, Prior was named in the World Cup squad ahead of Davies, and we were all told that Prior was going to be wicket-keeper and opener. Never mind the apparent change of heart from Andy Flower et al; Prior was now selected so Prior would play. We could all see the reasoning behind the decision, and accepted it. Now fast forward a few weeks to Perth. Prior, the man selected for the World Cup as the wicket-keeper and opener, is relegated to fielding at fine leg and batting down at six, to accommodate Davies, who is recalled due to the many injuries England have had. Now I have no problem in Davies coming into the side in the light of injuries to Collingwood, Morgan or anyone else. But giving him the gloves, and telling him to open is basically the selectors saying "we think you are a better opener and wicket-keeper than Prior". So if the selectors quite openly think this, why is Prior in the World Cup squad?
The balance of England's side throughout the series has changed more regularly than the amount of players needing to fly home, but due to the injuries, this is forgiven. But assuming England have all 15 of their World Cup party fit for the first game, they don't actually know who will play. Will Yardy bat at 7? Will Collingwood? Will they go with 4 bowlers and an all-rounder, or 5 out and out bowlers? Will they go with two spinners, one spinner, or no spinners? Four pacemen, three, two or no pacemen? (For my money, going in with no spinners and no quicks would be a recipe for disaster). Will Prior open? Will Prior keep? Don't even worry about the injuries and the possible replacements - England don't really know what their best eleven (or the formula for their best eleven) should be. Which is worrying. And if they continue to show the muddled thinking which can only undermine Matt Prior's confidence (although if any of the England players don't seem to have a problem with confidence, it would be Prior) England's World Cup could be just as disastrous as the debacle of an ODI series which precedes it.
Let's start with Matt Prior. England discarded him as wicket keeper first for Craig Kieswetter, then Steve Davies. Fine. They evidently thought that Davies was the man for the job, both as a wicket-keeper and as an opener. However, after the first ODI, Prior was named in the World Cup squad ahead of Davies, and we were all told that Prior was going to be wicket-keeper and opener. Never mind the apparent change of heart from Andy Flower et al; Prior was now selected so Prior would play. We could all see the reasoning behind the decision, and accepted it. Now fast forward a few weeks to Perth. Prior, the man selected for the World Cup as the wicket-keeper and opener, is relegated to fielding at fine leg and batting down at six, to accommodate Davies, who is recalled due to the many injuries England have had. Now I have no problem in Davies coming into the side in the light of injuries to Collingwood, Morgan or anyone else. But giving him the gloves, and telling him to open is basically the selectors saying "we think you are a better opener and wicket-keeper than Prior". So if the selectors quite openly think this, why is Prior in the World Cup squad?
The balance of England's side throughout the series has changed more regularly than the amount of players needing to fly home, but due to the injuries, this is forgiven. But assuming England have all 15 of their World Cup party fit for the first game, they don't actually know who will play. Will Yardy bat at 7? Will Collingwood? Will they go with 4 bowlers and an all-rounder, or 5 out and out bowlers? Will they go with two spinners, one spinner, or no spinners? Four pacemen, three, two or no pacemen? (For my money, going in with no spinners and no quicks would be a recipe for disaster). Will Prior open? Will Prior keep? Don't even worry about the injuries and the possible replacements - England don't really know what their best eleven (or the formula for their best eleven) should be. Which is worrying. And if they continue to show the muddled thinking which can only undermine Matt Prior's confidence (although if any of the England players don't seem to have a problem with confidence, it would be Prior) England's World Cup could be just as disastrous as the debacle of an ODI series which precedes it.
Tuesday, 1 February 2011
Why Are England Losing?
The series has been lost. The inquest starts here.
The performances from England throughout this series haven’t been good. For a side obviously on a high following such an exceptional Ashes performance, and are looking to win the World Cup, the way England have played during these first five games just haven’t been up to scratch. There are a number of reasons why. Motivation. Concentration. Injuries. And just general poor play. But why have England, after being so good in the first few months of this Australian tour, looking so poor now?
To start, motivation to play in a seven match ODI series after the epic high of winning the Ashes can’t be great. While the Andy’s will have drummed into the players the importance of keeping their performance levels up, and there being clear motivation as a sportsman to win every game you play, the timing and nature of this series will always mean that England will struggle. The Ashes in Australia is the be all and end all for English cricketers, and so much planning, preparation, and energy was put into winning that series that anything that immediately follows will feel like an anti-climax. The fact that it’s a fairly meaningless seven match series means that while England would have wanted to win, they’re not too bothered that they haven’t. It obviously wasn’t a do-or-die series for England – why else would they have allowed their best bowler to miss the first few games? We saw a similar situation back in 2009 in England – after a hard-fought Ashes win, England relaxed and allowed Australia to dominate an equally as uninteresting seven match series, losing 6-1. Conversely, where England have lacked motivation, Australia have had it in bundles. They’ve just been humiliated on home soil by the Poms, and they want payback. While trouncing them in an ODI series isn’t equivalent to winning the Ashes, it’s a start.
So Australia are up for it, England aren’t. A massive generalisation, but it isn’t a total lie, and it goes some way to explain why England are losing.
While motivation does play a part, England’s performances have been deeper than who wants it more. England’s batting has been shaky to say the least, with only a couple of players being in any real credit. Collingwood aside, it shouldn’t be a question of form, as most of England’s batting line up were plundering runs aplenty in the test series. While the motivation argument could be played to explain why there have been so many occurrences of low scores, poor ODI play has been the reason. England have consistently thrown their wickets away – holing out in the deep of the quicks, and offering dollies to close infielders off spinners. They haven’t played with the patience needed – with the rate more than manageable they’ve squandered wickets when trying to needlessly accelerate, which has put England under the cosh and lost them games. It’s difficult to put a finger on why – all of the top seven are very good international batsmen (as demonstrated many times in England shirts over the past 12 months in all formats of the game) but they just haven’t done it this series. Strauss and Morgan haven’t made starts, Prior doesn’t look comfortable when facing the raw pace of Brett Lee, Bell and Pietersen haven’t converted their starts into big scores, and Jonathan Trott has preferred to bump up his own average rather than play a match winning innings for the team (other than Adelaide, obviously). And Collingwood looks all over the pace. Don’t forget that this is a very potent Australian attack, but at least a couple of English batsmen should be scoring enough runs to make it competitive. We shouldn’t be relying on Steve Finn to make a score look respectable. England’s tail when Yardy bats at 7 was too long, but it’s been rearranged to put Collingwood there, which gives much better balance to the side. Selection hasn’t been the issue; poor performances have been the reason why England have been losing games.
In terms of the bowling, the main four bowlers of Broad, Anderson, Bresnan and Swann have all missed major parts of this series for one reason or another, but their replacements have performed admirably. Tremlett bowled tightly, Shahzad bowled dangerously, and Woakes took wickets. Not much was expected of a bowling attack lacking so much experience, but they haven’t let Australia bat them out of the game. While having the established foursome in would help, there are no complaints about the performances of England’s bowlers.
When a team are losing games, it’s easy to forget that there is also a side playing against them who are winning games. And Australia have performed well. Watson’s 161 at the MCG was one of One Day International Cricket’s great innings, and Marsh’s 100 at Hobart was equally as important for his side winning it. Brett Lee has looked back to his fearsome best, and there have been good contributions throughout from Haddin, Clarke, Bollinger, Hastings and Hussey. Australia have been good, but not brilliant. But the reason they haven’t been brilliant is because they haven’t needed to be. Other than Watson’s great knock to chase down 300, England haven’t posed enough of a problem for Australia to need consistently superb displays. Australia’s wins have all been deserved, but they were only deserved because England played so poorly in those games.
So why have England been losing? And what impact will this have for their performances in the World Cup? Well, it shouldn’t be too much of an issue. A new environment in a new country, as well as the obvious challenge of playing in a World Cup should mean that England are up for it. But the main legacy of this series will be both the injuries (which hopefully clear up) and the lack of confidence caused by really poor batting performances. England have two ODIs here to get into a semblance of form (as well as finalising the preferred first XI) before a World Cup. England have been losing. Let’s just hope they can start winning, just in time for a World Cup which will be England’s best chance of winning in years.
The performances from England throughout this series haven’t been good. For a side obviously on a high following such an exceptional Ashes performance, and are looking to win the World Cup, the way England have played during these first five games just haven’t been up to scratch. There are a number of reasons why. Motivation. Concentration. Injuries. And just general poor play. But why have England, after being so good in the first few months of this Australian tour, looking so poor now?
To start, motivation to play in a seven match ODI series after the epic high of winning the Ashes can’t be great. While the Andy’s will have drummed into the players the importance of keeping their performance levels up, and there being clear motivation as a sportsman to win every game you play, the timing and nature of this series will always mean that England will struggle. The Ashes in Australia is the be all and end all for English cricketers, and so much planning, preparation, and energy was put into winning that series that anything that immediately follows will feel like an anti-climax. The fact that it’s a fairly meaningless seven match series means that while England would have wanted to win, they’re not too bothered that they haven’t. It obviously wasn’t a do-or-die series for England – why else would they have allowed their best bowler to miss the first few games? We saw a similar situation back in 2009 in England – after a hard-fought Ashes win, England relaxed and allowed Australia to dominate an equally as uninteresting seven match series, losing 6-1. Conversely, where England have lacked motivation, Australia have had it in bundles. They’ve just been humiliated on home soil by the Poms, and they want payback. While trouncing them in an ODI series isn’t equivalent to winning the Ashes, it’s a start.
So Australia are up for it, England aren’t. A massive generalisation, but it isn’t a total lie, and it goes some way to explain why England are losing.
While motivation does play a part, England’s performances have been deeper than who wants it more. England’s batting has been shaky to say the least, with only a couple of players being in any real credit. Collingwood aside, it shouldn’t be a question of form, as most of England’s batting line up were plundering runs aplenty in the test series. While the motivation argument could be played to explain why there have been so many occurrences of low scores, poor ODI play has been the reason. England have consistently thrown their wickets away – holing out in the deep of the quicks, and offering dollies to close infielders off spinners. They haven’t played with the patience needed – with the rate more than manageable they’ve squandered wickets when trying to needlessly accelerate, which has put England under the cosh and lost them games. It’s difficult to put a finger on why – all of the top seven are very good international batsmen (as demonstrated many times in England shirts over the past 12 months in all formats of the game) but they just haven’t done it this series. Strauss and Morgan haven’t made starts, Prior doesn’t look comfortable when facing the raw pace of Brett Lee, Bell and Pietersen haven’t converted their starts into big scores, and Jonathan Trott has preferred to bump up his own average rather than play a match winning innings for the team (other than Adelaide, obviously). And Collingwood looks all over the pace. Don’t forget that this is a very potent Australian attack, but at least a couple of English batsmen should be scoring enough runs to make it competitive. We shouldn’t be relying on Steve Finn to make a score look respectable. England’s tail when Yardy bats at 7 was too long, but it’s been rearranged to put Collingwood there, which gives much better balance to the side. Selection hasn’t been the issue; poor performances have been the reason why England have been losing games.
In terms of the bowling, the main four bowlers of Broad, Anderson, Bresnan and Swann have all missed major parts of this series for one reason or another, but their replacements have performed admirably. Tremlett bowled tightly, Shahzad bowled dangerously, and Woakes took wickets. Not much was expected of a bowling attack lacking so much experience, but they haven’t let Australia bat them out of the game. While having the established foursome in would help, there are no complaints about the performances of England’s bowlers.
When a team are losing games, it’s easy to forget that there is also a side playing against them who are winning games. And Australia have performed well. Watson’s 161 at the MCG was one of One Day International Cricket’s great innings, and Marsh’s 100 at Hobart was equally as important for his side winning it. Brett Lee has looked back to his fearsome best, and there have been good contributions throughout from Haddin, Clarke, Bollinger, Hastings and Hussey. Australia have been good, but not brilliant. But the reason they haven’t been brilliant is because they haven’t needed to be. Other than Watson’s great knock to chase down 300, England haven’t posed enough of a problem for Australia to need consistently superb displays. Australia’s wins have all been deserved, but they were only deserved because England played so poorly in those games.
So why have England been losing? And what impact will this have for their performances in the World Cup? Well, it shouldn’t be too much of an issue. A new environment in a new country, as well as the obvious challenge of playing in a World Cup should mean that England are up for it. But the main legacy of this series will be both the injuries (which hopefully clear up) and the lack of confidence caused by really poor batting performances. England have two ODIs here to get into a semblance of form (as well as finalising the preferred first XI) before a World Cup. England have been losing. Let’s just hope they can start winning, just in time for a World Cup which will be England’s best chance of winning in years.
Wednesday, 19 January 2011
England's World Cup Predictions
So England's World Cup squad announcement is almost upon us. The 15 brave boys who will be picked to go out and bring it home will already know who they are, and the unlucky ones will be out drowning their sorrows. But we, the public, don't yet know. So let me have a non-educated guess.
For my money, 13 of the 15 are in. Strauss as captain won't miss out; neither will Davies, Trott, Pietersen, Morgan, Bell, Bresnan, Yardy, Swann, Broad or Anderson. So all things considered, and with no further injuries, they'll be the first choice eleven. Collingwood, a man who has been a key part of England's ODI team for a long while should still make it, although now he's been dropped he may be sweating on his place. However, I'd heavily doubt he'd miss out, as he does offer an awful lot to an England team in lots of capacities. Also likely to go is Ajmal Shahzad. England clearly rate him, and he has taken his chances when he's been given them. Indications are that he'll go as well.
So from what I see, those 13 are shoo-ins. Or at least, I'd be surprised if any of them missed out.
But what of the other two spots in the squad? Currently out in Australia are Chris Woakes, Steve Finn, Luke Wright and Chris Tremlett. All men who have recently impressed out in Australia (and Luke Wright). David Saker has come out and said that England won't go with more than 4 seamers, so if Bresnan, Anderson, Broad and Shahzad are going, there isn't space for Woakes, Finn or Tremlett. Which means Wright's probably going. Wright, for all of the loathing I have towards him, is clearly seen as a useful individual who can fulfil numerous roles in the side. While is actually a pointless individual who can't fulfil any role in the side, the selectors and Andy Flower clearly rate him, so he's going. So that's 14.
As well as those taking part in the ODI series in Australia, there's a further lot of players who are in the preliminary squad. Those lucky enough to have an early glimpse at England's World Cup 15 have mentioned that there is a big shock inclusion. So whether that's an extra spin option in Adil Rashid or James Tredwell, or an all-rounder like Peter Trego (who I'd like in there ahead of Wright in any case) we don't yet know. However, by looking at the balance of the squad, it seems a little batter light. So I'd guess that England would look to bring in one of the specialist batsmen.
The specialist bats in the 30 man squad are Cook, Bopara, Hildreth, Lumb, Patel, Adams and Stevens. (If you don't know who they are, you should go and watch some county cricket). If the 'shock' selection is to be believed, it won't be Cook or Bopara. Patel probably done enough to improve his much maligned fitness, and Lumb is pigeon holed as a T20 specialist. I'd be amazed if Darren Stevens got picked, which leaves just Jimmy Adams of Hampshire and James Hildreth of Somerset. Both have had brilliant seasons domestically, and either would deserve a place in the squad. Based on absolutely nothing other than a hunch, I think Jimmy Adams will get picked, as he can act as an opener (in a squad where openers are few and far between).
So using my best detective and sleuthing skills, I've predicted the England 15 man World Cup squad. Will I be right? There isn't long until we find out!
1. Strauss
2. Davies
3. Trott
4. Pietersen
5. Bell
6. Morgan
7. Yardy
8. Bresnan
9. Broad
10. Swann
11. Anderson
12. Collingwood
13. Wright
14. Shahzad
15. Adams
For my money, 13 of the 15 are in. Strauss as captain won't miss out; neither will Davies, Trott, Pietersen, Morgan, Bell, Bresnan, Yardy, Swann, Broad or Anderson. So all things considered, and with no further injuries, they'll be the first choice eleven. Collingwood, a man who has been a key part of England's ODI team for a long while should still make it, although now he's been dropped he may be sweating on his place. However, I'd heavily doubt he'd miss out, as he does offer an awful lot to an England team in lots of capacities. Also likely to go is Ajmal Shahzad. England clearly rate him, and he has taken his chances when he's been given them. Indications are that he'll go as well.
So from what I see, those 13 are shoo-ins. Or at least, I'd be surprised if any of them missed out.
But what of the other two spots in the squad? Currently out in Australia are Chris Woakes, Steve Finn, Luke Wright and Chris Tremlett. All men who have recently impressed out in Australia (and Luke Wright). David Saker has come out and said that England won't go with more than 4 seamers, so if Bresnan, Anderson, Broad and Shahzad are going, there isn't space for Woakes, Finn or Tremlett. Which means Wright's probably going. Wright, for all of the loathing I have towards him, is clearly seen as a useful individual who can fulfil numerous roles in the side. While is actually a pointless individual who can't fulfil any role in the side, the selectors and Andy Flower clearly rate him, so he's going. So that's 14.
As well as those taking part in the ODI series in Australia, there's a further lot of players who are in the preliminary squad. Those lucky enough to have an early glimpse at England's World Cup 15 have mentioned that there is a big shock inclusion. So whether that's an extra spin option in Adil Rashid or James Tredwell, or an all-rounder like Peter Trego (who I'd like in there ahead of Wright in any case) we don't yet know. However, by looking at the balance of the squad, it seems a little batter light. So I'd guess that England would look to bring in one of the specialist batsmen.
The specialist bats in the 30 man squad are Cook, Bopara, Hildreth, Lumb, Patel, Adams and Stevens. (If you don't know who they are, you should go and watch some county cricket). If the 'shock' selection is to be believed, it won't be Cook or Bopara. Patel probably done enough to improve his much maligned fitness, and Lumb is pigeon holed as a T20 specialist. I'd be amazed if Darren Stevens got picked, which leaves just Jimmy Adams of Hampshire and James Hildreth of Somerset. Both have had brilliant seasons domestically, and either would deserve a place in the squad. Based on absolutely nothing other than a hunch, I think Jimmy Adams will get picked, as he can act as an opener (in a squad where openers are few and far between).
So using my best detective and sleuthing skills, I've predicted the England 15 man World Cup squad. Will I be right? There isn't long until we find out!
1. Strauss
2. Davies
3. Trott
4. Pietersen
5. Bell
6. Morgan
7. Yardy
8. Bresnan
9. Broad
10. Swann
11. Anderson
12. Collingwood
13. Wright
14. Shahzad
15. Adams
Wednesday, 12 January 2011
England's T20 Formula for Success
When winning the World T20, England went into it with a solid, structured formula that payed dividends. Two explosive openers. Three big-hitters who can also manouvre it in the middle. All-rounders 6 and 7. Two spinners 8 and 9. Two pacers at the end. And it worked. England have won their last 7 games with that now tried and tested formula, and can rightly claim to be the best T20 side in the world.
But of the original World T20 winning side, there will be some differences for this upcoming T20 series v Australia. Kiesy and Broady are crocked. Siddy's retired. And Lumby's seemingly out of favour.
Yes, England found success with the formula used in the Caribbean, but is it now time to move on? I've spoken before about the lack of point in playing Luke Wright, and if England are playing Bresnan, Yardy, Swann and two others (today Woakes and Shahzad; normally Broad and Anderson) Wright won't need to bowl. And today he picked up his fifth T20I duck - the most ever. So he doesn't bowl and he clearly doesn't justify selection with the bat. So why is he being picked?!
I don't want this blog to be solely a succession of either podcasts and posts about Luke Wright. But he's now played 69 times for England. 69! If he is batting at number six, England's selectors are basically saying that he's one of England's six best twenty20 players. I can think of at least 20 better than him. But I digress...
Ian Bell, as well as he batted today, probably isn't a T20 opener. His classy and elegant stroke play would be better served lower down the order. Paul Collingwood is similiar, while he can play the big shots, he's often better served manouvreing it and allowing big hitting Pietersen or Morgan to rack 'em up down the other end. Number 4 is arguably the most important T20 position - get off to a bad start and you can need to rebuild by pushing singles and keeping your wicket. Get off to a good start and you may come in and start going at 10 an over plus in the last few overs (when batting first) or chasing down a target batting second. I'd rather see Bell in at 4 as a safety net for the potentially brilliant (but also with the ability to misfire) KP at 3 (after a similiar tale with the openers); Morgan, who has the ability to knuckle down or set loose at 5, with cool-hand Collingwood at 6. Don't forget, Colly has the ability to lob down a couple of overs if the main five aren't doing it (another reason to drop Luke Wright...)
While England won the World T20 by being the best T20 team, there are still ways of improving. A slight rejig in the middle order can only be beneficial, and there would be less deadwood in there aswell. At the time of writing I don't know whether England managed to get the world record for the most consecutive T20 wins (am following the Aus/Eng game via Twitter as don't have access to a TV), but my foolproof plan should surely see England onto greater T20 success in the future!
My team:
Lumb
Davies (wk)
Pietersen
Bell
Morgan
Collingwood
Bresnan
Yardy
Swann
Broad / Woakes
Anderson / Shahzad
But of the original World T20 winning side, there will be some differences for this upcoming T20 series v Australia. Kiesy and Broady are crocked. Siddy's retired. And Lumby's seemingly out of favour.
Yes, England found success with the formula used in the Caribbean, but is it now time to move on? I've spoken before about the lack of point in playing Luke Wright, and if England are playing Bresnan, Yardy, Swann and two others (today Woakes and Shahzad; normally Broad and Anderson) Wright won't need to bowl. And today he picked up his fifth T20I duck - the most ever. So he doesn't bowl and he clearly doesn't justify selection with the bat. So why is he being picked?!
I don't want this blog to be solely a succession of either podcasts and posts about Luke Wright. But he's now played 69 times for England. 69! If he is batting at number six, England's selectors are basically saying that he's one of England's six best twenty20 players. I can think of at least 20 better than him. But I digress...
Ian Bell, as well as he batted today, probably isn't a T20 opener. His classy and elegant stroke play would be better served lower down the order. Paul Collingwood is similiar, while he can play the big shots, he's often better served manouvreing it and allowing big hitting Pietersen or Morgan to rack 'em up down the other end. Number 4 is arguably the most important T20 position - get off to a bad start and you can need to rebuild by pushing singles and keeping your wicket. Get off to a good start and you may come in and start going at 10 an over plus in the last few overs (when batting first) or chasing down a target batting second. I'd rather see Bell in at 4 as a safety net for the potentially brilliant (but also with the ability to misfire) KP at 3 (after a similiar tale with the openers); Morgan, who has the ability to knuckle down or set loose at 5, with cool-hand Collingwood at 6. Don't forget, Colly has the ability to lob down a couple of overs if the main five aren't doing it (another reason to drop Luke Wright...)
While England won the World T20 by being the best T20 team, there are still ways of improving. A slight rejig in the middle order can only be beneficial, and there would be less deadwood in there aswell. At the time of writing I don't know whether England managed to get the world record for the most consecutive T20 wins (am following the Aus/Eng game via Twitter as don't have access to a TV), but my foolproof plan should surely see England onto greater T20 success in the future!
My team:
Lumb
Davies (wk)
Pietersen
Bell
Morgan
Collingwood
Bresnan
Yardy
Swann
Broad / Woakes
Anderson / Shahzad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)