In recent times, England selections have been less haphazard and random, and far more 'pecking-order' orientated. Gone are the days of bizarre one-off selections, and instead we have a system where players battle their way up the ranks, and everyone knows where they stand.
England's policy when injury or loss of form dictates that changes must be made is to look to the 'next cab off the rank'. When Paul Collingwood retired, the next cab was Eoin Morgan. When Jonathan Trott got injured, the replacement cab was Ravi Bopara. England's squad has a clearly defined pecking-order, and everyone knows where everyone else is on the way.
Jimmy Anderson is the leader of the fast-bowling attack, with Stuart Broad behind him. Matt Prior is the number one wicket-keeper, with Steve Davies behind him. And Graeme Swann is England's number one spinner. Or is he?
While the pecking-orders can be set in stone, they can also be flexible. Going into the UAE tour, Tim Bresnan was the third seamer, coming off the back of an excellent India series the previous summer. When Bresnan got injured, Chris Tremlett came in, meaning that Steve Finn was a lowly fifth in line to the fast bowling throne. However, Finn's performances in the ODI series meant that when Stuart Broad was withdrawn from the first warm-up game, Finn was turned to ahead of the now-fit Bresnan.
Graeme Swann has been England's number one spinner since 2009, when he wrested the crown from Monty Panesar in the West Indies. And it wasn't that long ago that Swann was considered the best spinner in test cricket, let alone in England. But Panesar has rip-roared his way back into test cricket after a three year sabbatical, picking up five-fers in each of the four games he's played in since his return. And his ascent has come just as a few questions have been asked of Swann after a quiet 2011, meaning that further down the line, some tough questions could be asked of the selectors.
After England have finished their stint on spin-friendly subcontinental pitches, they'll be back to England to take on West Indies on green pitches in May, meaning that only one spinner will be picked. As it stands, Swann is England's first choice spinner, but what if Monty continues to torment the Sri Lankan batsmen, just as he did the Pakistanis in his two tests against them? There are signs that the pecking-order isn't as set in stone as previously thought, with Swann only asked to bowl 1 over in Pakistan's first innings of the third test, with Panesar bowling 13. The total game comparison saw Monty wheel away for 70 overs compared to Swann's 40 - perhaps a sign that captain Strauss is placing more trust in the massive hands of Panesar?
I'm not saying that I personally would pick Panesar over Swann at this moment in time, it isn't inconceivable that at some stage Swann is superseded by the bearded Monty. However, a healthy rivalry may not be a bad thing for Swann. The pressure put on him by a genuine rival for his place means that he'll have to constantly be on his game, and will push himself harder to produce when it matters. The idea of the pecking-order system means that players constantly need to justify their places in the team or their dropped - just ask Eoin Morgan. This need to perform will see better performances from both Swann and Panesar, which can only be good for English fortunes. While the pair will bowl in tandem for this Sri Lankan tour, and likely at the back end of the year in the Indian tour, their partnership will turn into a fight for a place in the team when only one spinner is required, meaning that the spin contest between Swann and Panesar will surely become a long running battle over the next few years. And with two players pushing harder and harder to do well, this can only be a good thing for England.
Showing posts with label Graeme Swann. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Graeme Swann. Show all posts
Saturday, 17 March 2012
Friday, 3 February 2012
The DRS "Paranoia"
This series between Pakistan and England has seen the greatest amount of lbws in a three-test series in test history. Already 36 victims have been struck plumb in front, and have been forced to trudge back to the pavilion, with most batsmen and an increasing number of pundits blaming the rise of the DRS for the increased number of ell-bees.
So is the reason for the disproportionate number of leg-befores due to the use of technology? It’s certainly been proved that since the implementation of the review system that a greater percentage of appeals have been given by umpires, especially to spinners, as replays have shown that a lot of the previously rejected shouts would have gone on to hit the stumps. This has been a boost for the likes of Swann and Ajmal, who have been given plenty of wickets over the past couple of years that they would simply not have been given in times gone past. Umpires have seen that even when batsmen take a big stride down the pitch that the ball will sometimes go on to hit the stumps, meaning that they’re far more willing to give batsmen out. So arguably, DRS has played a part in the dismissals.
For this series, however, the DRS is being blamed for the fact that ball is hitting the pad more often. David Lloyd has spoken about the “paranoia” that the DRS is causing, leading to batsmen’s techniques falling apart and being struck plumb in front. But can the DRS really be blamed? Surely if a batsman plays with a straight bat and actually hits the ball, no amount of replays or ball-tracking technology will give them out. Yes, there have been a lot of lbws this series, but how many of those have been due to poor technique (especially by English players playing spin), and the awareness of the bowlers to exploit this by bowling at the stumps?
The DRS is said to have closed the gap in the balance between bat and ball in test cricket, and that can only be a good thing. One of the arguments against the review system is that there are a lot more wickets given than in the past – but wickets are only given if a batsman is out. Which means that in the past, batsmen who should have been given out weren’t, and if that happens to favour the bowlers then so be it. Surely that’s a lot better than incorrect decisions costing teams games? If the DRS is causing a “paranoia” amongst batsmen about how to play certain shots, then shouldn’t they getting down the nets and working on their obviously shaky technique rather than bleating about the pros or cons of technology? Hawkeye or no Hawkeye, a batsman is asking for trouble if he keeps getting hit on the back pad when standing in front of middle stump, and if the DRS is helping the umpires to get those decisions right, then that can only be of benefit to test cricket.
The DRS does have its opponents, and some arguments against its usage, many of which are very relevant and should be looked at. However, the fact that it is leading to more correct decisions being made surely isn’t one of them. Instead of looking for excuses, the batsmen should be looking at themselves and working out how to avoid being hit on the pads, as until then, the bowlers are going to keep bowling at them.
So is the reason for the disproportionate number of leg-befores due to the use of technology? It’s certainly been proved that since the implementation of the review system that a greater percentage of appeals have been given by umpires, especially to spinners, as replays have shown that a lot of the previously rejected shouts would have gone on to hit the stumps. This has been a boost for the likes of Swann and Ajmal, who have been given plenty of wickets over the past couple of years that they would simply not have been given in times gone past. Umpires have seen that even when batsmen take a big stride down the pitch that the ball will sometimes go on to hit the stumps, meaning that they’re far more willing to give batsmen out. So arguably, DRS has played a part in the dismissals.
For this series, however, the DRS is being blamed for the fact that ball is hitting the pad more often. David Lloyd has spoken about the “paranoia” that the DRS is causing, leading to batsmen’s techniques falling apart and being struck plumb in front. But can the DRS really be blamed? Surely if a batsman plays with a straight bat and actually hits the ball, no amount of replays or ball-tracking technology will give them out. Yes, there have been a lot of lbws this series, but how many of those have been due to poor technique (especially by English players playing spin), and the awareness of the bowlers to exploit this by bowling at the stumps?
The DRS is said to have closed the gap in the balance between bat and ball in test cricket, and that can only be a good thing. One of the arguments against the review system is that there are a lot more wickets given than in the past – but wickets are only given if a batsman is out. Which means that in the past, batsmen who should have been given out weren’t, and if that happens to favour the bowlers then so be it. Surely that’s a lot better than incorrect decisions costing teams games? If the DRS is causing a “paranoia” amongst batsmen about how to play certain shots, then shouldn’t they getting down the nets and working on their obviously shaky technique rather than bleating about the pros or cons of technology? Hawkeye or no Hawkeye, a batsman is asking for trouble if he keeps getting hit on the back pad when standing in front of middle stump, and if the DRS is helping the umpires to get those decisions right, then that can only be of benefit to test cricket.
The DRS does have its opponents, and some arguments against its usage, many of which are very relevant and should be looked at. However, the fact that it is leading to more correct decisions being made surely isn’t one of them. Instead of looking for excuses, the batsmen should be looking at themselves and working out how to avoid being hit on the pads, as until then, the bowlers are going to keep bowling at them.
Friday, 25 November 2011
The Case for ODIs
A lot has been said over recent weeks about the "death of test cricket". Yet while people were signing petitions and marching on the ICC to demand that test cricket stays alive, it appears that one of the other formats of the game is in a terminal state.
ODI cricket has been on the decline for a while, arguably (as with test cricket) since the introduction of the evil* twenty20 to the calendar. (*not actually evil) It's been fiddled around with more than any other format, with powerplays, new balls at each end, free hits and general bending of all sorts of rules in order to freshen it up and give it some pizazz.
The main gripe with ODIs is that they're a bit unnecessary and boring. Everyone loves test cricket, and (generally) players are happy to play them every day of every week, and more often than not, supporters are happy to pay attention to them. It may not be the televisually stimulating spectacle to the casual fan, but the main appeal of test cricket is the gradual war of attrition between two teams over the course of five long days. Don't believe the scare-mongering or petitions, test cricket is in rude health. Twenty20 is everything that test cricket isn't, it's rude, loud, in your face, and goes at a million miles an hour. And this works too, because TV companies like to show it, people like to go and watch, and players like to play (and to pick up the vast wods of cash they get for the priviledge).
ODIs don't really have that. As fun, exciting and exhilerating as they were when they first burst onto the scene 40 years ago, the game of cricket has moved on, and they've stood painfully still. 50 over cricket, no matter how many powerplays or free hits are injected into it will almost always have that really dull middle period which isn't quite test and certainly isn't T20. Long, pointless series are shoehorned in to an already packed international calendar, and nobody seems that interested.
So it may not come as a huge surprise when the man who was until last month the best bowler in the format, Graeme Swann, comes out and says that he'd like to see an end to ODI cricket. "It's not enjoyable" says our Graeme, and points to the full calendar and lack of interest from almost all concerned.
But why should we scrap ODIs? I'll be the first to admit that there are too many One Day International matches played, but to completely remove the format from cricket seems a touch extreme. The issue of long, drawn out, one-sided series can be resolved by limiting all ODI series to best of threes - which would also help ease the issue of overcrowding. While money shouldn't really be a factor, it sadly is, and for smaller grounds, the prospect of hosting ODIs is all that can financially keep them going if holding test matches is unlikely. Don't forget, ODI cricket gives the minnows (who not that long ago Graeme was supporting) the chance to compete and grow, with test status also unlikely to be forthcoming. And lest we forget, while some ODIs can be dull, so can certain tests and T20 games. The last World Cup was filled with giant-killings, dramatic finales, chokes and epic wins, which was nigh on the perfect advert for the format.
Yes, ODIs are far from perfect, and the ICC will need to seriously consider changing the format from 50 over to a forty over affair, but to scrap the format completely smacks of a man who's just been part of a team who've been whitewashed by the world champions. But relax ODI fans, Graeme Swann's word isn't law (yet), which means that the chances of an RIP for ODIs is quite a way off yet.
ODI cricket has been on the decline for a while, arguably (as with test cricket) since the introduction of the evil* twenty20 to the calendar. (*not actually evil) It's been fiddled around with more than any other format, with powerplays, new balls at each end, free hits and general bending of all sorts of rules in order to freshen it up and give it some pizazz.
The main gripe with ODIs is that they're a bit unnecessary and boring. Everyone loves test cricket, and (generally) players are happy to play them every day of every week, and more often than not, supporters are happy to pay attention to them. It may not be the televisually stimulating spectacle to the casual fan, but the main appeal of test cricket is the gradual war of attrition between two teams over the course of five long days. Don't believe the scare-mongering or petitions, test cricket is in rude health. Twenty20 is everything that test cricket isn't, it's rude, loud, in your face, and goes at a million miles an hour. And this works too, because TV companies like to show it, people like to go and watch, and players like to play (and to pick up the vast wods of cash they get for the priviledge).
ODIs don't really have that. As fun, exciting and exhilerating as they were when they first burst onto the scene 40 years ago, the game of cricket has moved on, and they've stood painfully still. 50 over cricket, no matter how many powerplays or free hits are injected into it will almost always have that really dull middle period which isn't quite test and certainly isn't T20. Long, pointless series are shoehorned in to an already packed international calendar, and nobody seems that interested.
So it may not come as a huge surprise when the man who was until last month the best bowler in the format, Graeme Swann, comes out and says that he'd like to see an end to ODI cricket. "It's not enjoyable" says our Graeme, and points to the full calendar and lack of interest from almost all concerned.
But why should we scrap ODIs? I'll be the first to admit that there are too many One Day International matches played, but to completely remove the format from cricket seems a touch extreme. The issue of long, drawn out, one-sided series can be resolved by limiting all ODI series to best of threes - which would also help ease the issue of overcrowding. While money shouldn't really be a factor, it sadly is, and for smaller grounds, the prospect of hosting ODIs is all that can financially keep them going if holding test matches is unlikely. Don't forget, ODI cricket gives the minnows (who not that long ago Graeme was supporting) the chance to compete and grow, with test status also unlikely to be forthcoming. And lest we forget, while some ODIs can be dull, so can certain tests and T20 games. The last World Cup was filled with giant-killings, dramatic finales, chokes and epic wins, which was nigh on the perfect advert for the format.
Yes, ODIs are far from perfect, and the ICC will need to seriously consider changing the format from 50 over to a forty over affair, but to scrap the format completely smacks of a man who's just been part of a team who've been whitewashed by the world champions. But relax ODI fans, Graeme Swann's word isn't law (yet), which means that the chances of an RIP for ODIs is quite a way off yet.
Friday, 23 September 2011
What Actually Is The Point of The T20s v West Indies?
The other day I spouted something about how I'm not a huge fan of the Champions League. Created solely to make a lot of money quite quickly, it sort of opposes everything us cricket bloggers should stand for. So you'd have thought that a final hurrah for the England team in international action this summer would cheer me up and get me all misty eyed. Well, not really either. This horribly shoehorned in seriesette has no real benefit other than to fulfil Sky's contract. So I don't really care about these matches either.
You could ask what I'm doing as a cricket blogger when I evidently have no real interest in cricket. And you'd be right to ask that.
So, mainly to show that I can be bothered (even if nobody else is), here's why you should watch the two T20s against the West Indies.
Young Talent
Everyone loves seeing a young player making his first tentative steps into international cricket, filled with hope that they'll be the next big thing. And at the moment, England's team is packed with them. Bairstow, Stokes, Briggs, Hales, Buttler - the potential in this team is immense. And while some won't live up to their big billing (remember the fanfare Luke Wright arrived in after a debut fifty against India in 2007), chances are a few of them will turn into bona fide England legends. And in twenty years after Sir Joseph Buttler is made prime minister after leading England to 6 successive Ashes wins, you can say that you were there (metaphorically) at the start.
England are winning
Given even fairly recent cricketing history this is still somewhat of a novelty, and we should enjoy it while it lasts. England are currently top of the test rankings, World T20 champions and have just beaten the ODI World Cup winners. And have looked really good whilst doing so. Yes, it may be a pointless seriesette that in a couple of weeks we'll have forgotten all about, but if England get to wave yet another trophy around at the Oval on Sunday, it's a great opportunity to celebrate everything else that's good about English cricket. Enjoy the success while it lasts - it may be gone sooner than we think...
Graeme Swann will be captain
Given the fact that Swann is at least fifth (and possibly sixth) in line to the throne, the chances of him captaining England again are fairly slim. Swann probably knows this is his one and only chance to do something destructive as England captain, so expect him to pull out all of the stops. Stink bombs at the toss. The team running out to "Diamond Lights". Fielders on the boundary told to get girls numbers for the captain. Who knows. But it will be worth watching.
The West Indies are playing
Everyone loves watching the West Indies. They're either really good and make cricket look easy, or they're hilariously crap and are good for a few laughs. In a T20, there is the potential for both possibilities. Expect dolly catches dropped, huge sixes over the pavilion, stupid collapses, demon yorkers and players forgetting to bring their bat out to the middle. It's always entertaining to watch the West Indies. Plus they may start dancing if they take any wickets, which is always a bonus.
OK, that's pretty much it. While it may not make the history books in 100 years as one of the great series, it'll be good for a couple of hours of light entertainment. Plus afterwards you get to watch me on Sports Tonight Live. What's not to enjoy?
You could ask what I'm doing as a cricket blogger when I evidently have no real interest in cricket. And you'd be right to ask that.
So, mainly to show that I can be bothered (even if nobody else is), here's why you should watch the two T20s against the West Indies.
Young Talent
Everyone loves seeing a young player making his first tentative steps into international cricket, filled with hope that they'll be the next big thing. And at the moment, England's team is packed with them. Bairstow, Stokes, Briggs, Hales, Buttler - the potential in this team is immense. And while some won't live up to their big billing (remember the fanfare Luke Wright arrived in after a debut fifty against India in 2007), chances are a few of them will turn into bona fide England legends. And in twenty years after Sir Joseph Buttler is made prime minister after leading England to 6 successive Ashes wins, you can say that you were there (metaphorically) at the start.
England are winning
Given even fairly recent cricketing history this is still somewhat of a novelty, and we should enjoy it while it lasts. England are currently top of the test rankings, World T20 champions and have just beaten the ODI World Cup winners. And have looked really good whilst doing so. Yes, it may be a pointless seriesette that in a couple of weeks we'll have forgotten all about, but if England get to wave yet another trophy around at the Oval on Sunday, it's a great opportunity to celebrate everything else that's good about English cricket. Enjoy the success while it lasts - it may be gone sooner than we think...
Graeme Swann will be captain
Given the fact that Swann is at least fifth (and possibly sixth) in line to the throne, the chances of him captaining England again are fairly slim. Swann probably knows this is his one and only chance to do something destructive as England captain, so expect him to pull out all of the stops. Stink bombs at the toss. The team running out to "Diamond Lights". Fielders on the boundary told to get girls numbers for the captain. Who knows. But it will be worth watching.
The West Indies are playing
Everyone loves watching the West Indies. They're either really good and make cricket look easy, or they're hilariously crap and are good for a few laughs. In a T20, there is the potential for both possibilities. Expect dolly catches dropped, huge sixes over the pavilion, stupid collapses, demon yorkers and players forgetting to bring their bat out to the middle. It's always entertaining to watch the West Indies. Plus they may start dancing if they take any wickets, which is always a bonus.
OK, that's pretty much it. While it may not make the history books in 100 years as one of the great series, it'll be good for a couple of hours of light entertainment. Plus afterwards you get to watch me on Sports Tonight Live. What's not to enjoy?
Monday, 12 September 2011
The T20 Captaincy Question
So with the news that T20 captain Stuart Broad's going to be out for a few months with a sore shoulder, as will vice-captain Eoin Morgan (spookily also with a sore shoulder), England's selectors are going to have to appoint their fifth captain of the summer ahead of the fairly meaningless T20 internationals against the West Indies in a couple of weeks. While the games will come at the end of a tiring summer and will probably be played by heavily depleted / disinterested sides, the matches (and perhaps even the away T20 in India after the ODI series out there) will give someone the opportunity to step onto the first rung of England captaincy - the chance to impress all with their cricketing brains, and the ability to tell their grandchildren that they were England captain.
So who should take the job? There are a few candidates, but as with the appointment of Broad himself at the start of the summer, nobody really jumped off the page. So I'll start with the FEC himself, and the man who already leads England's 50 over outfit, Alastair Cook. Everyone knows that Cooky is just serving an apprenticeship before being anointed England test captain, and taking on a couple of T20 games will only help his development and is another step of progression for him personally. However, Cook has long been deemed unsuitable to play T20 cricket for England. If he hasn't been in England's T20 plans thus far, with the bigger picture of the World T20 on the horizon, the selectors are unlikely to want to pick someone just for some one-off matches, which could rule Cook out. However, he has spoken of his desire to get into England's T20 team, and given the unbelievable form he's shown recently (including a T20 style innings as he guided England home at the Rose Bowl v India), this may just be the opportunity for him to get back into the shortest format side, and grab yet another captaincy in his quest for total control over English cricket.
The "not being in the side" argument would also appear to rule out some of the other senior players in England's side, with both Ian Bell and Jimmy Anderson not actually being in the T20 team. While they would both be major contenders in either of the other formats, the fact that they aren't (like Cook) actually deemed suitable for T20s should see them excluded from the reckoning.
With England's T20 team looking more pre-school than university, actual senior players who are regularly playing in there are fairly thin on the ground. In fact, only Graeme Swann and Kevin Pietersen could be deemed experienced enough to lead an England side, and both have their obvious fallbacks. Swann, for all of his laddish brilliance probably wouldn't be the best choice as he'd either do something inappropriate and unbecoming of an England captain, or by not being "one of the lads" the dressing room would miss out on Swanny's antics and the boost they give. And KP would come with the baggage of being KP, and everything that brings and has brought in the past. Besides, he may not want another crack at it after last time. However, despite how it all ended, Pietersen was actually not a tactically bad captain, and for only a one-off could consider having another go. And given that it is just for a couple of days, the powers that be may decide that Swann's influence wouldn't be missed that much, or even that even he couldn't create THAT much carnage in two days.
Another option would be giving it to an exciting youngster in order to help them progress, and given the relatively low pressure situation that it will be, that may not be the worst idea in the world. Current Lions captain James Taylor could be a shout, but after just one international cap, handing him the captaincy might be a touch premature.
However you look at it, the two games against the West Indies are turning out to be a bit of a nightmare. The players don't want to be playing them, and the selectors don't want to be forced into naming an interim T20 captain. However, a captain must be named, and while it may not mean much in the grand scheme of things, someone will be able to proudly boast that for two wet September days at The Oval, they were England captain.
So who should take the job? There are a few candidates, but as with the appointment of Broad himself at the start of the summer, nobody really jumped off the page. So I'll start with the FEC himself, and the man who already leads England's 50 over outfit, Alastair Cook. Everyone knows that Cooky is just serving an apprenticeship before being anointed England test captain, and taking on a couple of T20 games will only help his development and is another step of progression for him personally. However, Cook has long been deemed unsuitable to play T20 cricket for England. If he hasn't been in England's T20 plans thus far, with the bigger picture of the World T20 on the horizon, the selectors are unlikely to want to pick someone just for some one-off matches, which could rule Cook out. However, he has spoken of his desire to get into England's T20 team, and given the unbelievable form he's shown recently (including a T20 style innings as he guided England home at the Rose Bowl v India), this may just be the opportunity for him to get back into the shortest format side, and grab yet another captaincy in his quest for total control over English cricket.
The "not being in the side" argument would also appear to rule out some of the other senior players in England's side, with both Ian Bell and Jimmy Anderson not actually being in the T20 team. While they would both be major contenders in either of the other formats, the fact that they aren't (like Cook) actually deemed suitable for T20s should see them excluded from the reckoning.
With England's T20 team looking more pre-school than university, actual senior players who are regularly playing in there are fairly thin on the ground. In fact, only Graeme Swann and Kevin Pietersen could be deemed experienced enough to lead an England side, and both have their obvious fallbacks. Swann, for all of his laddish brilliance probably wouldn't be the best choice as he'd either do something inappropriate and unbecoming of an England captain, or by not being "one of the lads" the dressing room would miss out on Swanny's antics and the boost they give. And KP would come with the baggage of being KP, and everything that brings and has brought in the past. Besides, he may not want another crack at it after last time. However, despite how it all ended, Pietersen was actually not a tactically bad captain, and for only a one-off could consider having another go. And given that it is just for a couple of days, the powers that be may decide that Swann's influence wouldn't be missed that much, or even that even he couldn't create THAT much carnage in two days.
Another option would be giving it to an exciting youngster in order to help them progress, and given the relatively low pressure situation that it will be, that may not be the worst idea in the world. Current Lions captain James Taylor could be a shout, but after just one international cap, handing him the captaincy might be a touch premature.
However you look at it, the two games against the West Indies are turning out to be a bit of a nightmare. The players don't want to be playing them, and the selectors don't want to be forced into naming an interim T20 captain. However, a captain must be named, and while it may not mean much in the grand scheme of things, someone will be able to proudly boast that for two wet September days at The Oval, they were England captain.
Friday, 5 August 2011
Flower's Selection Headache
England's selectors name their squad for the third test against India tomorrow, and they're faced with a dilemma, and his name is Tim Bresnan. After sticking with a tried and tested formula of seven batsmen and four bowlers over the past couple of years, the selectors will have to decide on whether to drastically change policy and shuffle things around, or to stick with traditional and keep the status quo.
Ever since being gubbed at Headingley by the rampant Australians in 2009, Andy Flower has had an obvious reticence to only playing six specialist batsmen. With a long tail starting at seven, England were rolled within 34 overs, and ultimately lost within three days by an innings. Despite containing 'handy' players down the order (with Swann and Broad both sharing slightly face-saving half-centuries), England lacked the safety-net of an extra batsman, and paid the price handsomely. Since then, Flower and Strauss have steadfastly refused to change their preferred shape, which as rigidly defensive as it may be, has clearly wielded great results.
Jonathan Trott is injured, and unlikely to play at Edgbaston. And normally we would just see the "next cab off the rank" in operation, with (probably) James Taylor coming in to the side to maintain the natural order of things. However. Tim Bresnan has just had an excellent game at Trent Bridge, with a five-wicket haul and a 90 certainly adding weight to the argument that he is a true test all-rounder. It would almost appear illogical to drop him after the game he's just had, if not downright cruel. So with Trott out should England move Bresnan up to seven and go with only the six out-and-out batsmen?
Things certainly seem to be in Bresnan's favour. Even though he may arguably be a touch too high at number seven, with Swann and Broad below him, there's certainly a tail that can wag viciously. Having Matt Prior at number six isn't an issue, as he's proven in the past that he's plenty good enough to bat there, and England have enough batsmen in top form to afford to add an extra bowler. The shape could still work if Chris Tremlett doesn't pass fit, with Steven Finn ready and waiting to step into the breach, and either way England would have a very strong batting and bowling line-up.
Headingley 2009 still haunts Andy Flower, and the scars of that performance have been evident in the team selections ever since. However, it's surely impossible to omit Bresnan, and the return of Tremlett would give them a very big headache. However, the injury to Trott gives England the opportunity to have their cake and eat it, and to rearrange the shape of the side. With India on the ropes, England must go out and finish them off, and the best way to do so is with an aggressive line-up. It just remains to be seen whether Andy Flower makes the brave call in changing the policy, or the safe one in sticking with the usual.
Ever since being gubbed at Headingley by the rampant Australians in 2009, Andy Flower has had an obvious reticence to only playing six specialist batsmen. With a long tail starting at seven, England were rolled within 34 overs, and ultimately lost within three days by an innings. Despite containing 'handy' players down the order (with Swann and Broad both sharing slightly face-saving half-centuries), England lacked the safety-net of an extra batsman, and paid the price handsomely. Since then, Flower and Strauss have steadfastly refused to change their preferred shape, which as rigidly defensive as it may be, has clearly wielded great results.
Jonathan Trott is injured, and unlikely to play at Edgbaston. And normally we would just see the "next cab off the rank" in operation, with (probably) James Taylor coming in to the side to maintain the natural order of things. However. Tim Bresnan has just had an excellent game at Trent Bridge, with a five-wicket haul and a 90 certainly adding weight to the argument that he is a true test all-rounder. It would almost appear illogical to drop him after the game he's just had, if not downright cruel. So with Trott out should England move Bresnan up to seven and go with only the six out-and-out batsmen?
Things certainly seem to be in Bresnan's favour. Even though he may arguably be a touch too high at number seven, with Swann and Broad below him, there's certainly a tail that can wag viciously. Having Matt Prior at number six isn't an issue, as he's proven in the past that he's plenty good enough to bat there, and England have enough batsmen in top form to afford to add an extra bowler. The shape could still work if Chris Tremlett doesn't pass fit, with Steven Finn ready and waiting to step into the breach, and either way England would have a very strong batting and bowling line-up.
Headingley 2009 still haunts Andy Flower, and the scars of that performance have been evident in the team selections ever since. However, it's surely impossible to omit Bresnan, and the return of Tremlett would give them a very big headache. However, the injury to Trott gives England the opportunity to have their cake and eat it, and to rearrange the shape of the side. With India on the ropes, England must go out and finish them off, and the best way to do so is with an aggressive line-up. It just remains to be seen whether Andy Flower makes the brave call in changing the policy, or the safe one in sticking with the usual.
Wednesday, 3 August 2011
2005 v 2011 - Ultimate Team
Last night I had a look at this current England side, and whether they're better than their 2005 counterparts. Seeing as quite a few people have been getting involved in creating a 2005-2011 composite side (including Tom Fordyce of the BBC), I thought I'd have a go myself.
1) Alastair Cook (2011) - Just count the runs. Not in sparkling form thus far in this India series, but his feats over the winter and into the Sri Lanka series speak for themselves.
2) Andrew Strauss (2005) - A really tough one this for the opposing opening berth - do you want the Strauss of 2011 with added captaincy? Or the hard-hitting Trescothick, who'd otherwise walk into any composite England team of recent history? Instead I've gone for 2005 edition Strauss, as he gutsed out two big hundreds despite wearing a few from Brett Lee. As classy and stylish a batsman as you could ever see, and 2005 was just about at his pomp.
3) Michael Vaughan [Captain] (2005) - As much for the excellent batting (on his day Vaughany was as good as any in the world) as the innovative and inspirational captaincy. Would certainly get the best out of his bowlers, as well as plenty of runs from number 3.
4) Kevin Pietersen (2011) - The Kevin Pietersen of 2005 was a breath of fresh air; the young skunk-haired Saffa who hit Warney for sixes and dropped catches for fun. The 2011 KP still drops the odd catch, but has become a bit more wise about his cricket. While in 2005 he'd hit a six, but then be caught on the boundary trying it again, in 2011 he's a touch more circumspect, as seen in a gritty 200 at Lord's last week. After a rough patch, 2011 KP has found a way back to the 2005 form that saw him burst onto the world scene, which is why the more mature vintage makes it into the team.
5) Ian Bell (2011) - No contest at all for which edition of Ian Bell to put into the team; in 2005 he was very much a boy amongst men, whereas in 2011 he towers over his contemporaries. Since being shellshocked in 2005, Bell has added guts to his obvious skill, and is arguably the best batsman in the world right now.
6) Andrew Flintoff (2005) - Do I even need to elaborate? Runs, wickets, bucket hands at first slip, inspirational match-winning performances, a few drinks.
7) Matt Prior (2011) - Matt Prior is quite simply the best wicket-keeper batsman in the world, and his all-round game has improved leaps and bounds since arriving on the international scene. Geraint Jones never flourished with either glove or bat, but is still revered as a hero for catching Kasprowicz down the leg side.
8) Graeme Swann (2011) - Graeme Swann is an attacking offie who turns the ball a fair way. Ashley Giles was a defensive slow left armer who's stock ball was the straight one. Thanks for the runs at Trent Bridge Gilo, but I'm sticking with Swanny.
9) Steve Harmison (2005) - Harmy was probably already on the slide by 2005, but was still a fearful sight for any batsman. That early spell on the first morning at Lord's where he skittled the Aussies (and cut Ricky Ponting) set the tone for the series (even if England were thumped) and Harmison led England's most successful attack of recent years with distinction.
10) Jimmy Anderson (2011) - The leader of England's attack six years later. Now with an ability to swing it wherever he wants, there is no better bowler in English conditions, and Jimmy takes wickets for fun.
11) Simon Jones (2005) - A tough one for my final seamer's spot. Chris Tremlett, he of the fearful bounce? Stuart Broad, theenforcer man risen from the dead who takes wickets and scores runs? Matthew Hoggard to share the new ball and make it talk? Instead, I've gone for the master of reverse swing, and the unsung hero of England's 2005 Ashes win. The Welsh Warrior, Simon Jones.
So then, that's my composite 2005 and 2011 England team. Just imagine if such a side (at their peak) had taken to the field - especially with the likes of Trescothick, Trott, Strauss, Pietersen, Tremlett, Broad and Hoggard in reserve - we'd have been world number one years ago!
1) Alastair Cook (2011) - Just count the runs. Not in sparkling form thus far in this India series, but his feats over the winter and into the Sri Lanka series speak for themselves.
2) Andrew Strauss (2005) - A really tough one this for the opposing opening berth - do you want the Strauss of 2011 with added captaincy? Or the hard-hitting Trescothick, who'd otherwise walk into any composite England team of recent history? Instead I've gone for 2005 edition Strauss, as he gutsed out two big hundreds despite wearing a few from Brett Lee. As classy and stylish a batsman as you could ever see, and 2005 was just about at his pomp.
3) Michael Vaughan [Captain] (2005) - As much for the excellent batting (on his day Vaughany was as good as any in the world) as the innovative and inspirational captaincy. Would certainly get the best out of his bowlers, as well as plenty of runs from number 3.
4) Kevin Pietersen (2011) - The Kevin Pietersen of 2005 was a breath of fresh air; the young skunk-haired Saffa who hit Warney for sixes and dropped catches for fun. The 2011 KP still drops the odd catch, but has become a bit more wise about his cricket. While in 2005 he'd hit a six, but then be caught on the boundary trying it again, in 2011 he's a touch more circumspect, as seen in a gritty 200 at Lord's last week. After a rough patch, 2011 KP has found a way back to the 2005 form that saw him burst onto the world scene, which is why the more mature vintage makes it into the team.
5) Ian Bell (2011) - No contest at all for which edition of Ian Bell to put into the team; in 2005 he was very much a boy amongst men, whereas in 2011 he towers over his contemporaries. Since being shellshocked in 2005, Bell has added guts to his obvious skill, and is arguably the best batsman in the world right now.
6) Andrew Flintoff (2005) - Do I even need to elaborate? Runs, wickets, bucket hands at first slip, inspirational match-winning performances, a few drinks.
7) Matt Prior (2011) - Matt Prior is quite simply the best wicket-keeper batsman in the world, and his all-round game has improved leaps and bounds since arriving on the international scene. Geraint Jones never flourished with either glove or bat, but is still revered as a hero for catching Kasprowicz down the leg side.
8) Graeme Swann (2011) - Graeme Swann is an attacking offie who turns the ball a fair way. Ashley Giles was a defensive slow left armer who's stock ball was the straight one. Thanks for the runs at Trent Bridge Gilo, but I'm sticking with Swanny.
9) Steve Harmison (2005) - Harmy was probably already on the slide by 2005, but was still a fearful sight for any batsman. That early spell on the first morning at Lord's where he skittled the Aussies (and cut Ricky Ponting) set the tone for the series (even if England were thumped) and Harmison led England's most successful attack of recent years with distinction.
10) Jimmy Anderson (2011) - The leader of England's attack six years later. Now with an ability to swing it wherever he wants, there is no better bowler in English conditions, and Jimmy takes wickets for fun.
11) Simon Jones (2005) - A tough one for my final seamer's spot. Chris Tremlett, he of the fearful bounce? Stuart Broad, the
So then, that's my composite 2005 and 2011 England team. Just imagine if such a side (at their peak) had taken to the field - especially with the likes of Trescothick, Trott, Strauss, Pietersen, Tremlett, Broad and Hoggard in reserve - we'd have been world number one years ago!
Sunday, 12 June 2011
England's New One-Day Direction
This morning England name their first post-World Cup One Day squad. In effect, with the start of a new World Cup cycle starting here, this is an opportunity for a blank canvas in terms of England's limited over cricket, with new players given the chance to prove themselves and old players who couldn't hack it given the boot. This could be a defining squad announcement for England, as the established order swept aside and a new generation welcomed in. This will certainly be the squad with the most new faces until this similiar situation in four years time. I've written about who should or shouldn't be in the limited over squad quite a few times, but seeing as this is a chance to reevaluate England's ODI squad, I've reevaluated who I'd put in there myself.
For me, before picking the squad, there should only be one definite on the list - and that's the captain. While personally I would have liked someone else to have done the job, the selectors have gone for Alastair Cook, so at this moment in time, he's the only name on the board. And seeing as Stuart Broad is going to be T20 captain, he can be in there too. Other than that, past reputations should count for nothing, and the selectors should be ruthless in picking the best One Day players in the country, regardless of past glories (or not).
The first thing to think about is the balance of the team. England had a muddled ODI strategy going into the World Cup that kept chopping and changing - it was evident that they didn't know what their prefered team was. Did they want 6 or 7 out-and-out batsmen? Did they want one, two, three or even four all-rounders? Did they want one spinner, or three? Did they want the wicket-keeper to open? The strategy wasn't so much as wrong but clouded by indecision. So Andy Flower needs to set his stall out and pick a tactic for success. For my team, I've gone for 6 batsmen (of whom one can bowl), a wicket-keeper at seven, and four bowlers. There should be plenty of depth to both the batting and the bowling, and I think it is the most balanced side possible for ODI cricket.
The first name I'm going to pick is my wicket-keeper. England's use of wicket-keepers has been as muddled as anything else, with Prior, Davies and Kieswetter all getting jettisoned in the 12 months leading into the World Cup, before Prior was eventually selected. Personally, it's between Kieswetter and Davies, but I'd rather have Craig Kieswetter in down the order where he can give the final throes of an innings real impetus. While he was found out against the harder new ball in English conditions last summer, Kieswetter is a far better bet when the ball (and the bowlers) are a little more tired, and he can be a great 'finisher' down the order.
Batting wise, Alastair Cook is selected due to his captaincy, and opening alongside him I'd pick Alex Hales. Hales is a big hitter, which would be needed alongside the more sedate Cook, and has had an excellent start to the season. A lot is expected of him, and I think the time is certainly right to get him into the England team in order to improve his nascent game and gain invaluable experience.
While I said past reputations shouldn't come into it, my 3, 4 and 5 are straight from the World Cup. Jonathan Trott, for all of the accusations about a slow scoring rate is an incredible accumulator who can really anchor the innings. And Kevin Pietersen and Eoin Morgan would walk into any One Day team in the world (although judgement still to be passed about KP's mental state).
The last jigsaw piece of my middle order would be Samit Patel - unthinkable not too long ago, but after shedding (some) pounds and seemingly winning favour by getting into the Lions squad, Patel may have earned redemption. Clearly talented enough, the only question mark would be over his fitness, but if he's done enough to suggest to Andy Flower that he's ready then he should be brought in. Good with the ball but better with the bat, Patel is the sort of player that adds real balance to the team and can be England's trump card.
In terms of the bowling, Graeme Swann gets in as he is the best spinner in the country. Stuart Broad also plays because he is the T20 captain, as well as being a very good ODI player. And the other two fast bowling spots I'd give to Jade Dernbach and Chris Woakes. Dernbach has really impressed over the past year, both at Surrey and with the Lions, and has very quickly become a very accomplished one day bowler. And Woakes has already played a few times for England, and is already a very good player who will only continue to increase as he matures.
Perhaps the highest profile absentees are Ian Bell, Matt Prior and Jimmy Anderson. All stalwarts of England sides over the past few years, they've been passed over for various reasons. Prior is a very good attacking batsman, but has a distinctly ordinary ODI record, and should be moved aside to allow someone else a go. Bell is fast becoming one of the best test batsmen in the world, and I would love to have him in any England side (it wasn't that long ago I was campaigning for him to captain the ODI team) but I can't really see a space for him in this team. However, if Pietersen continues declining or Trott is brutally killed by Bob Willis then Bell would be the man to fill the vacant position. And Anderson's ODI form has tailed off significantly, and we saw all too clearly the poor perfomances in the Australian ODIs and the World Cup, which were almost certainly due to overkill and tiredness. A break from cricket after each test series would keep Jimmy fighting fit and fresh and would certainly benefit him in the long run.
England have a real opportunity with the announcements of the limited over sides today to turn over a new leaf and start again with One Day cricket. In the T20 side we might see Jason Roy or Ben Stokes, and there could be some new faces in the 50 over team too. Today's squad is a significant one, as it really sets the course for England's one day direction over the next four years. Let's just hope that the destination is the World Cup.
My ODI team:
Alastair Cook (c)
Alex Hales
Jonathan Trott
Kevin Pietersen
Eoin Morgan
Samit Patel
Craig Kieswetter
Chris Woakes
Stuart Broad
Graeme Swann
Jade Dernbach
For me, before picking the squad, there should only be one definite on the list - and that's the captain. While personally I would have liked someone else to have done the job, the selectors have gone for Alastair Cook, so at this moment in time, he's the only name on the board. And seeing as Stuart Broad is going to be T20 captain, he can be in there too. Other than that, past reputations should count for nothing, and the selectors should be ruthless in picking the best One Day players in the country, regardless of past glories (or not).
The first thing to think about is the balance of the team. England had a muddled ODI strategy going into the World Cup that kept chopping and changing - it was evident that they didn't know what their prefered team was. Did they want 6 or 7 out-and-out batsmen? Did they want one, two, three or even four all-rounders? Did they want one spinner, or three? Did they want the wicket-keeper to open? The strategy wasn't so much as wrong but clouded by indecision. So Andy Flower needs to set his stall out and pick a tactic for success. For my team, I've gone for 6 batsmen (of whom one can bowl), a wicket-keeper at seven, and four bowlers. There should be plenty of depth to both the batting and the bowling, and I think it is the most balanced side possible for ODI cricket.
The first name I'm going to pick is my wicket-keeper. England's use of wicket-keepers has been as muddled as anything else, with Prior, Davies and Kieswetter all getting jettisoned in the 12 months leading into the World Cup, before Prior was eventually selected. Personally, it's between Kieswetter and Davies, but I'd rather have Craig Kieswetter in down the order where he can give the final throes of an innings real impetus. While he was found out against the harder new ball in English conditions last summer, Kieswetter is a far better bet when the ball (and the bowlers) are a little more tired, and he can be a great 'finisher' down the order.
Batting wise, Alastair Cook is selected due to his captaincy, and opening alongside him I'd pick Alex Hales. Hales is a big hitter, which would be needed alongside the more sedate Cook, and has had an excellent start to the season. A lot is expected of him, and I think the time is certainly right to get him into the England team in order to improve his nascent game and gain invaluable experience.
While I said past reputations shouldn't come into it, my 3, 4 and 5 are straight from the World Cup. Jonathan Trott, for all of the accusations about a slow scoring rate is an incredible accumulator who can really anchor the innings. And Kevin Pietersen and Eoin Morgan would walk into any One Day team in the world (although judgement still to be passed about KP's mental state).
The last jigsaw piece of my middle order would be Samit Patel - unthinkable not too long ago, but after shedding (some) pounds and seemingly winning favour by getting into the Lions squad, Patel may have earned redemption. Clearly talented enough, the only question mark would be over his fitness, but if he's done enough to suggest to Andy Flower that he's ready then he should be brought in. Good with the ball but better with the bat, Patel is the sort of player that adds real balance to the team and can be England's trump card.
In terms of the bowling, Graeme Swann gets in as he is the best spinner in the country. Stuart Broad also plays because he is the T20 captain, as well as being a very good ODI player. And the other two fast bowling spots I'd give to Jade Dernbach and Chris Woakes. Dernbach has really impressed over the past year, both at Surrey and with the Lions, and has very quickly become a very accomplished one day bowler. And Woakes has already played a few times for England, and is already a very good player who will only continue to increase as he matures.
Perhaps the highest profile absentees are Ian Bell, Matt Prior and Jimmy Anderson. All stalwarts of England sides over the past few years, they've been passed over for various reasons. Prior is a very good attacking batsman, but has a distinctly ordinary ODI record, and should be moved aside to allow someone else a go. Bell is fast becoming one of the best test batsmen in the world, and I would love to have him in any England side (it wasn't that long ago I was campaigning for him to captain the ODI team) but I can't really see a space for him in this team. However, if Pietersen continues declining or Trott is brutally killed by Bob Willis then Bell would be the man to fill the vacant position. And Anderson's ODI form has tailed off significantly, and we saw all too clearly the poor perfomances in the Australian ODIs and the World Cup, which were almost certainly due to overkill and tiredness. A break from cricket after each test series would keep Jimmy fighting fit and fresh and would certainly benefit him in the long run.
England have a real opportunity with the announcements of the limited over sides today to turn over a new leaf and start again with One Day cricket. In the T20 side we might see Jason Roy or Ben Stokes, and there could be some new faces in the 50 over team too. Today's squad is a significant one, as it really sets the course for England's one day direction over the next four years. Let's just hope that the destination is the World Cup.
My ODI team:
Alastair Cook (c)
Alex Hales
Jonathan Trott
Kevin Pietersen
Eoin Morgan
Samit Patel
Craig Kieswetter
Chris Woakes
Stuart Broad
Graeme Swann
Jade Dernbach
Monday, 6 June 2011
Day Four at Lord's
Before play started...: Many runs and a bit of rain. Could go either way, but draw most likely.
Where did it all go wrong for Sri Lanka?: Came up short of England's score thanks to a bit of a collapse when they should have had a big lead. Didn't make many inroads into England's batting either.
Where did it all go right for Sri Lanka?: Haven't let England get away from them, and if a declaration is timed poorly could be in with a sniff.
Where did it all go wrong for England?: Another failure for Strauss - how long before his lack of runs becomes worrying?
Where did it all go right for England?: Somehow eked out a lead, and can force the pace of this game with quick runs in the morning. The game is in their hands.
Who won each session?: Afternoon - England. Evening - Probably England.
Who's winning the game?: England. If they score quickly in the first session (or longer if they want) they can set either set Sri Lanka an unrealistic target, or dangle a carrot. After what happened at Cardiff with the scoreboard pressure, England should be favourites, but will do well to force a result.
Shot of the day: Herath's slog-sweep-stumble for six off Swann. Village, but brilliant.
Ball of the day: Swann to Herath. Turned a couple of absolute rippers beyond the outside edge, before forcing the stumping. Off-spin to left-handers at it's best.
Man of the day: Finn bowled well this morning, as did Swann, but Cook's runs means he probably shades it. Decent performance all round for England though.
Mug(s) of the day: Bit harsh, but Strauss. Yet another failure to a left-arm seamer, and it's becoming a real worry. Especially with a certain Zaheer Khan to come over the summer...
Where did it all go wrong for Sri Lanka?: Came up short of England's score thanks to a bit of a collapse when they should have had a big lead. Didn't make many inroads into England's batting either.
Where did it all go right for Sri Lanka?: Haven't let England get away from them, and if a declaration is timed poorly could be in with a sniff.
Where did it all go wrong for England?: Another failure for Strauss - how long before his lack of runs becomes worrying?
Where did it all go right for England?: Somehow eked out a lead, and can force the pace of this game with quick runs in the morning. The game is in their hands.
Who won each session?: Afternoon - England. Evening - Probably England.
Who's winning the game?: England. If they score quickly in the first session (or longer if they want) they can set either set Sri Lanka an unrealistic target, or dangle a carrot. After what happened at Cardiff with the scoreboard pressure, England should be favourites, but will do well to force a result.
Shot of the day: Herath's slog-sweep-stumble for six off Swann. Village, but brilliant.
Ball of the day: Swann to Herath. Turned a couple of absolute rippers beyond the outside edge, before forcing the stumping. Off-spin to left-handers at it's best.
Man of the day: Finn bowled well this morning, as did Swann, but Cook's runs means he probably shades it. Decent performance all round for England though.
Mug(s) of the day: Bit harsh, but Strauss. Yet another failure to a left-arm seamer, and it's becoming a real worry. Especially with a certain Zaheer Khan to come over the summer...
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, 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?
Sunday, 27 March 2011
England's One Day Failings
Yesterday I wrote about the men who were in England's ODI squad, and the immediate direction they can take. And before the World Cup even started, I named a potential team for the next summer of ODI cricket (which still doesn't look too unlikely).
However, while the short term can be looked at, the facts remain that England haven't been a top-level ODI side since reaching the final in 1992. We've consistently underperformed, citing the same reasons time after time. Ultimately, England's failures in ODI cricket aren't due to tiredness or injuries, it's a much deeper problem. Put simply, we aren't producing enough ODI quality players - or if we are, we aren't picking them. Test cricket and ODI cricket are very different disciplines - while key skills can be used in both, for players to be the very best in ODI cricket, there are other elements needed. It's widely recognised that England have a very good test side, and not such a good ODI side. But the ODI team is basically the test team without Alastair Cook. So the players who clearly have the aptitude for test cricket patently don't have the X Factor in ODI cricket needed to win World Cups.
Much of the reason must be looked at in county cricket, where the One Day competition is put in as an afterthought. And the fact that it doesn't even take the same format as international cricket doesn't suggest players are learning the skills required for ODIs. The nature of ODI selection is also wrong. Of yesterday's England side, Strauss, Bell, Trott, Prior and Tremlett were given ODI chances (or reprieves) almost exclusively on the back of test form. While this doesn't mean they are bad One Day players, it shows that selectors are only looking at the pool of international players rather than those who are proving themselves consistently in domestic List A cricket.
And even when young guys are being selected, they're given very little margin for error before being discarded. Think Davies, Kieswetter, Denly, Rashid, Woakes. These are the players who have been performing well in domestic List A cricket who are removed for those with iffy One Day records but have performed well in tests. The selection of Prior over Davies is a case in point.
Another thing - English players don't play enough One Day cricket. I'm not talking about ODI cricket, where the 400 cap club is becoming increasingly unexclusive; but one day cricket of any sort. Once a player is picked for England, the only List A cricket of any type will be ODIs, as he is very rarely released to his county for one day games which are crucial for his development. Graeme Swann and Stuart Broad didn't play any One Day games for Notts last year, and Ian Bell has played double the ODIs than domestic One Day games. England are taking the view that international cricket is a place where players have to learn skills quickly, but it's also a place where flaws are exposed and we've already seen how keen the selectors are to dispose of those who don't swim immediately after being thrown straight into the deep end. England would be far better off using the domestic One Day tournament as a breeding ground for international cricket, where players can hone their skills and learn about the ways of One Day cricket, before picking players when they're ready for international action and sticking with them.
England's failures in ODI cricket are deeper than immediately meets the eye, but they can be rectified. There are some players who have been consistently performing at county level, and the selectors shouldn't be afraid to pick them. And if they are to pick them, faith needs to be shown in them. And England's established players should be given the opportunity to go and play One Day cricket for their counties, where they can develop their game away from the glare of ODI cricket, and learn the appropriate skills for ODI cricket, rather than recycling the very different skill set needed for test cricket. England flattered to decieve this World Cup, and while cosmetic changes could be made from small short term successes, a much deeper set of decisions need to be taken if England are ever to win a World Cup.
However, while the short term can be looked at, the facts remain that England haven't been a top-level ODI side since reaching the final in 1992. We've consistently underperformed, citing the same reasons time after time. Ultimately, England's failures in ODI cricket aren't due to tiredness or injuries, it's a much deeper problem. Put simply, we aren't producing enough ODI quality players - or if we are, we aren't picking them. Test cricket and ODI cricket are very different disciplines - while key skills can be used in both, for players to be the very best in ODI cricket, there are other elements needed. It's widely recognised that England have a very good test side, and not such a good ODI side. But the ODI team is basically the test team without Alastair Cook. So the players who clearly have the aptitude for test cricket patently don't have the X Factor in ODI cricket needed to win World Cups.
Much of the reason must be looked at in county cricket, where the One Day competition is put in as an afterthought. And the fact that it doesn't even take the same format as international cricket doesn't suggest players are learning the skills required for ODIs. The nature of ODI selection is also wrong. Of yesterday's England side, Strauss, Bell, Trott, Prior and Tremlett were given ODI chances (or reprieves) almost exclusively on the back of test form. While this doesn't mean they are bad One Day players, it shows that selectors are only looking at the pool of international players rather than those who are proving themselves consistently in domestic List A cricket.
And even when young guys are being selected, they're given very little margin for error before being discarded. Think Davies, Kieswetter, Denly, Rashid, Woakes. These are the players who have been performing well in domestic List A cricket who are removed for those with iffy One Day records but have performed well in tests. The selection of Prior over Davies is a case in point.
Another thing - English players don't play enough One Day cricket. I'm not talking about ODI cricket, where the 400 cap club is becoming increasingly unexclusive; but one day cricket of any sort. Once a player is picked for England, the only List A cricket of any type will be ODIs, as he is very rarely released to his county for one day games which are crucial for his development. Graeme Swann and Stuart Broad didn't play any One Day games for Notts last year, and Ian Bell has played double the ODIs than domestic One Day games. England are taking the view that international cricket is a place where players have to learn skills quickly, but it's also a place where flaws are exposed and we've already seen how keen the selectors are to dispose of those who don't swim immediately after being thrown straight into the deep end. England would be far better off using the domestic One Day tournament as a breeding ground for international cricket, where players can hone their skills and learn about the ways of One Day cricket, before picking players when they're ready for international action and sticking with them.
England's failures in ODI cricket are deeper than immediately meets the eye, but they can be rectified. There are some players who have been consistently performing at county level, and the selectors shouldn't be afraid to pick them. And if they are to pick them, faith needs to be shown in them. And England's established players should be given the opportunity to go and play One Day cricket for their counties, where they can develop their game away from the glare of ODI cricket, and learn the appropriate skills for ODI cricket, rather than recycling the very different skill set needed for test cricket. England flattered to decieve this World Cup, and while cosmetic changes could be made from small short term successes, a much deeper set of decisions need to be taken if England are ever to win a World Cup.
Thursday, 17 March 2011
"What If" - a draft
I wrote this post when West Indies needed another 30 odd runs, with 4 wickets in hand. The last rites of England's World Cup campaign were being given, and I wanted to get the "England are out" post out of the way, so I wrote it while the game was still going. Just as I finished it, there was a quick flurry of action, and suddenly England are more than alive and kicking. England may still go out of this World Cup in the groups, but I'm keeping this post, mainly to jinx every other team who plays against them this World Cup. Come on England!
"So England are out of the World Cup. A team who were highly touted as potential winners have disappointed so much, and crashed out with barely a whimper in the groups.
What makes this so disappointing is that I genuinely thought England could do something at this World Cup. Yes, we'd struggled against Australia, but if you look at this England squad, there's a lot of quality.
In Strauss, Trott, Bell, Pietersen (and latterly Morgan) England had a world-class batting line-up. In Anderson, Bresnan and Broad we had a superb fast bowling trio. And the trump card - Graeme Swann - the best spinner in the world.
The worst thing about being an England fan is the hope that they give us; the hope that they just might do it - that they just might go on and win. There have been so many fine margins in England's departure - what if Swann had squeaked Munaf Patel away for two off the last ball against India? What if Kevin O'Brien had holed out early in his innings? What if they'd managed to take the final two Bangladeshi wickets? What if Jonathan Trott hadn't been adjudged to touch the boundary rope? What if Tredwell's appeal to Benn hadn't been an 'umpire's call'?
As it is, England are out, and there will be an inquest. England have a team good enough to have won this World Cup, but have massively disappointed. All England fans can ask, is what if?"
"So England are out of the World Cup. A team who were highly touted as potential winners have disappointed so much, and crashed out with barely a whimper in the groups.
What makes this so disappointing is that I genuinely thought England could do something at this World Cup. Yes, we'd struggled against Australia, but if you look at this England squad, there's a lot of quality.
In Strauss, Trott, Bell, Pietersen (and latterly Morgan) England had a world-class batting line-up. In Anderson, Bresnan and Broad we had a superb fast bowling trio. And the trump card - Graeme Swann - the best spinner in the world.
The worst thing about being an England fan is the hope that they give us; the hope that they just might do it - that they just might go on and win. There have been so many fine margins in England's departure - what if Swann had squeaked Munaf Patel away for two off the last ball against India? What if Kevin O'Brien had holed out early in his innings? What if they'd managed to take the final two Bangladeshi wickets? What if Jonathan Trott hadn't been adjudged to touch the boundary rope? What if Tredwell's appeal to Benn hadn't been an 'umpire's call'?
As it is, England are out, and there will be an inquest. England have a team good enough to have won this World Cup, but have massively disappointed. All England fans can ask, is what if?"
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!
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.
Thursday, 10 March 2011
England's World Cup Winning Side
What with Pietersen and Broad going home, England will have to play a different eleven to those who narrowly beat South Africa. And given that England were hardly in sparkling form before the win, there could easily be a few more changes. So who should they pick?
Well, now that Pietersen's not there, England will need to play another opener alongside Strauss. There are a few options, but moving a Bopara or Bell from the middle order would only unsettle things further, so I wouldn't do that. Some have said that Morgan should go straight in at the top, but that would negate his biggest asset - the "cool handed finisher" which England have massively lacked so far. If he opens, while he may be able to exploit the opening powerplays, England wouldn't have him at the crucial finishing overs - the time where his star shines the brightest. So he's not an option either.
There's been some calls (even from BBC Sport's Oliver Brett, nonetheless)for Luke Wright to come in and open. And I sort of see the logic. Wright opening wouldn't impact on the successful middle order, and some argue that he could make quick runs as a pinch-hitter at the top. However, Luke Wright is a poor excuse for a batsman; he's been tried as an opening pinch hitter, a middle order accumulator and as a late-order slogger, and he's failed in every role. He simply isn't a good enough batsman (or bowler) to be playing international cricket. And considering that England will likely want to play 5 bowlers (and have either Bresnan or Yardy at seven), having Wright and Yardy (sorry Sussex fans) in an international top order is a real recipe for disaster. No team should go into an ODI with four batsmen and a keeper.
For me, the best and most obvious option to open would be Graeme Swann. So far he's been the English player who's hit the ball the cleanest, and can definitely act as a pinch-hitter. He's done it in the past for Notts, with success, and he certainly has the confidence in his own abilities to pull it off. And opening with Swann gives much greater balance to the team, as England suddenly have Prior at seven, and bat much deeper while still allowing five bowlers to be picked.
It is not hypocritical of me to badmouth Wright as a batsman, and then ask for a number 9 to open instead. Swann is a much better batsman that Luke Wright. Look at the averages. To be fair, I'm a better batsman than Luke Wright.
So Swann will open. Broad is now out, so changes will need to be made bowling-wise. England will want to stick with the two-spinner / three-seamer approach, so either Tremlett or Shahzad will come in. For me, Shahzad is much better suited to the conditions. Tremlett bowls a length which requires a lot more bounce from the pitch to trouble batsmen, whereas I think Shahzad is a better wicket-taking option in the subcontinent, especially given that he has the ability to generate reverse-swing later on.
And my other change to the side would be bringing in Tredwell for Yardy. England struggled against India and Ireland, because they couldn't take wickets (Bresnan v India aside). Part of the reason for that is Yardy doesn't really take wickets. He isn't expected to take wickets either, which puts far more pressure on the other guys. And it only takes a bad day in the office for a couple of the seamers for a big partnership to develop and bat England out of the game (see Kevin O'Brien for details). Yardy, as effective as he can be at keeping the run rate fairly low, just isn't an aggressive wicket-taking option. Also in the squad is perennial water boy James Tredwell. Admiteddly Jimmy T is yet to take an ODI wicket, but he at least is an aggressive bowler, and will take wickets if the selectors show even the faintest amount of confidence in his abilities. So I'd stick Tredwell in for Yardy.
So England's side, is suddenly looking much stronger. In Swann opening there is a gamble, but we've seen gambles pay off big time for teams willing to make those brave calls so far this World Cup. And England's batting card of Strauss, Trott, Bell, Bopara, Morgan and Prior (down to seven) is up there with the best around. The bowling may not be as strong, but in Bresnan, Swann and Anderson England have three well-established ODI players who can all be match-winners on their day. And in Shahzad and Tredwell are two players who could surprise teams, and chip in with crucial wickets. There's still a long way to go before anyone can realistically think of England winning this thing, but it only takes a couple of good performances, and that all-important momentum to come England's way, and anything could happen. (That's the trouble though, with England, literally anything could happen...)
My England team:
Strauss (c)
Swann
Trott
Bell
Bopara
Morgan
Prior (wk)
Bresnan
Tredwell
Shahzad
Anderson
Well, now that Pietersen's not there, England will need to play another opener alongside Strauss. There are a few options, but moving a Bopara or Bell from the middle order would only unsettle things further, so I wouldn't do that. Some have said that Morgan should go straight in at the top, but that would negate his biggest asset - the "cool handed finisher" which England have massively lacked so far. If he opens, while he may be able to exploit the opening powerplays, England wouldn't have him at the crucial finishing overs - the time where his star shines the brightest. So he's not an option either.
There's been some calls (even from BBC Sport's Oliver Brett, nonetheless)for Luke Wright to come in and open. And I sort of see the logic. Wright opening wouldn't impact on the successful middle order, and some argue that he could make quick runs as a pinch-hitter at the top. However, Luke Wright is a poor excuse for a batsman; he's been tried as an opening pinch hitter, a middle order accumulator and as a late-order slogger, and he's failed in every role. He simply isn't a good enough batsman (or bowler) to be playing international cricket. And considering that England will likely want to play 5 bowlers (and have either Bresnan or Yardy at seven), having Wright and Yardy (sorry Sussex fans) in an international top order is a real recipe for disaster. No team should go into an ODI with four batsmen and a keeper.
For me, the best and most obvious option to open would be Graeme Swann. So far he's been the English player who's hit the ball the cleanest, and can definitely act as a pinch-hitter. He's done it in the past for Notts, with success, and he certainly has the confidence in his own abilities to pull it off. And opening with Swann gives much greater balance to the team, as England suddenly have Prior at seven, and bat much deeper while still allowing five bowlers to be picked.
It is not hypocritical of me to badmouth Wright as a batsman, and then ask for a number 9 to open instead. Swann is a much better batsman that Luke Wright. Look at the averages. To be fair, I'm a better batsman than Luke Wright.
So Swann will open. Broad is now out, so changes will need to be made bowling-wise. England will want to stick with the two-spinner / three-seamer approach, so either Tremlett or Shahzad will come in. For me, Shahzad is much better suited to the conditions. Tremlett bowls a length which requires a lot more bounce from the pitch to trouble batsmen, whereas I think Shahzad is a better wicket-taking option in the subcontinent, especially given that he has the ability to generate reverse-swing later on.
And my other change to the side would be bringing in Tredwell for Yardy. England struggled against India and Ireland, because they couldn't take wickets (Bresnan v India aside). Part of the reason for that is Yardy doesn't really take wickets. He isn't expected to take wickets either, which puts far more pressure on the other guys. And it only takes a bad day in the office for a couple of the seamers for a big partnership to develop and bat England out of the game (see Kevin O'Brien for details). Yardy, as effective as he can be at keeping the run rate fairly low, just isn't an aggressive wicket-taking option. Also in the squad is perennial water boy James Tredwell. Admiteddly Jimmy T is yet to take an ODI wicket, but he at least is an aggressive bowler, and will take wickets if the selectors show even the faintest amount of confidence in his abilities. So I'd stick Tredwell in for Yardy.
So England's side, is suddenly looking much stronger. In Swann opening there is a gamble, but we've seen gambles pay off big time for teams willing to make those brave calls so far this World Cup. And England's batting card of Strauss, Trott, Bell, Bopara, Morgan and Prior (down to seven) is up there with the best around. The bowling may not be as strong, but in Bresnan, Swann and Anderson England have three well-established ODI players who can all be match-winners on their day. And in Shahzad and Tredwell are two players who could surprise teams, and chip in with crucial wickets. There's still a long way to go before anyone can realistically think of England winning this thing, but it only takes a couple of good performances, and that all-important momentum to come England's way, and anything could happen. (That's the trouble though, with England, literally anything could happen...)
My England team:
Strauss (c)
Swann
Trott
Bell
Bopara
Morgan
Prior (wk)
Bresnan
Tredwell
Shahzad
Anderson
Tuesday, 8 March 2011
How important is is that Broad (might) be coming home?
So yet another injury has hit England's ODI side. After being decimated in the Australian ODI series, this England World Cup squad is now dropping like a medieval village after a plague rat wanders into town. The latest victim to England's injury curse is Stuart Broad.
This injury is annoying rather than anything else. In the past few years Broad has grown into a very fine One Day bowler with a variety of tricks and is a genuine threat to opposition batsmen. His 4 fer against South Africa the other day underlines his importance to this England team, as a 'pressure' bowler (ie bowling at the death, or being thrown the ball in tight situations) which emphasises the trust that Cap'n Strauss places in him.
Bearing in mind that England's bowling has been distinctly poor thus far, the fact that Broad has so far come out in some credit does show he will be a big loss if he is to leave the tournament. We don't know how severe his injury is, but a side strain for a fast bowler often isn't a trivial issue, so chances are he's played his last at this tournament.
So if he is to go home, who should replace him in the squad? Well, in the short term, Ajmal Shahzad will likely come in for the Bangladesh game on Friday. Chris Tremlett has been sitting on the bench waiting for the inevitable fast bowling injury as the 16th man in the squad, so we'd assume Trem would be selected to the squad. However, given the fact England clearly lack an all-rounder (something every other nation has in abundance), it would be worth thinking outside the box rather than the 'safe' option of picking Tremlett to carry drinks with Wright and Tredwell.
Some nations have been playing four spinners, some three, most two. England have fielded one (Graeme Swann) and someone bowling darts (Mick Yardy). To say Yardy has been ineffective may be putting it mildly, so there is a real need for England to send for a spinner who actually tries to turn it. Adil Rashid would be an obvious choice - he has topped bowling lists in county cricket over the last however long, and has a couple of FC hundreds to his name, which shows he knows which end of the bat to hold. But is he good enough to bat in the top seven (where he'd need to be)? Someone who would be a better batsman (more than able to bat as a specialist, as well as offering spinning overs) would be Samit Patel. He's obviously international class, as his ODI five-fer suggests, but the obvious fitness issue means it would be a massive climb down from the selectors to pick him. Despite repeated warnings to sort himself out he hasn't bothered, which hardly suggests a brilliant attitude. Both would be options, and I'd be happy with either.
But may I proffer another name? Broad is a fast bowler, and England will want to go in with three seamers into any given match. England need a genuine allrounder who can turn games with the bat or ball. He may have never played internationally, but step forward Peter Trego. The Somerset allrounder can absolutely dominate attacks with bruising strokes - and the nice flat pitches being used would be right up his street. While his bowling may not quite be there, I reckon he'd be good to chip in with a couple of handy wickets along the way. He may be unproven internationally, but his performances in big games for Somerset suggest he has the mental fortitude to step straight into a World Cup and perform.
I'd like to see Trego in the England side (and hope it happens anyway post-World Cup) as it would give a lot more balance, and some big-hitting down the order. However, whoever I endorse is irrelevant, as Chris Tremlett will get selected. So there we are.
This injury is annoying rather than anything else. In the past few years Broad has grown into a very fine One Day bowler with a variety of tricks and is a genuine threat to opposition batsmen. His 4 fer against South Africa the other day underlines his importance to this England team, as a 'pressure' bowler (ie bowling at the death, or being thrown the ball in tight situations) which emphasises the trust that Cap'n Strauss places in him.
Bearing in mind that England's bowling has been distinctly poor thus far, the fact that Broad has so far come out in some credit does show he will be a big loss if he is to leave the tournament. We don't know how severe his injury is, but a side strain for a fast bowler often isn't a trivial issue, so chances are he's played his last at this tournament.
So if he is to go home, who should replace him in the squad? Well, in the short term, Ajmal Shahzad will likely come in for the Bangladesh game on Friday. Chris Tremlett has been sitting on the bench waiting for the inevitable fast bowling injury as the 16th man in the squad, so we'd assume Trem would be selected to the squad. However, given the fact England clearly lack an all-rounder (something every other nation has in abundance), it would be worth thinking outside the box rather than the 'safe' option of picking Tremlett to carry drinks with Wright and Tredwell.
Some nations have been playing four spinners, some three, most two. England have fielded one (Graeme Swann) and someone bowling darts (Mick Yardy). To say Yardy has been ineffective may be putting it mildly, so there is a real need for England to send for a spinner who actually tries to turn it. Adil Rashid would be an obvious choice - he has topped bowling lists in county cricket over the last however long, and has a couple of FC hundreds to his name, which shows he knows which end of the bat to hold. But is he good enough to bat in the top seven (where he'd need to be)? Someone who would be a better batsman (more than able to bat as a specialist, as well as offering spinning overs) would be Samit Patel. He's obviously international class, as his ODI five-fer suggests, but the obvious fitness issue means it would be a massive climb down from the selectors to pick him. Despite repeated warnings to sort himself out he hasn't bothered, which hardly suggests a brilliant attitude. Both would be options, and I'd be happy with either.
But may I proffer another name? Broad is a fast bowler, and England will want to go in with three seamers into any given match. England need a genuine allrounder who can turn games with the bat or ball. He may have never played internationally, but step forward Peter Trego. The Somerset allrounder can absolutely dominate attacks with bruising strokes - and the nice flat pitches being used would be right up his street. While his bowling may not quite be there, I reckon he'd be good to chip in with a couple of handy wickets along the way. He may be unproven internationally, but his performances in big games for Somerset suggest he has the mental fortitude to step straight into a World Cup and perform.
I'd like to see Trego in the England side (and hope it happens anyway post-World Cup) as it would give a lot more balance, and some big-hitting down the order. However, whoever I endorse is irrelevant, as Chris Tremlett will get selected. So there we are.
Monday, 7 March 2011
Podcast - Somewhat the Pinch Hitter
Download this episode on Podbean
Since last time's shocked-cast after the England / Ireland debacle, this pod's much more measured, as Will runs through the games that have been played, and the respective chances of the nations after a few World Cup game. Dissected most of all, however, is "World Cup Winners in waiting" England's win over South Africa, and whether Andrew Strauss is a latter-day Mike Brearley or a Chris Cowdrey. Will also talks about the importance of KP's injury, and who could replace him at the top of the order. #swanntoopen.
Since last time's shocked-cast after the England / Ireland debacle, this pod's much more measured, as Will runs through the games that have been played, and the respective chances of the nations after a few World Cup game. Dissected most of all, however, is "World Cup Winners in waiting" England's win over South Africa, and whether Andrew Strauss is a latter-day Mike Brearley or a Chris Cowdrey. Will also talks about the importance of KP's injury, and who could replace him at the top of the order. #swanntoopen.
Saturday, 12 February 2011
England's Future ODI Side
In my earlier post (this one here), I had a look at why Kevin Pietersen could walk away from playing ODI cricket. Assuming KP does decide to give it up, and with the likelihood that Paul Collingwood isn't long for international cricket either (as well as a couple of questions over some of the others), England could easily have a very different looking ODI line-up post World Cup.
The period following the World Cup is historically a time of change. New captains are appointed, the old guard either retire triumphantly or are booted out unceremoniously, and the chaff are discarded in favour of younger, fresher models. Of the 15 men England have picked for this World Cup, it's not inconcievable that at least eight are playing their last lot of ODIs for a number of reasons. So if eight go out, there will need to be a new seven to come in. So who could they be?
Well, to start, I'll show my logic behind the figure of the eight to never again play. While KP has denied he's retiring from ODIs, there's often no smoke without fire, and as I said in the earlier article, chances are that he'll walk away. Paul Collingwood has already retired from tests, and following a disgustingly bad run of form, may either choose to retire from internationals full stop, or be given the heave ho as Team England look to get in a new and improved model. James Tredwell seems to have been picked on the basis that it would be mean to leave him out - and the fact that even Andy Flower was being mooted as being selected ahead of him suggests there isn't much confidence in him from the powers that be. And with Adil Rashid knocking on the door, there may no longer be a place for Tredders in the party. Same sort of goes for Mick Yardy, who is probably a better bowler when he has only four overs to be canny, rather than ten, where batsmen are able to eventually score freely off him, and his lack of wicket-taking is fairly glaring. So he could also be on the ODI scrap heap.
Matt Prior has been called up from ODI obscurity for the World Cup, but it wouldn't take much for Davies or Kieswetter to replace him. In fact, chances are Davies would be put back in following the World Cup, and given the chance to bed in and improve in confidence and experience. Ravi Bopara should be in the England team, but for whatever reason, he hasn't been. Some would say this is a personality issue, but the fact that England have been so wary in picking him suggests there isn't much confidence in him from the selectors, so when Morgan returns, Bopara could have pulled on the Three Lions for the last time. And maybe they'll have just have had enough of Luke Wright after this World Cup, and if there's any justice in the world, he won't be playing internationally following the tournament.
So that's seven names. And the last one who potentially could play no more ODI cricket could be captain Strauss, as he may want to bow out at the top of ODI cricket (if England win) in order to prolong his test career. And he hasn't been uber brilliant at ODIs anyway.
So here's the fun part. Naming potential replacements. Unless something odd happens, England will have the nucleus of Bell, Trott, Morgan, Swann, Bresnan, Broad and Anderson (with Shahzad also in there to carry drinks) as 100% cast iron available for ODIs over the next few years. So they'll in all likelihood be in there.
Starting with the bowling attack (as the basis is already there), I'll assume that England will want to go with the 3 fast and 2 spin option (of which one of them is handy enough to bat at seven) going forward. Bres, Broad and Anderson are sorted as the three pacers (with Shahzad, Woakes, Finn or Tremlett as alternatives), with Swann guaranteed to play as well. For my other spinner, who I'd also bat at seven, is Adil Rashid. Rashid is easily good enough to bat seven for England, and is developing into a top-class one day leg spinner. We've seen him recently be a big part of the Redbacks winning the Big Bash, and he clearly has the talents readily available to take into international cricket. While there may be an issue about his attitude, I'm sure he'll be fine.
And now batting. For me, Davies should have the gloves, and could open if there aren't any other alternatives. I'd like to see Kent's Joe Denly given another shot internationally as I think he's class. (The Key-Denly dream team opening for England could yet happen...) So Davies to open with Denly, with Trott, Bell and Morgan at 3, 4 and 5. Leaving a batting berth up for grabs.
Yorkshire's Andy Gale has been maturing into a really good cricketer. With some really good one day performances especially (albeit higher up the order), Gale has thrived under the responsibility of captaining the white rose. So I'd get him in. To captain.
OK, seriously, while I think Gale is a FEC, he's not an immediate FEC. So Gale comes in at 6, and I'd give Jimmy Anderson the proverbial one-day armband. Because I think he'd do the best job.
So that would be my England One Day International side, effective the end of the World Cup. And it probably doesn't bode well that I've already written this World Cup off and am planning for 2015...
My England ODI team for the summer
Joe Denly
Steve Davies (wk)
Jonathan Trott
Ian Bell
Eoin Morgan
Andrew Gale
Adil Rashid
Tim Bresnan
Graeme Swann
Stuart Broad
Jimmy Anderson (c)
The period following the World Cup is historically a time of change. New captains are appointed, the old guard either retire triumphantly or are booted out unceremoniously, and the chaff are discarded in favour of younger, fresher models. Of the 15 men England have picked for this World Cup, it's not inconcievable that at least eight are playing their last lot of ODIs for a number of reasons. So if eight go out, there will need to be a new seven to come in. So who could they be?
Well, to start, I'll show my logic behind the figure of the eight to never again play. While KP has denied he's retiring from ODIs, there's often no smoke without fire, and as I said in the earlier article, chances are that he'll walk away. Paul Collingwood has already retired from tests, and following a disgustingly bad run of form, may either choose to retire from internationals full stop, or be given the heave ho as Team England look to get in a new and improved model. James Tredwell seems to have been picked on the basis that it would be mean to leave him out - and the fact that even Andy Flower was being mooted as being selected ahead of him suggests there isn't much confidence in him from the powers that be. And with Adil Rashid knocking on the door, there may no longer be a place for Tredders in the party. Same sort of goes for Mick Yardy, who is probably a better bowler when he has only four overs to be canny, rather than ten, where batsmen are able to eventually score freely off him, and his lack of wicket-taking is fairly glaring. So he could also be on the ODI scrap heap.
Matt Prior has been called up from ODI obscurity for the World Cup, but it wouldn't take much for Davies or Kieswetter to replace him. In fact, chances are Davies would be put back in following the World Cup, and given the chance to bed in and improve in confidence and experience. Ravi Bopara should be in the England team, but for whatever reason, he hasn't been. Some would say this is a personality issue, but the fact that England have been so wary in picking him suggests there isn't much confidence in him from the selectors, so when Morgan returns, Bopara could have pulled on the Three Lions for the last time. And maybe they'll have just have had enough of Luke Wright after this World Cup, and if there's any justice in the world, he won't be playing internationally following the tournament.
So that's seven names. And the last one who potentially could play no more ODI cricket could be captain Strauss, as he may want to bow out at the top of ODI cricket (if England win) in order to prolong his test career. And he hasn't been uber brilliant at ODIs anyway.
So here's the fun part. Naming potential replacements. Unless something odd happens, England will have the nucleus of Bell, Trott, Morgan, Swann, Bresnan, Broad and Anderson (with Shahzad also in there to carry drinks) as 100% cast iron available for ODIs over the next few years. So they'll in all likelihood be in there.
Starting with the bowling attack (as the basis is already there), I'll assume that England will want to go with the 3 fast and 2 spin option (of which one of them is handy enough to bat at seven) going forward. Bres, Broad and Anderson are sorted as the three pacers (with Shahzad, Woakes, Finn or Tremlett as alternatives), with Swann guaranteed to play as well. For my other spinner, who I'd also bat at seven, is Adil Rashid. Rashid is easily good enough to bat seven for England, and is developing into a top-class one day leg spinner. We've seen him recently be a big part of the Redbacks winning the Big Bash, and he clearly has the talents readily available to take into international cricket. While there may be an issue about his attitude, I'm sure he'll be fine.
And now batting. For me, Davies should have the gloves, and could open if there aren't any other alternatives. I'd like to see Kent's Joe Denly given another shot internationally as I think he's class. (The Key-Denly dream team opening for England could yet happen...) So Davies to open with Denly, with Trott, Bell and Morgan at 3, 4 and 5. Leaving a batting berth up for grabs.
Yorkshire's Andy Gale has been maturing into a really good cricketer. With some really good one day performances especially (albeit higher up the order), Gale has thrived under the responsibility of captaining the white rose. So I'd get him in. To captain.
OK, seriously, while I think Gale is a FEC, he's not an immediate FEC. So Gale comes in at 6, and I'd give Jimmy Anderson the proverbial one-day armband. Because I think he'd do the best job.
So that would be my England One Day International side, effective the end of the World Cup. And it probably doesn't bode well that I've already written this World Cup off and am planning for 2015...
My England ODI team for the summer
Joe Denly
Steve Davies (wk)
Jonathan Trott
Ian Bell
Eoin Morgan
Andrew Gale
Adil Rashid
Tim Bresnan
Graeme Swann
Stuart Broad
Jimmy Anderson (c)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)