If last week's result was bad, this one was worse. To lose one test heavily is unlucky, but two in a week suggests there is something drastically wrong. The worst thing about it though is that for three and a half days of the test match England were in command, with a handy first innings lead being complemented by some fine second innings bowling, but the game just slipped away from them this morning after being slightly lax in the field and hopelessly abject with the bat. The 72 all out collapse - not even getting half way to the 145 target - was up there with England's biggest headless chicken chases, not knowing whether to stick or twist, they eventually got rolled by a high-class display of spin bowling from Rehman and Ajmal. The calls for change have been made, but who should get a stay of execution, and who should be led to the chopping block?
There is an argument, of course, that there's no need to make any panic decisions based on the first two defeats in over a year. The England of Flower and Strauss don't do panic - they trust in the players that they've picked to go out after failing and turn it around. The consistency of selection over the past few years has been crucial to England's ascent to the top of the rankings, with a settled team able to play without the fear of constantly worrying about their place. And by and large, this has been a good thing. Players like Pietersen, Bell and Cook were eased through lean spells, and the results, and those individual player's performances in 2011 proved the selectors right. While England have performed badly these two weeks in the Gulf, there is a school of thought that if the selectors continue to consistently make consistent selections, those players will turn it around and the wins will come.
To a degree, I agree with those thoughts. Certainly in the case of Bell and Pietersen, two players who've come under a lot of scrutiny this series for four low scores, their exploits over the last year, where they could arguably have been named the world's number one and two test batsmen, shows that they clearly have the class and ability to score lots of runs at test level, and the fact that they've happened to have two poor games in a row doesn't change that. Calls for them to be dropped strike me as ludicrous.
The two players that have had a much longer trough than peak have been Eoin Morgan and Andrew Strauss. While Cook, Pietersen, Bell and Trott can point to (near-enough) 50 or above averages, Morgan doesn't have this to fall back on. Morgan has flattered to deceive so far in his fairly brief test career, but after 15 tests an average of 31 is just not acceptable. Indeed, his first class record in general (averaging 36 from 68 games) is unremarkable to say the least, and certainly doesn't indicate a rapid improvement of scores from the Irishman. Eoin's class and ability in one day cricket is undoubted, and he got into the test team on the back of limited over exploits. However, he simply hasn't cut the mustard in whites for England, and should be dispensed with.
Andrew Strauss is a curious case - as excellent a batsman as he has been on his day, he just hasn't scored anywhere near enough runs for England in recent times. Since his run-a-ball half-century at Sydney this time last year, Strauss has only made one 50 in England colours, and in nine tests has only made 324 runs. For an opening batsman, this isn't good enough. While there have been some reactionary calls for Strauss to go, it shouldn't be forgotten that his batting isn't all that he brings to the team. A born captain and the natural leader of the team, taking Strauss out of the dressing room would leave a chasm that just wouldn't be filled, and could lead to imminent disaster. However, as important as it is that Strauss remains in the team, as it stands, it isn't tenable for the opening batsman to be so out of touch and form. Strauss's play at the moment reminds me of the final throes of Michael Vaughan's England career - so valued as a captain but so scratchy at the crease - incidentally the third test will be the first dead rubber England have constested since the South African series in 2008 that signalled the end for Vaughan.
So what options do England have? The only spare batsman in the England squad at the moment is Ravi Bopara, but replacing Morgan with the equally as frustrating Ravi seems more of a sidewards step than forwards. The England Lions are on tour at the moment, and of their contingent, the likes of James Taylor, Joe Root and Alex Hales have all been tipped for further international recognition. However, my solution for England's ills is a cunning one, and one that may not have even been thought about by the powers that be (probably with good reason). Strauss has really struggled against the new ball over recent times, which is sort of a bad thing for an opener to struggle against. With Morgan looking clueless in the middle order, a fix could be pushing Strauss down the order (thus keeping him in the side), with someone else coming in to open, be it Hales, Steve Davies or even Middlesex's Sam Robson (although I may be slightly biased about that one). England get the benefit of Strauss's captaincy and experience in the middle order, which as Misbah has showed is certainly no bad thing, and in their new opener they have the opportunity to pick someone who is better than Morgan or Bopara. While this is a very unlikely situation, I believe it is the right thing to do, so as such, I am hereby announcing the start of the #straussforsix bandwagon. Feel free to jump on it.
This second defeat is the first time in nearly four years that England have lost back-to-back, and the 74 all out is the lowest score since the 52 all out debacle in Jamaica. England are currently ranked as number one in the world, but can't legitimately lay claim to being the world's best until they address their stark batting issues in the subcontinent. The foundations are there for an excellent side - the bowling especially was absolutely world-class. But England have been carrying players for far too long, and some big decisions need to be made. While Bell and Pietersen do deserve to be in the team after last year's form, nobody should be "undroppable" (just see what being undroppable has done for India's test side...) and a big kick up the arse should help solve a few problems. However, if England genuinely are to be thought of as the world's best, they are going to have to rapidly step up their game in foreign conditions. Whether or not they can do it in time for the final test is debatable, but with seven more tests this calendar year to be held in the subcontinent, something has to be done.
Showing posts with label Morgs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Morgs. Show all posts
Saturday, 28 January 2012
Friday, 13 January 2012
England's Selection in a Spin
England have won their second warm up match, with the Pakistan Cricket Board XI crumbling to a 100 run defeat at the hands of the-best-team-in-the-world(TM). The big story from the game concerns Monty Panesar, who certainly put forward his case for test selection with 8 wickets in the match. Monty hasn't played tests since THAT game at Cardiff in 2009, but has he given himself a shot at getting into England's XI for the first test starting on Tuesday?
Common cricketing logic dictates that a team touring the subcontinent (yes, this isn't actually the subcontinent, but the pitches will be close enough) play two spinners, which England probably want to do. However, the selectors lives are made much harder with the lack of a genuine all-rounder. If there was a Flintoff style player who is good enough to bat in the top seven as well as being a test-class bowler, then Monty would happily slip into the team alongside Swann, Anderson and Broad, with Eoin Morgan the unlucky batsman to miss out. Sadly this is not the case. England's selection policy has been reserved to say the least over the past few years, with Andy Flower still bearing the mental scars of the horrific Ashes test at Headingley in 2009 where England played five bowlers, had no backbone to their batting, and collapsed miserably. Broad has developed as a batsman (the most recent game against Pakistan where he got 169 is testament to that) but doubts remain as to whether he's consistent enough as a test number seven. While he did score runs against India, that was the first time in a long while that he done anything with the bat, and moving him up the order (especially given Panesar's notorious inability with the blade) could be a recipe for disaster. Seeing as the closest thing England have to a proper all-rounder in Tim Bresnan will be watching the series from the comfort of The North, Flower will be very reticent in vastly altering the shape of the team to accommodate an extra spinner.
Another option would be to play only two seamers, with the dual spin of Panesar and Swann, as they did in the warm-up game (with Tremlett and Onions playing the roles of Anderson and Broad). While there would be a lot of testing spin, rotating the two fast bowlers would be tricky, especially in the new-ball period which seems to offer a lot out in the UAE. England no longer have the handy holding overs of Paul Collingwood to toss the ball to, which would make this option a no-goer as well.
The third way to get Monty back into the England team would be to play him instead of Graeme Swann. Dissenting voices of Swann have mentioned his lack of wickets over the last 12 months, but surely dropping the-best-spinner-in-the-world(TM) would be wrong? Yes, Swann hasn't taken many wickets recently, but that's mainly because the fast bowlers have done the majority of the damage on pretty green pitches. When Swann has needed to step up on a final day (Adelaide v Australia, The Oval v India), he's made match-winning performances to seal victories. Besides, dropping a key player would be very un-England, where the success has come from consistent selection, backing their players, and allowing those in poor trots to come good. Swann may not be in a bad trot, but he hasn't dominated a series in a while, but on the first tour with turning pitches since he decimated Bangladesh two years ago, Swann has the chance to tear them apart, again.
All in all, Monty Panesar won't play. As much as playing two spinners is important in these conditions, there isn't really any way (short of calling up Samit Patel, which they should have done in the first place) of getting two spinners into the team without sacrificing a batsman or a fast bowler. While Panesar took the wickets to win the game, the most important wicket of the match was that of Fawad Alam, who was caught Trott bowled Pietersen. If England go in with only one frontline spinner, Kevin Pietersen will have to turn his arm over a fair bit, and that wicket will give Flower, Strauss and the selectors confidence that he can do his bit. Whether or not they think that after the first test remains to be seen...
Common cricketing logic dictates that a team touring the subcontinent (yes, this isn't actually the subcontinent, but the pitches will be close enough) play two spinners, which England probably want to do. However, the selectors lives are made much harder with the lack of a genuine all-rounder. If there was a Flintoff style player who is good enough to bat in the top seven as well as being a test-class bowler, then Monty would happily slip into the team alongside Swann, Anderson and Broad, with Eoin Morgan the unlucky batsman to miss out. Sadly this is not the case. England's selection policy has been reserved to say the least over the past few years, with Andy Flower still bearing the mental scars of the horrific Ashes test at Headingley in 2009 where England played five bowlers, had no backbone to their batting, and collapsed miserably. Broad has developed as a batsman (the most recent game against Pakistan where he got 169 is testament to that) but doubts remain as to whether he's consistent enough as a test number seven. While he did score runs against India, that was the first time in a long while that he done anything with the bat, and moving him up the order (especially given Panesar's notorious inability with the blade) could be a recipe for disaster. Seeing as the closest thing England have to a proper all-rounder in Tim Bresnan will be watching the series from the comfort of The North, Flower will be very reticent in vastly altering the shape of the team to accommodate an extra spinner.
Another option would be to play only two seamers, with the dual spin of Panesar and Swann, as they did in the warm-up game (with Tremlett and Onions playing the roles of Anderson and Broad). While there would be a lot of testing spin, rotating the two fast bowlers would be tricky, especially in the new-ball period which seems to offer a lot out in the UAE. England no longer have the handy holding overs of Paul Collingwood to toss the ball to, which would make this option a no-goer as well.
The third way to get Monty back into the England team would be to play him instead of Graeme Swann. Dissenting voices of Swann have mentioned his lack of wickets over the last 12 months, but surely dropping the-best-spinner-in-the-world(TM) would be wrong? Yes, Swann hasn't taken many wickets recently, but that's mainly because the fast bowlers have done the majority of the damage on pretty green pitches. When Swann has needed to step up on a final day (Adelaide v Australia, The Oval v India), he's made match-winning performances to seal victories. Besides, dropping a key player would be very un-England, where the success has come from consistent selection, backing their players, and allowing those in poor trots to come good. Swann may not be in a bad trot, but he hasn't dominated a series in a while, but on the first tour with turning pitches since he decimated Bangladesh two years ago, Swann has the chance to tear them apart, again.
All in all, Monty Panesar won't play. As much as playing two spinners is important in these conditions, there isn't really any way (short of calling up Samit Patel, which they should have done in the first place) of getting two spinners into the team without sacrificing a batsman or a fast bowler. While Panesar took the wickets to win the game, the most important wicket of the match was that of Fawad Alam, who was caught Trott bowled Pietersen. If England go in with only one frontline spinner, Kevin Pietersen will have to turn his arm over a fair bit, and that wicket will give Flower, Strauss and the selectors confidence that he can do his bit. Whether or not they think that after the first test remains to be seen...
Tuesday, 25 October 2011
England's ODI Wake-Up Call
So England have been humiliated in an ODI series. I suppose it had to happen - for all of the talk of a new dawn post-World Cup under Captain Cook, not an awful lot had changed, and rain affected wins over disinterested Sri Lankan and Indian touring teams had papered over some sizeable cracks. The time is right to rethink the ODI strategy, be ruthless, and sort out the only format that doesn't see England sit on top of the rankings in.
As bad as England have been this series, it isn't all doom and gloom. England's bowling, when all fit, is up there, and it shouldn't be forgotten that this is an England team missing it's two main bowlers. (Yes, India have missed a few of their gun batsmen, but that's by the by). Jimmy Anderson, the oft quoted "leader of the attack" can be devastating against any side, and Stuart Broad has developed into a world-class ODI bowler. While Anderson may start to need the odd bit of strength and conditioning rotation every now and again, Broad is now coming right into his peak as a cricketer, and can become the spearhead of England's ODI bowling. The pair bring a lot of international experience (something that's been obviously lacking this series) to the attack, and combined with the also oft quoted "best spinner in the world" Graeme Swann, they provide the backbone to a more than handy bowling unit. Those three, when fit, should be automatic no-question picks, and will certainly make England a lot more competitive (at least) then they have been thus far this series.
They'll be complemented by either Tim Bresnan, who has come on leaps and bounds as an international bowler despite a poor tour here, and Steven Finn, who is probably the only England player who can hold his head up high this tour. Bresnan bowls with plenty of guile, and as proved with a very good World Cup, is suited to subcontinental conditions. While he isn't quite good enough to bat at number seven, the "all-round" (that isn't a pun on his weight) string to the bow certainly helps his argument for selection. Finn has spent a lot of time in county cricket learning his game over the past year, and it has clearly paid off. He's added a couple of yards of pace to himself (and can quite possibly be called the most consistently quick bowler in world cricket) and his one-day game is developing into a world-class standard. The only bowler to come out of this tour with any credit, it would be harsh to see him miss out, so he and Bresnan will likely vie for that final out-and-out bowling position.
Any good ODI team has a number seven who is a genuine batsman first and foremost, which is why Bresnan playing there just isn't a viable selection. Samit Patel has done well in spells and could retain his place, but long-term it's clear that England see Ben Stokes fulfilling this role. Whether he's quite up to it at the moment is debatable, but once he's over his finger injury the extra dimension that his bowling gives should help see him get a game. Personally, it would be nice to see Peter Trego given a go, but it's looking fairly unlikely.
While England's bowling is fairly sorted, it's clear that the batting needs a bit of work. Quite simply, mediocrity has been not so much tolerated as it has been celebrated, and widespread cuts should be made immediately to the batting line-up. For someone to play so many games for England and only average 29 as a top-order batsman is criminal, and while he does offer the bonus of a bit of trundly medium pace, Ravi Bopara should be cut. While Ian Bell is one of the world's best test batsmen, he simply has never done it at ODI level, and has had too many last chances. Craig Kieswetter, who is one of the worst wicket-keepers in the country and hardly one of the best batsmen is charged with opening the innings and donning the gloves, and we've seen too many dropped catches and not enough runs from him, which means someone else should have a go. And Kevin Pietersen, who only a few years back was probably the world's premier ODI player, has fallen away so badly in the format that it might be worth not using him to keep him fresh for his test and T20 travails.
So that just leaves Cook (who has to stay, as he's the captain - and to be fair he has done well since coming back into the side), Trott (who despite all of the hate is a vital part of the team due to anchoring nearly every innings), Bairstow (a clean striker who can be used to good effect in the final powerplay, as well as potentially taking over as wicket-keeper), and England's trump card Eoin Morgan. It's the basis of a good batting side, and if the likes of James Taylor, Alex Hales and Jos Buttler are brought in and take their chances, it could develop into a very good team.
England have been humbled fairly humiliatingly by India this series, but for the World Champions to beat a touring team who have notorious subcontinental troubles isn't that surprising. England do have a lot of work to do if they are to get to India's level, but it can be done, and if the big calls are made now, we could start to see a marked improvement in their ODI fortunes. This series has been an alarm call for the England management, but it remains to be seen whether they wake up and make the changes that England need.
England's potential new ODI team:
Alex Hales
Alastair Cook (c)
Jonathan Trott
Eoin Morgan
James Taylor
Jonny Bairstow (wk)
Ben Stokes
Stuart Broad
Graeme Swann
Steven Finn
Jimmy Anderson
As bad as England have been this series, it isn't all doom and gloom. England's bowling, when all fit, is up there, and it shouldn't be forgotten that this is an England team missing it's two main bowlers. (Yes, India have missed a few of their gun batsmen, but that's by the by). Jimmy Anderson, the oft quoted "leader of the attack" can be devastating against any side, and Stuart Broad has developed into a world-class ODI bowler. While Anderson may start to need the odd bit of strength and conditioning rotation every now and again, Broad is now coming right into his peak as a cricketer, and can become the spearhead of England's ODI bowling. The pair bring a lot of international experience (something that's been obviously lacking this series) to the attack, and combined with the also oft quoted "best spinner in the world" Graeme Swann, they provide the backbone to a more than handy bowling unit. Those three, when fit, should be automatic no-question picks, and will certainly make England a lot more competitive (at least) then they have been thus far this series.
They'll be complemented by either Tim Bresnan, who has come on leaps and bounds as an international bowler despite a poor tour here, and Steven Finn, who is probably the only England player who can hold his head up high this tour. Bresnan bowls with plenty of guile, and as proved with a very good World Cup, is suited to subcontinental conditions. While he isn't quite good enough to bat at number seven, the "all-round" (that isn't a pun on his weight) string to the bow certainly helps his argument for selection. Finn has spent a lot of time in county cricket learning his game over the past year, and it has clearly paid off. He's added a couple of yards of pace to himself (and can quite possibly be called the most consistently quick bowler in world cricket) and his one-day game is developing into a world-class standard. The only bowler to come out of this tour with any credit, it would be harsh to see him miss out, so he and Bresnan will likely vie for that final out-and-out bowling position.
Any good ODI team has a number seven who is a genuine batsman first and foremost, which is why Bresnan playing there just isn't a viable selection. Samit Patel has done well in spells and could retain his place, but long-term it's clear that England see Ben Stokes fulfilling this role. Whether he's quite up to it at the moment is debatable, but once he's over his finger injury the extra dimension that his bowling gives should help see him get a game. Personally, it would be nice to see Peter Trego given a go, but it's looking fairly unlikely.
While England's bowling is fairly sorted, it's clear that the batting needs a bit of work. Quite simply, mediocrity has been not so much tolerated as it has been celebrated, and widespread cuts should be made immediately to the batting line-up. For someone to play so many games for England and only average 29 as a top-order batsman is criminal, and while he does offer the bonus of a bit of trundly medium pace, Ravi Bopara should be cut. While Ian Bell is one of the world's best test batsmen, he simply has never done it at ODI level, and has had too many last chances. Craig Kieswetter, who is one of the worst wicket-keepers in the country and hardly one of the best batsmen is charged with opening the innings and donning the gloves, and we've seen too many dropped catches and not enough runs from him, which means someone else should have a go. And Kevin Pietersen, who only a few years back was probably the world's premier ODI player, has fallen away so badly in the format that it might be worth not using him to keep him fresh for his test and T20 travails.
So that just leaves Cook (who has to stay, as he's the captain - and to be fair he has done well since coming back into the side), Trott (who despite all of the hate is a vital part of the team due to anchoring nearly every innings), Bairstow (a clean striker who can be used to good effect in the final powerplay, as well as potentially taking over as wicket-keeper), and England's trump card Eoin Morgan. It's the basis of a good batting side, and if the likes of James Taylor, Alex Hales and Jos Buttler are brought in and take their chances, it could develop into a very good team.
England have been humbled fairly humiliatingly by India this series, but for the World Champions to beat a touring team who have notorious subcontinental troubles isn't that surprising. England do have a lot of work to do if they are to get to India's level, but it can be done, and if the big calls are made now, we could start to see a marked improvement in their ODI fortunes. This series has been an alarm call for the England management, but it remains to be seen whether they wake up and make the changes that England need.
England's potential new ODI team:
Alex Hales
Alastair Cook (c)
Jonathan Trott
Eoin Morgan
James Taylor
Jonny Bairstow (wk)
Ben Stokes
Stuart Broad
Graeme Swann
Steven Finn
Jimmy Anderson
Tuesday, 11 October 2011
Bairstow Blasts His Way Into the Reckoning
It may only have been in a warm-up, but Jonny Bairstow's unbeaten 104 from just 54 balls against Hyderabad means omitting him from the first ODI is nigh on impossible. Bairstow's talents are obvious, and it's no longer a case of if or when he gets a regular spot in England's team, more a case of how long he'll be a permanent fixture.
With Bairstow all but nailed on, somebody from the established order is going to have to make way to accomodate him. Assuming England will go in with Cook and Kieswetter opening, with Patel at seven so he can help out with some spin, there are now four potential berths in the England middle order that need filling, with five players vying for them. And arguably, only young pup Jonny Bairstow is guaranteed of his place ahead of the old guard that he's threatening.
The question of who will bat at three is a conundrum of the highest order. With an inhumanly high average, Jonathan Trott must surely be a shoo-in, but doubts over his scoring rate do remain. There is an argument that he could be used as a "horses for courses" batsman in ODIs, just as we see bowlers picked if the pitch suits their strength, we might only see Trott play if the pitch is slow and England need someone to dig in. However, as proved today (where Trott put on 74 from 68 alongside the Bairstow carnage), he isn't as much of a slouch as often thought, and his stability down the other end gives licence to the likes of Bairstow to go big early. For me, Trott should play.
Ravi Bopara is in the form of his life, and finally coming good after so many years of promise. His handy medium pace gives the bowling another option, and dropping him is almost unthinkable.
Which just leaves one place in the middle order, and two very big names fighting over it. Kevin Pietersen and Ian Bell, mainstays of pretty much every England team over the past six years and amongst the two best batsmen in world cricket, are vying for the one remaining spot. On the face of it it seems very odd, but quite frankly neither have delivered in ODI cricket for a long time. Kevin Pietersen started out by making ODI tons for fun, but hasn't made it to three figures since the last time England toured India, where he captained the side back in 2008. And Ian Bell doesn't even have the luxury of a strong ODI history on his side, with just one solitary ODI century back in 2007, 59 games ago.
Both men have played over 100 ODIs, and both are clearly talented batsmen. But for whatever reason, neither have performed in 50 over cricket for England over the past couple of years, and their places are under threat. It is a toss up as to who gets the nod for this Indian series, but with Eoin Morgan still to return, the emergence of Jonny Bairstow could signal the death knell for both Pietersen and Bell's ODI careers.
With Bairstow all but nailed on, somebody from the established order is going to have to make way to accomodate him. Assuming England will go in with Cook and Kieswetter opening, with Patel at seven so he can help out with some spin, there are now four potential berths in the England middle order that need filling, with five players vying for them. And arguably, only young pup Jonny Bairstow is guaranteed of his place ahead of the old guard that he's threatening.
The question of who will bat at three is a conundrum of the highest order. With an inhumanly high average, Jonathan Trott must surely be a shoo-in, but doubts over his scoring rate do remain. There is an argument that he could be used as a "horses for courses" batsman in ODIs, just as we see bowlers picked if the pitch suits their strength, we might only see Trott play if the pitch is slow and England need someone to dig in. However, as proved today (where Trott put on 74 from 68 alongside the Bairstow carnage), he isn't as much of a slouch as often thought, and his stability down the other end gives licence to the likes of Bairstow to go big early. For me, Trott should play.
Ravi Bopara is in the form of his life, and finally coming good after so many years of promise. His handy medium pace gives the bowling another option, and dropping him is almost unthinkable.
Which just leaves one place in the middle order, and two very big names fighting over it. Kevin Pietersen and Ian Bell, mainstays of pretty much every England team over the past six years and amongst the two best batsmen in world cricket, are vying for the one remaining spot. On the face of it it seems very odd, but quite frankly neither have delivered in ODI cricket for a long time. Kevin Pietersen started out by making ODI tons for fun, but hasn't made it to three figures since the last time England toured India, where he captained the side back in 2008. And Ian Bell doesn't even have the luxury of a strong ODI history on his side, with just one solitary ODI century back in 2007, 59 games ago.
Both men have played over 100 ODIs, and both are clearly talented batsmen. But for whatever reason, neither have performed in 50 over cricket for England over the past couple of years, and their places are under threat. It is a toss up as to who gets the nod for this Indian series, but with Eoin Morgan still to return, the emergence of Jonny Bairstow could signal the death knell for both Pietersen and Bell's ODI careers.
Sunday, 25 September 2011
Ravi Bopara is Embarrassed
Ravi Bopara is the epitome of a confidence player. So often in and out of the England team, he's never truly felt comfortable in the side, so as such, hasn't felt loved by the English selectors. This lack of inner belief and trust in himself has led to poor performances, and has meant that his great potential just hasn't been lived up too.
Ravi Bopara has only really been given two solid runs in the side. The first, back in 2009, was when new coach Andy Flower told Ravi that he was the man to bat at number three for England, and put his trust and confidence in him. Bopara backed this up by making three successive test centuries. He felt as though he had a place in the team and confidence, and runs flowed.
He's had to wait until this summer for his next prolonged spell in the side. In and out over the last couple of years, he was given his chance for the final two tests of the India series, and then for the subsequent ODIs. While he started slowly, the performances have slowly but surely improved as Ravi is slowly starting to feel loved again by the selectors. A 96 at Lord's - so nearly his maiden ODI ton and comfortably his highest ODI score preceded a valuable 37* at Cardiff to guide England home, and tellingly a 4-10 in the first T20 against the West Indies. England's best ever T20 figures.
It's worth bearing that in mind. Of all of the great bowlers to have represented England over the past six years in T20 cricket, nobody has bowled better than Ravi Bopara did on Friday night. This is some achievement. However, Ravi claims he is "embarrassed" to have collected the accolade, which sort of sums up his mental issue with being in the England team. He just doesn't feel worthy enough to be playing international cricket, let alone excelling at it.
When thinking of Ravi Bopara's mentality, the perfect person to compare him to is Eoin Morgan. Both have extraordinary natural talent, as well as some equally obvious technical flaws. Yet both have had distinctly different careers in international cricket. Ever since taking to the field for England, Morgan has looked as though he belongs. Blessed with a mental fortitude that almost guarantees success, Morgan is extremely comfortable at the highest level, and has reaped the rewards of that. Bopara almost needs someone to constantly remind him that he actually is a very good cricketer, and while he will always be blessed with an extraordinary talent, what isn't so sure is his ability to perform and impress consistently for England. Ravi's feeling of embarrassment at his record figures sums up his attitude, and you get the feeling that had Morgan broken a record that he would be enjoying it rather than feeling bashful about it.
Technically, Eoin Morgan has his limitations. He isn't brilliant to the short ball, and is often very edgy when driving the ball off the front foot. But it's almost assumed that he will be a key player for England over the next few years, purely because he has the state of mind that he is sure to succeed. Ravi Bopara doesn't have this. What Bopara needs is for a prolonged run in the team backed up by good performances. At the moment, he is getting a run in the team, and those performances are beginning to come. With Morgan set to miss out on the next England tours, Bopara will get a few more opportunities in the side, and has a chance to stake a claim for a regular starting role. However, if he is to become one of the world's best - he must radically change his own mentality - stop being embarrassed and start enjoying international cricket. Only then can he become a Morgan.
Ravi Bopara has only really been given two solid runs in the side. The first, back in 2009, was when new coach Andy Flower told Ravi that he was the man to bat at number three for England, and put his trust and confidence in him. Bopara backed this up by making three successive test centuries. He felt as though he had a place in the team and confidence, and runs flowed.
He's had to wait until this summer for his next prolonged spell in the side. In and out over the last couple of years, he was given his chance for the final two tests of the India series, and then for the subsequent ODIs. While he started slowly, the performances have slowly but surely improved as Ravi is slowly starting to feel loved again by the selectors. A 96 at Lord's - so nearly his maiden ODI ton and comfortably his highest ODI score preceded a valuable 37* at Cardiff to guide England home, and tellingly a 4-10 in the first T20 against the West Indies. England's best ever T20 figures.
It's worth bearing that in mind. Of all of the great bowlers to have represented England over the past six years in T20 cricket, nobody has bowled better than Ravi Bopara did on Friday night. This is some achievement. However, Ravi claims he is "embarrassed" to have collected the accolade, which sort of sums up his mental issue with being in the England team. He just doesn't feel worthy enough to be playing international cricket, let alone excelling at it.
When thinking of Ravi Bopara's mentality, the perfect person to compare him to is Eoin Morgan. Both have extraordinary natural talent, as well as some equally obvious technical flaws. Yet both have had distinctly different careers in international cricket. Ever since taking to the field for England, Morgan has looked as though he belongs. Blessed with a mental fortitude that almost guarantees success, Morgan is extremely comfortable at the highest level, and has reaped the rewards of that. Bopara almost needs someone to constantly remind him that he actually is a very good cricketer, and while he will always be blessed with an extraordinary talent, what isn't so sure is his ability to perform and impress consistently for England. Ravi's feeling of embarrassment at his record figures sums up his attitude, and you get the feeling that had Morgan broken a record that he would be enjoying it rather than feeling bashful about it.
Technically, Eoin Morgan has his limitations. He isn't brilliant to the short ball, and is often very edgy when driving the ball off the front foot. But it's almost assumed that he will be a key player for England over the next few years, purely because he has the state of mind that he is sure to succeed. Ravi Bopara doesn't have this. What Bopara needs is for a prolonged run in the team backed up by good performances. At the moment, he is getting a run in the team, and those performances are beginning to come. With Morgan set to miss out on the next England tours, Bopara will get a few more opportunities in the side, and has a chance to stake a claim for a regular starting role. However, if he is to become one of the world's best - he must radically change his own mentality - stop being embarrassed and start enjoying international cricket. Only then can he become a Morgan.
Monday, 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.
Tuesday, 16 August 2011
Rankin for England?
A piece of cricket news that has slipped under the radar for many today has been the addition of Warwickshire's Boyd Rankin into the England Lions squad for the rest of their One Day series against Sri Lanka A. On the surface, this may seem a trivial piece of news, but when you realise that this is the same Boyd Rankin who's gone to two World Cups and played 32 ODIs for Ireland, then it suddenly gets a bit more interesting.
Boyd, the big fast bowler from Derry, has had quite a bit of international success so far in his career. Ireland's leading wicket taker at the seminal 2007 World Cup and the leader of the attack in 2011, Rankin is a massive (quite literally, standing at 6ft 8ins) part of the Irish team who have made huge strides in international cricket over the past few years. However, he's been on England's radar for the past couple of years, and it looks as though he's about to follow fellow ex-Irish internationals Eoin Morgan and Ed Joyce in turning out for England. A country he isn't from.
I've written before just how much I sympathise with Irish cricketers. Any cricketer, anywhere in the world, wants to play test cricket, and sadly at the moment that's something that isn't offered to Irish cricketers. It's been well publicised that both Joyce and Morgan repatriated themselves in the search for test cricket (Morgan made it, Joyce didn't), and it appears that Rankin is following the same path. However. They'd be representing England despite not being from England, and while hoping to play test cricket certainly is a noble goal, I'd like to play football for Brazil, but as I am not from Brazil, I am not going to realise this ambition. (And it's not because I'm not good enough, because I am...)
The issue of non-English people playing for England is a sticky one. As great as it is that England are flying so high in world cricket at the moment, the fact that Pietersen, Trott, Kieswetter, Dernbach, Morgan and Lumb have got us there does make the whole thing slightly hollow. While I can understand that the lure of test cricket as well as a much more professional structure in English cricket would tempt Boyd Rankin, his would be another name on the list of foreign imports into the English team. Which doesn't quite sit with me.
It's a tough one, and without wanting to sound all David Starkey about it, it shouldn't really be allowed. People have the fortune, or the misfortune, to be born in certain parts of the world, and as such, should represent that nation in international sport. Otherwise it's hardly inter-national, is it? At a time where Ireland could be on the brink of achieving some great things (and as such, need all of the talent they have), Boyd could be turning his back on them to chase his test dream. Ireland are a team who could be on the verge of something big, but how can they progress if their brightest talents abandon them as soon as England flutter their eyelids? On the 25th August, England travel over to Stormont for an ODI against Ireland. It's not inconcievable that with Rankin being named in the Lions squad (effectively a reserve international team) and England's first choice bowlers potentially being rested after a tough Indian test series that Rankin gets picked by England. With test cricket potentially beckoning, if Ireland are able to tempt him to stay with them, it will show the massive strides being made by Cricket Ireland. If they can't, it could open the floodgates for the likes of Stirling, Dockrell and plenty of other young Irish talent who rightly or wrongly fancy a craic at playing for England.
And a quote to show Irish fans that not all of their players want to cross the Irish Sea... Kevin O'Brien: "Play for England? You must be joking! I'm Irish, I want to play for Ireland!"
Boyd, the big fast bowler from Derry, has had quite a bit of international success so far in his career. Ireland's leading wicket taker at the seminal 2007 World Cup and the leader of the attack in 2011, Rankin is a massive (quite literally, standing at 6ft 8ins) part of the Irish team who have made huge strides in international cricket over the past few years. However, he's been on England's radar for the past couple of years, and it looks as though he's about to follow fellow ex-Irish internationals Eoin Morgan and Ed Joyce in turning out for England. A country he isn't from.
I've written before just how much I sympathise with Irish cricketers. Any cricketer, anywhere in the world, wants to play test cricket, and sadly at the moment that's something that isn't offered to Irish cricketers. It's been well publicised that both Joyce and Morgan repatriated themselves in the search for test cricket (Morgan made it, Joyce didn't), and it appears that Rankin is following the same path. However. They'd be representing England despite not being from England, and while hoping to play test cricket certainly is a noble goal, I'd like to play football for Brazil, but as I am not from Brazil, I am not going to realise this ambition. (And it's not because I'm not good enough, because I am...)
The issue of non-English people playing for England is a sticky one. As great as it is that England are flying so high in world cricket at the moment, the fact that Pietersen, Trott, Kieswetter, Dernbach, Morgan and Lumb have got us there does make the whole thing slightly hollow. While I can understand that the lure of test cricket as well as a much more professional structure in English cricket would tempt Boyd Rankin, his would be another name on the list of foreign imports into the English team. Which doesn't quite sit with me.
It's a tough one, and without wanting to sound all David Starkey about it, it shouldn't really be allowed. People have the fortune, or the misfortune, to be born in certain parts of the world, and as such, should represent that nation in international sport. Otherwise it's hardly inter-national, is it? At a time where Ireland could be on the brink of achieving some great things (and as such, need all of the talent they have), Boyd could be turning his back on them to chase his test dream. Ireland are a team who could be on the verge of something big, but how can they progress if their brightest talents abandon them as soon as England flutter their eyelids? On the 25th August, England travel over to Stormont for an ODI against Ireland. It's not inconcievable that with Rankin being named in the Lions squad (effectively a reserve international team) and England's first choice bowlers potentially being rested after a tough Indian test series that Rankin gets picked by England. With test cricket potentially beckoning, if Ireland are able to tempt him to stay with them, it will show the massive strides being made by Cricket Ireland. If they can't, it could open the floodgates for the likes of Stirling, Dockrell and plenty of other young Irish talent who rightly or wrongly fancy a craic at playing for England.
And a quote to show Irish fans that not all of their players want to cross the Irish Sea... Kevin O'Brien: "Play for England? You must be joking! I'm Irish, I want to play for Ireland!"
Friday, 12 August 2011
Bopara the Nearly Man
Ravi Bopara is the sort of man who you imagine steps on a lot of rakes. A good batsman, handy bowler, and by all accounts fairly amiable chap, Bopara just has the unfortunate knack of just being a nearly man.
For a player so obviously talented as he is, Bopara's England career has never ignited as it should have. Part of it has been down to his personal behaviour and attitude, but it's also been down to his being at the right place, but often at the wrong time. And his failure to grab hold of the opportunity when the chance presents itself.
After being in and out of the test team following his 2007 debut, the three consecutive test centuries in 2009 should have been the launchpad for him being a mainstay in the England team for decades. With Bell out of the team and Bopara bang in form, Ravi had the chance to nail down his place and become a test regular. However, he didn't seize the opportunity, and was out of the team before the Ashes series finished. Thanks to the rise of Jonathan Trott and the resurgence of Ian Bell in what became a very well settled England middle order, Bopara didn't get another chance for another two years.
After the 2010/11 Ashes, Paul Collingwood retired from his spot in the England middle order. Bopara, more mature and worldly wise by now, chose to turn down the riches of the IPL to stay and fight for the test position. His direct competitor, Eoin Morgan, went off to the IPL, but hit 193 for the England Lions against Sri Lanka, and made the spot instead. Again Ravi had to wait.
In the second test against India, Jonathan Trott rolled his collarbone, and was ruled out of this third test. This time, Ravi was sent for. And on a day where Cook made 294 and Morgan made 100, Bopara failed, with a scratchy looking seven. Trott will most likely come back in for the fourth test, and with England's middle order looking incredibly settled, Ravi may have another two years to wait until he gets his next bat in a test for England. And with James Taylor, Jonny Bairstow and plenty of others floating around who may usurp him in the pecking order, it's not inconceivable that this is the last test Ravi Bopara plays.
To be a successful test cricketer, you have to take your chances when you get them. The prime example of that is Tim Bresnan - a man who's never nailed down a permanent position in England's test team but averages 45 with the bat and 24 with the ball. He's almost made it impossible to be dropped. At a time where England are looking set to dominate world cricket, chances will be few and far between, and Tim Bresnan's seized the opportunities given to him with those big hands. Ravi Bopara, however, hasn't done that. Test cricket is a harsh place at the best of times, but with England's pool of talent so strong at the moment it's positively ruthless. On his day, Bopara can be an excellent batsman, but he just hasn't proved that for England. He may get another chance in the future and take it, but until then, Ravi Bopara will be the ultimate unfulfilled talent - England's nearly man.
For a player so obviously talented as he is, Bopara's England career has never ignited as it should have. Part of it has been down to his personal behaviour and attitude, but it's also been down to his being at the right place, but often at the wrong time. And his failure to grab hold of the opportunity when the chance presents itself.
After being in and out of the test team following his 2007 debut, the three consecutive test centuries in 2009 should have been the launchpad for him being a mainstay in the England team for decades. With Bell out of the team and Bopara bang in form, Ravi had the chance to nail down his place and become a test regular. However, he didn't seize the opportunity, and was out of the team before the Ashes series finished. Thanks to the rise of Jonathan Trott and the resurgence of Ian Bell in what became a very well settled England middle order, Bopara didn't get another chance for another two years.
After the 2010/11 Ashes, Paul Collingwood retired from his spot in the England middle order. Bopara, more mature and worldly wise by now, chose to turn down the riches of the IPL to stay and fight for the test position. His direct competitor, Eoin Morgan, went off to the IPL, but hit 193 for the England Lions against Sri Lanka, and made the spot instead. Again Ravi had to wait.
In the second test against India, Jonathan Trott rolled his collarbone, and was ruled out of this third test. This time, Ravi was sent for. And on a day where Cook made 294 and Morgan made 100, Bopara failed, with a scratchy looking seven. Trott will most likely come back in for the fourth test, and with England's middle order looking incredibly settled, Ravi may have another two years to wait until he gets his next bat in a test for England. And with James Taylor, Jonny Bairstow and plenty of others floating around who may usurp him in the pecking order, it's not inconceivable that this is the last test Ravi Bopara plays.
To be a successful test cricketer, you have to take your chances when you get them. The prime example of that is Tim Bresnan - a man who's never nailed down a permanent position in England's test team but averages 45 with the bat and 24 with the ball. He's almost made it impossible to be dropped. At a time where England are looking set to dominate world cricket, chances will be few and far between, and Tim Bresnan's seized the opportunities given to him with those big hands. Ravi Bopara, however, hasn't done that. Test cricket is a harsh place at the best of times, but with England's pool of talent so strong at the moment it's positively ruthless. On his day, Bopara can be an excellent batsman, but he just hasn't proved that for England. He may get another chance in the future and take it, but until then, Ravi Bopara will be the ultimate unfulfilled talent - England's nearly man.
Friday, 29 July 2011
Morgan's Place No Pressing Issue
The nature of the English cricket press is that there always needs to be someone sweating over their place. Last summer, it was Alastair Cook, but he then went on to have the winter to end all winters. The spotlight then moved to Kevin Pietersen, who has since refound his top form. Last week it was Stuart Broad who was the next in line to be throw overboard, instead he's had a few of his best days in test cricket. So who's next on death row as the cricket press bottle spins onto it's next target? Well, after three failures in a row, it's going to be Eoin Morgan.
Eoin Morgan, for all of his ODI success, has had a quiet start to his test career. Other than the excellent ton against Pakistan last summer, he's yet to stamp his mark on test cricket and firmly assert himself as England's number six batsman. When Paul Collingwood retired, a space opened up in the England batting order, and the selectors chose Morgan; basically saying that he was their man to play in the middle order for the next few years. This wasn't that long ago.
England have been actually doing pretty well in test cricket over the past while, so there aren't many players who are under pressure for their place in the team. However, as there always needs to be someone in trouble (otherwise there is no story), Morgan is the man they've picked.
Techically, there's a lot that Eoin Morgan has to work on. But there's no denying that he is an absolute class batsman who can score a lot of runs, and has the perfect temprament for test cricket. In three innings this series, Morgan's had a couple of dubious decisions, and ended up with three low scores. This doesn't automatically make him a bad player or that he should be dropped. These things happen. It wasn't that long ago he was being backed as a permanenent member of the England team for years to come - so what's changed?
England's selectorial policy under Andy Flower has been as far removed from the knee-jerk as possible, with players going through lean spells being nursed back into form and returning to past glories. Eoin Morgan may not have the illustrious record of some of his teammates, but he certainly has the same ability. And it was only last month that Flower, Geoff Miller, and Strauss confirmed this by picking him for the Sri Lanka series.
England haven't got where they are today by making snap decisions and dropping out of form players. Eoin Morgan may be in a slight trough and James Taylor may be on the crest of a wave, but there's no need for impulsive change for changes sake on the back of one poor day of test cricket. Luckily, I think the selectors and Andy Flower know that, but the real issue is whether the press know that too.
Eoin Morgan, for all of his ODI success, has had a quiet start to his test career. Other than the excellent ton against Pakistan last summer, he's yet to stamp his mark on test cricket and firmly assert himself as England's number six batsman. When Paul Collingwood retired, a space opened up in the England batting order, and the selectors chose Morgan; basically saying that he was their man to play in the middle order for the next few years. This wasn't that long ago.
England have been actually doing pretty well in test cricket over the past while, so there aren't many players who are under pressure for their place in the team. However, as there always needs to be someone in trouble (otherwise there is no story), Morgan is the man they've picked.
Techically, there's a lot that Eoin Morgan has to work on. But there's no denying that he is an absolute class batsman who can score a lot of runs, and has the perfect temprament for test cricket. In three innings this series, Morgan's had a couple of dubious decisions, and ended up with three low scores. This doesn't automatically make him a bad player or that he should be dropped. These things happen. It wasn't that long ago he was being backed as a permanenent member of the England team for years to come - so what's changed?
England's selectorial policy under Andy Flower has been as far removed from the knee-jerk as possible, with players going through lean spells being nursed back into form and returning to past glories. Eoin Morgan may not have the illustrious record of some of his teammates, but he certainly has the same ability. And it was only last month that Flower, Geoff Miller, and Strauss confirmed this by picking him for the Sri Lanka series.
England haven't got where they are today by making snap decisions and dropping out of form players. Eoin Morgan may be in a slight trough and James Taylor may be on the crest of a wave, but there's no need for impulsive change for changes sake on the back of one poor day of test cricket. Luckily, I think the selectors and Andy Flower know that, but the real issue is whether the press know that too.
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
Matt Prior, and why England have nothing to fix
Before this series started, I said that Matt Prior is the best wicket-keeper batsman in the world. I'm only repeating that because at Lord's he proved me right - he put together two excellent innings filled with exciting strokes down at number seven (the second one recovering England frmo a potential collapse to a position of dominance, capped with another test century), as well as keeping expertly at the notoriously difficult Lord's.
Buoyed by this success, the calls for a Prior promotion are gathering. A test average of over 45 with six centuries certainly proves that Prior could easily bat in the top six - indeed he could even bat higher if required. Eoin Morgan, for all of his limited over success, is yet to ignite in his nascent test career, and is not yet 100% assured of his place. Promoting Prior to six would allow England to bring in Tim Bresnan at seven, and play an extra bowler.
There is logic to this idea - the injury to Zaheer on Thursday proved the fragility of a four-man attack, and adding an extra seamer would both help lighten the load on the others, and provide a supplementary option if all isn't going well for the main foursome.
However, the balance of the side would be distorted in quite an unsettling way. First off, England are losing a very good batsman in Eoin Morgan, and replacing him with a bits and pieces bat in Tim Bresnan. They'd also be adding to a bowling attack that doesn't really need adding to. They had no problems in taking 20 wickets at the bowler's graveyard that is Lord's, so why would they need any assistance at the much preferred Trent Bridge? But crucially, the biggest mistake to changing the balance of the team would be moving Matt Prior.
Prior's success over the past few series has been when he's batted at number seven. His quick scoring rate (he knocks along at a test strike rate of 66 - pretty rapid) is best implemented at the number seven position, either to counter-attack and put England back onto the front foot (as he did in the second innnings on Sunday) or to further drive home the advantage against weary bowlers (as he did in his Ashes century at Sydney). Moving him up or down the order would negate the effect of his runs; either adding undue pressure or removing his significance on proceedings.
The old saying goes "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and given England's consistency in selection over the past few years, we're almost certain to see an unchanged side at Trent Bridge when the two sides line up again on Friday. And given the remarkable rise of Matt Prior from the earringed lout of his early test days to today's world-class performer, expect him to show why he's leapt to his highest ranking in the world with yet another high-class performance.
Buoyed by this success, the calls for a Prior promotion are gathering. A test average of over 45 with six centuries certainly proves that Prior could easily bat in the top six - indeed he could even bat higher if required. Eoin Morgan, for all of his limited over success, is yet to ignite in his nascent test career, and is not yet 100% assured of his place. Promoting Prior to six would allow England to bring in Tim Bresnan at seven, and play an extra bowler.
There is logic to this idea - the injury to Zaheer on Thursday proved the fragility of a four-man attack, and adding an extra seamer would both help lighten the load on the others, and provide a supplementary option if all isn't going well for the main foursome.
However, the balance of the side would be distorted in quite an unsettling way. First off, England are losing a very good batsman in Eoin Morgan, and replacing him with a bits and pieces bat in Tim Bresnan. They'd also be adding to a bowling attack that doesn't really need adding to. They had no problems in taking 20 wickets at the bowler's graveyard that is Lord's, so why would they need any assistance at the much preferred Trent Bridge? But crucially, the biggest mistake to changing the balance of the team would be moving Matt Prior.
Prior's success over the past few series has been when he's batted at number seven. His quick scoring rate (he knocks along at a test strike rate of 66 - pretty rapid) is best implemented at the number seven position, either to counter-attack and put England back onto the front foot (as he did in the second innnings on Sunday) or to further drive home the advantage against weary bowlers (as he did in his Ashes century at Sydney). Moving him up or down the order would negate the effect of his runs; either adding undue pressure or removing his significance on proceedings.
The old saying goes "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and given England's consistency in selection over the past few years, we're almost certain to see an unchanged side at Trent Bridge when the two sides line up again on Friday. And given the remarkable rise of Matt Prior from the earringed lout of his early test days to today's world-class performer, expect him to show why he's leapt to his highest ranking in the world with yet another high-class performance.
Sunday, 3 July 2011
A Ship With Two Anchors
Let's make this clear. Jonathan Trott is a very good batsman. You don't get to score the sheer weight of runs he has in both test and ODI cricket without being a master of your craft. For all of his run scoring brilliance, you'd be feeling very generous to describe Trott as a 'flair' player. Not for him the switch-hits of Pietersen, reverse-flicks of Morgan or even sumptuous cover drives of Bell. Instead comes the push off the legs for a single, or the ever dependable block. This means Trott will score runs; lots of them - but he's not going to motor along at 6 an over.
To be a good ODI team, you need an accumulator. Someone who will keep his end all the way along which gives more security for the carnage at the other end. We saw in the second ODI that the wickets in hand were key as Sri Lanka were able to accelerate in the batting powerplay and end up getting 40 more runs than they would have had wickets fallen regularly. Master anchors like Trott (note I said "anchor", not something else), like Jayawardene the other day don't have to score at a run a ball, but given time, they will convert starts into big scores without throwing it away.
Trott got a lot of unfair stick during the World Cup for playing that anchor role. It's a fairly crucial position in the team, and someone has to fulfill it, especially when wickets are tumbling down the other end. Trott stood up, and was arguably England's man of the tournament (although don't tell Bob Willis). However, since the World Cup, things have changed.
Alastair Cook, so often Trott's test partner-in-crime, has been implanted into the team and named captain. The pair's stoic partnerships over the past 8 months in test cricket is a mastery of solidly accumulating without taking risks. The two are a big part of England's recent test success, as they grind teams down before the carnage of Pietersen, Bell, Morgan and Prior come later on. But the tactic of dobbing along at two an over without playing any shots in ODI cricket just won't work.
With Cook opening and Trott coming in at three, it only takes Kieswetter to fall first for the two to be united. And if the pair play their natural games, it doesn't take long for the runs to dry up and England be immediately behind the 8-ball. Which is an unsustainable plan. The other option is for one of them to be the aggressor, which as Trott proved when caught playing a rather ungainly lofted drive, they just don't have the game to do.
As I said earlier - I like Jonathan Trott. I supported his place in the team through the World Cup, but now things are different. Alastair Cook has come in as captain and moved the goalposts, and as harsh as England's selectors can be even they wouldn't ditch their new captain after only three games. And this batting line-up just can't accomodate the both of them. So sadly, as much as it pains me, I'd move Eoin Morgan to three (a player who can move effortlessly through the gears and is as good as 200/1 after 15 as he is at 0/4 after 0.4) and ship Trott out. England need to act fast before they get left ever further behind.
To be a good ODI team, you need an accumulator. Someone who will keep his end all the way along which gives more security for the carnage at the other end. We saw in the second ODI that the wickets in hand were key as Sri Lanka were able to accelerate in the batting powerplay and end up getting 40 more runs than they would have had wickets fallen regularly. Master anchors like Trott (note I said "anchor", not something else), like Jayawardene the other day don't have to score at a run a ball, but given time, they will convert starts into big scores without throwing it away.
Trott got a lot of unfair stick during the World Cup for playing that anchor role. It's a fairly crucial position in the team, and someone has to fulfill it, especially when wickets are tumbling down the other end. Trott stood up, and was arguably England's man of the tournament (although don't tell Bob Willis). However, since the World Cup, things have changed.
Alastair Cook, so often Trott's test partner-in-crime, has been implanted into the team and named captain. The pair's stoic partnerships over the past 8 months in test cricket is a mastery of solidly accumulating without taking risks. The two are a big part of England's recent test success, as they grind teams down before the carnage of Pietersen, Bell, Morgan and Prior come later on. But the tactic of dobbing along at two an over without playing any shots in ODI cricket just won't work.
With Cook opening and Trott coming in at three, it only takes Kieswetter to fall first for the two to be united. And if the pair play their natural games, it doesn't take long for the runs to dry up and England be immediately behind the 8-ball. Which is an unsustainable plan. The other option is for one of them to be the aggressor, which as Trott proved when caught playing a rather ungainly lofted drive, they just don't have the game to do.
As I said earlier - I like Jonathan Trott. I supported his place in the team through the World Cup, but now things are different. Alastair Cook has come in as captain and moved the goalposts, and as harsh as England's selectors can be even they wouldn't ditch their new captain after only three games. And this batting line-up just can't accomodate the both of them. So sadly, as much as it pains me, I'd move Eoin Morgan to three (a player who can move effortlessly through the gears and is as good as 200/1 after 15 as he is at 0/4 after 0.4) and ship Trott out. England need to act fast before they get left ever further behind.
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
Tuesday, 7 June 2011
Negative England Scared To Win
Today was a day where England could have won a test match. In an incredibly strong position overnight at 170 odd ahead with only two wickets down, England could have hit out in the morning and given themselves 70 overs to bowl Sri Lanka out. Instead, they nurdled it around in the morning, had an unneccesarily long hit in the afternoon before packing up an hour early because they were bored.
The Andocracy have long spoken of their desire to be world number one, and to create a team that dominates world cricket. Today was not the performance of a team who can dominate anybody. The gameplan was wrong from start to finish, and it appears patently obvious that Strauss much preferred to 'not lose' rather than rolling the dice and actually going for the win. Had you offered Strauss the draw at eleven this morning, he would have taken it. And that's the crux of the matter - would the West Indian team of the 80s have 'settled' for the draw? Or the Aussie team of the 00s?
The batting this morning. Yes, Alastair Cook has been in great form of late, and everybody wants to make a ton at Lord's, but at that pace? In the morning session Cook only added 21 runs to his overnight score, which understandably selfish as it was, shouldn't have been tolerated. Making a hundred at HQ is always going to be a big thing for a player, but as vice-captain and part of the senior management team, Cook should have recognised that nurdling his way to the ton wasn't going to help the ultimate cause of winning the test match for England. While Pietersen was a touch more attacking, it appeared clear that he too was after personal runs rather than a selfless acceleration for the team, which is why England stagnated big time after drinks. Herath turned the screw, and Cook and KP were happy to block it out and slowly push their way towards three figures. This meant that England weren't as far ahead as they should have been at lunch, and were unable to declare at the interval (which may have been in the original plan).
After lunch Bell, Morgan and Prior all swung the blade, but the longer they stayed out there, the less time England had to skittle Sri Lanka. Strauss should have known that a Dilshan-less Sri Lanka would have had no interest in chasing anything, and should have declared the moment Cook brought up his ton. As it was, he stayed on, paralysed by the fear that Sri Lanka would chase down runs at 8 an over and he'd look a fool. If anything, the lack of bravery was far more foolish than a bold declaration at 2 o'clock. And so we watched as time ebbed on, as Cook, Morgan, Prior and even Broad came and went, for not much gain.
The bowlers, I thought, were OK, but Sri Lanka were in full defensive bunker mode. Sri Lanka's full strength plan of playing P Jayawardene at 6 with Maharoof at 7 has left a very long tail, and is very collapsable. With Dilshan unable to bat unless in the direst of emergencies, Sri Lanka were there for the taking. Even though taking seven wickets in 15 overs is unlikely, the decision to shake hands seemed odd when England were only one wicket away from Maharoof, and two away from the bowlers. And if England had learnt anything from Cardiff, it's that the pressure of batting to save the game can do funny things to batsmen. As it was they'd had enough, with Strauss shaking hands and leaving the fans a touch bemused.
I went to Lord's today hoping to see a really attacking display of top test cricket from England as they pushed for a win. Instead, I saw a meek display of going through the motions from a team happy they didn't lose. If England are to be the world's best, they have to grow a pair and have a real go at days like this. We've seen in the past that Strauss can be a very defensive captain who likes to be 100% he can't lose before going for the win. If he really is to lead England to the number one spot, he's going to have to roll the dice every once in a while, in order to win the biggest prize of all.
The Andocracy have long spoken of their desire to be world number one, and to create a team that dominates world cricket. Today was not the performance of a team who can dominate anybody. The gameplan was wrong from start to finish, and it appears patently obvious that Strauss much preferred to 'not lose' rather than rolling the dice and actually going for the win. Had you offered Strauss the draw at eleven this morning, he would have taken it. And that's the crux of the matter - would the West Indian team of the 80s have 'settled' for the draw? Or the Aussie team of the 00s?
The batting this morning. Yes, Alastair Cook has been in great form of late, and everybody wants to make a ton at Lord's, but at that pace? In the morning session Cook only added 21 runs to his overnight score, which understandably selfish as it was, shouldn't have been tolerated. Making a hundred at HQ is always going to be a big thing for a player, but as vice-captain and part of the senior management team, Cook should have recognised that nurdling his way to the ton wasn't going to help the ultimate cause of winning the test match for England. While Pietersen was a touch more attacking, it appeared clear that he too was after personal runs rather than a selfless acceleration for the team, which is why England stagnated big time after drinks. Herath turned the screw, and Cook and KP were happy to block it out and slowly push their way towards three figures. This meant that England weren't as far ahead as they should have been at lunch, and were unable to declare at the interval (which may have been in the original plan).
After lunch Bell, Morgan and Prior all swung the blade, but the longer they stayed out there, the less time England had to skittle Sri Lanka. Strauss should have known that a Dilshan-less Sri Lanka would have had no interest in chasing anything, and should have declared the moment Cook brought up his ton. As it was, he stayed on, paralysed by the fear that Sri Lanka would chase down runs at 8 an over and he'd look a fool. If anything, the lack of bravery was far more foolish than a bold declaration at 2 o'clock. And so we watched as time ebbed on, as Cook, Morgan, Prior and even Broad came and went, for not much gain.
The bowlers, I thought, were OK, but Sri Lanka were in full defensive bunker mode. Sri Lanka's full strength plan of playing P Jayawardene at 6 with Maharoof at 7 has left a very long tail, and is very collapsable. With Dilshan unable to bat unless in the direst of emergencies, Sri Lanka were there for the taking. Even though taking seven wickets in 15 overs is unlikely, the decision to shake hands seemed odd when England were only one wicket away from Maharoof, and two away from the bowlers. And if England had learnt anything from Cardiff, it's that the pressure of batting to save the game can do funny things to batsmen. As it was they'd had enough, with Strauss shaking hands and leaving the fans a touch bemused.
I went to Lord's today hoping to see a really attacking display of top test cricket from England as they pushed for a win. Instead, I saw a meek display of going through the motions from a team happy they didn't lose. If England are to be the world's best, they have to grow a pair and have a real go at days like this. We've seen in the past that Strauss can be a very defensive captain who likes to be 100% he can't lose before going for the win. If he really is to lead England to the number one spot, he's going to have to roll the dice every once in a while, in order to win the biggest prize of all.
Friday, 3 June 2011
Eoin Morgan - Test Batsman
Today, Eoin Morgan played a test innings. It wasn't a gritty, nurdly, innings. He took chances, punished bad balls, and attacked good ones. He didn't leave many, and he scored quickly. It was not a conventional test innings, but it was an Eoin Morgan innings.
It would be foolish to expect all of the batsmen in a line up to play in the same way. Some batsmen just want to bat for as long as they can, and any run they pick up is a handy bonus to the time spent out in the middle. Some batsmen want to show off by playing loose, expansive shots, in order to entertain and look good. There are others who will leave anything outside off-stump, and punish anything that isn't. Eoin Morgan isn't a conventional batsman, and while there are certain expectations for a test batsman, he doesn't appear to heed them.
Morgan's strength is that he is an exceptional shot maker - he has the full range of strokes and is in complete control of everything he does. The innings he played today was his natural game - he hit two sixes, yet there was nothing reckless about either. He scored quickly, but didn't compromise his wicket. He scored runs, lots of them, and at a good lick, which is what he's in the team to do.
There have been some questions about Morgan's inclusion in the test team, mainly about the flaws that open up in his technique when playing defensively. Yes, there are flaws, and Morgan will have to mend them if he is to become truly one of the best in the world, but much of those flaws occur when he is trying to do something he is not comfortable with - when he is playing outside of his natural game. Today, he played how he wanted to play, and reaped the rewards of a well-played fifty in an important partnership in the context of the match.
When Eoin Morgan plays an Eoin Morgan innings, there is no question that he is test material. Down the line he may go through a bad patch and be under public pressure, but the worst thing he can do is to try and become a player that he is not. Eoin Morgan plays as only Eoin Morgan can, and judging by today's performance, if he continues to play as well as he did today, we could be seeing the makings of a proper test cricketer.
It would be foolish to expect all of the batsmen in a line up to play in the same way. Some batsmen just want to bat for as long as they can, and any run they pick up is a handy bonus to the time spent out in the middle. Some batsmen want to show off by playing loose, expansive shots, in order to entertain and look good. There are others who will leave anything outside off-stump, and punish anything that isn't. Eoin Morgan isn't a conventional batsman, and while there are certain expectations for a test batsman, he doesn't appear to heed them.
Morgan's strength is that he is an exceptional shot maker - he has the full range of strokes and is in complete control of everything he does. The innings he played today was his natural game - he hit two sixes, yet there was nothing reckless about either. He scored quickly, but didn't compromise his wicket. He scored runs, lots of them, and at a good lick, which is what he's in the team to do.
There have been some questions about Morgan's inclusion in the test team, mainly about the flaws that open up in his technique when playing defensively. Yes, there are flaws, and Morgan will have to mend them if he is to become truly one of the best in the world, but much of those flaws occur when he is trying to do something he is not comfortable with - when he is playing outside of his natural game. Today, he played how he wanted to play, and reaped the rewards of a well-played fifty in an important partnership in the context of the match.
When Eoin Morgan plays an Eoin Morgan innings, there is no question that he is test material. Down the line he may go through a bad patch and be under public pressure, but the worst thing he can do is to try and become a player that he is not. Eoin Morgan plays as only Eoin Morgan can, and judging by today's performance, if he continues to play as well as he did today, we could be seeing the makings of a proper test cricketer.
Day One At Lord's
Before play started...: Four days of rain were followed by two hours of madness as England stole it at Cardiff.
Where did it all go wrong for Sri Lanka?: Didn't press home the advantage after an excellent first hour.
Where did it all go right for Sri Lanka?: Got Trott out cheaply, proving it is humanly possible. Further seeds of doubt sewn in KP's mind too.
Where did it all go wrong for England?: If I was nit-picking it would be that nobody made a hundred (carried on to make a daddy). Poor start too wasn't great.
Where did it all go right for England?: A lot of strength down the order - didn't panic when wickets fell. Ended the day in the ascendancy.
Who won each session?: Morning - Sri Lanka. Afternoon - England. Evening - Just about England.
Who's winning the game?: In that England are on 342-6 after being sent in, England.
Shot of the day: Morgan smashing Herath into the pavilion for 6. He was only on about 5 at the time.
Ball of the day: Lakmal bowled an absolute jaffa to Bell when he was new at the crease - big swing and somehow beat the edge.
Man of the day: Alastair Cook - missed out on another hundred but an important innings in the context of the match.
Mug of the day: KP. How much longer can past glories justify his test position?
Short Midwicket Name Drops of the Day: Had drinks with former Middlesex wicketkeeper David Nash. Saw Richie Benaud from across the Coronation Garden. Somebody gave me a package addressed to Jimmy Anderson thinking I was him. Saw Alastair Cook shirtless about to have a shower through an open window. (As soon as Cook saw me, he closed the window).
Where did it all go wrong for Sri Lanka?: Didn't press home the advantage after an excellent first hour.
Where did it all go right for Sri Lanka?: Got Trott out cheaply, proving it is humanly possible. Further seeds of doubt sewn in KP's mind too.
Where did it all go wrong for England?: If I was nit-picking it would be that nobody made a hundred (carried on to make a daddy). Poor start too wasn't great.
Where did it all go right for England?: A lot of strength down the order - didn't panic when wickets fell. Ended the day in the ascendancy.
Who won each session?: Morning - Sri Lanka. Afternoon - England. Evening - Just about England.
Who's winning the game?: In that England are on 342-6 after being sent in, England.
Shot of the day: Morgan smashing Herath into the pavilion for 6. He was only on about 5 at the time.
Ball of the day: Lakmal bowled an absolute jaffa to Bell when he was new at the crease - big swing and somehow beat the edge.
Man of the day: Alastair Cook - missed out on another hundred but an important innings in the context of the match.
Mug of the day: KP. How much longer can past glories justify his test position?
Short Midwicket Name Drops of the Day: Had drinks with former Middlesex wicketkeeper David Nash. Saw Richie Benaud from across the Coronation Garden. Somebody gave me a package addressed to Jimmy Anderson thinking I was him. Saw Alastair Cook shirtless about to have a shower through an open window. (As soon as Cook saw me, he closed the window).
Saturday, 21 May 2011
The Joy of Six... or The Case for Morgan
Tomorrow, we'll learn the identity of the man picked to bat at six for England in the first test against Sri Lanka next week. While not that long ago it seemed to be a four-horse race between Bopara, Morgan, Hildreth and Taylor, it seems that the latter two have dropped out, leaving it a straight choice between Ravi and Eoin.
When I wrote something about the announcement of the Lions squad, I spoke of how it looked like being the highest run scorer to take the spot. And with Morgan getting 193 and Bopara only 17, it would seem that Morgan would have won that particular battle fairly convincingly.
However, the journos and general people in the know reported that the performance in the Lions game was academic, as Bopara had already been pencilled in before the match even began. It appears that Andy Flower wanted to reward Bopara's committment to his test future by shunning the IPL to play county cricket, and thought that Bopara would be in better nick with the red ball. And if, as believed, Andy Flower thought that on Thursday, it would probably still be the case this evening. This England regime is not one that makes knee-jerk reactions after one good performance.
While Ravi's stance to play for Essex in the early months of the county season must be applauded (he is finally showing the maturity that appeared to be lacking in the early years of his international career), I don't think that this alone should be why he plays at Cardiff next week. In cricketing terms, England have to decide who will make more test runs in the long run - Ravi Bopara or Eoin Morgan? Yes, Bopara's willingness to play in the tests should be praised, but not at the expense of a player in Eoin Morgan who for my money would consistently outscore Ravi Bopara in test cricket.
It may well be the case that Morgan's actions over the past few weeks may be "punished" by overlooking him for the test. While nobody has begrudged Morgan the chance to cash in on his T20 abilities (of which he is arguably the world's best batsman), the timing of his comments the other day just appear odd and out of character. By stating that if he isn't picked for Cardiff he intends to return to the IPL for the Knight Riders is putting out the message to the ECB that he'd prefer to earn a few more rupees than play for Middlesex and fight for his place in subsequent tests in the series. What if Bopara breaks his finger on Thursday morning and a replacement is needed? Morgan won't be much use if he's on a plane over the Indian Ocean.
As a batsman, Morgan's mentality is unquestioned. He is clearly mentally ready for a prolonged run in test cricket - something that is probably the biggest question mark over Ravi Bopara. Morgan's technique probably isn't completely ready for test cricket, but we saw last summer against Pakistan at Trent Bridge that when it all comes together, Morgan is as good as they come. Morgan is a batsman who moves absolutely seamlessly through the gears and is as comfortable with his back against the wall as he is with the foot against the throat. Bopara may be the better batsman, but Morgan would be far more consistent and is a better player. And don't forget, he has just scored as-near-as-dammit a double hundred against Sri Lanka. Who would the Sri Lankan bowlers least prefer to see walking out onto the pitch with England four down next week - Ravi Bopara or the guy who made them toil for for a day and a half?
The word on the street is that Ravi Bopara will be selected tomorrow, and while I have no doubts that Bopara will be a very good test batsman for England, I just think that Eoin Morgan could be one of the very best.
When I wrote something about the announcement of the Lions squad, I spoke of how it looked like being the highest run scorer to take the spot. And with Morgan getting 193 and Bopara only 17, it would seem that Morgan would have won that particular battle fairly convincingly.
However, the journos and general people in the know reported that the performance in the Lions game was academic, as Bopara had already been pencilled in before the match even began. It appears that Andy Flower wanted to reward Bopara's committment to his test future by shunning the IPL to play county cricket, and thought that Bopara would be in better nick with the red ball. And if, as believed, Andy Flower thought that on Thursday, it would probably still be the case this evening. This England regime is not one that makes knee-jerk reactions after one good performance.
While Ravi's stance to play for Essex in the early months of the county season must be applauded (he is finally showing the maturity that appeared to be lacking in the early years of his international career), I don't think that this alone should be why he plays at Cardiff next week. In cricketing terms, England have to decide who will make more test runs in the long run - Ravi Bopara or Eoin Morgan? Yes, Bopara's willingness to play in the tests should be praised, but not at the expense of a player in Eoin Morgan who for my money would consistently outscore Ravi Bopara in test cricket.
It may well be the case that Morgan's actions over the past few weeks may be "punished" by overlooking him for the test. While nobody has begrudged Morgan the chance to cash in on his T20 abilities (of which he is arguably the world's best batsman), the timing of his comments the other day just appear odd and out of character. By stating that if he isn't picked for Cardiff he intends to return to the IPL for the Knight Riders is putting out the message to the ECB that he'd prefer to earn a few more rupees than play for Middlesex and fight for his place in subsequent tests in the series. What if Bopara breaks his finger on Thursday morning and a replacement is needed? Morgan won't be much use if he's on a plane over the Indian Ocean.
As a batsman, Morgan's mentality is unquestioned. He is clearly mentally ready for a prolonged run in test cricket - something that is probably the biggest question mark over Ravi Bopara. Morgan's technique probably isn't completely ready for test cricket, but we saw last summer against Pakistan at Trent Bridge that when it all comes together, Morgan is as good as they come. Morgan is a batsman who moves absolutely seamlessly through the gears and is as comfortable with his back against the wall as he is with the foot against the throat. Bopara may be the better batsman, but Morgan would be far more consistent and is a better player. And don't forget, he has just scored as-near-as-dammit a double hundred against Sri Lanka. Who would the Sri Lankan bowlers least prefer to see walking out onto the pitch with England four down next week - Ravi Bopara or the guy who made them toil for for a day and a half?
The word on the street is that Ravi Bopara will be selected tomorrow, and while I have no doubts that Bopara will be a very good test batsman for England, I just think that Eoin Morgan could be one of the very best.
Wednesday, 11 May 2011
What We Can Deduce from the England Lions Squad
The England Lions twelve man squad to take on the Sri Lankans has been named. Theoretically, if the first choice test eleven were to all mysteriously disappear and / or die, the Lions would be the ones to step into the breach. On a slightly less morbid level, games for the Lions are excellent opportunities for fringe players, those still cutting their teeth at international level, or those yet to make their full debuts a chance to impress selectors and push for regular games in the full squad.
The twelve men who have been selected for the game at Derby next week are as such:
James Hildreth (Somerset, captain)
Jimmy Adams (Hampshire)
Jonny Bairstow (Yorkshire, wicket keeper)
Danny Briggs (Hampshire)
Ravi Bopara (Essex)
Jade Dernbach (Surrey)
Steven Finn (Middlesex)
Eoin Morgan (Middlesex)
Graham Onions (Durham)
Samit Patel (Nottinghamshire)
Ajmal Shahzad (Yorkshire)
James Taylor (Leicestershire)
There's a fair bit we can work out from who's been picked.
The selectors haven't chosen their replacement for Collingwood
... or if they have, they haven't made it at all obvious. In the podcast I did the other day I spoke about how there are four men all vying for the vacant spot in the test batting order. The fact that all of them (Morgan, Bopara, Taylor and Hildreth) are all in this team suggests that selectors are encouraging a "shoot-out" (sorry for using a massive cliche) for the spot. While the selectors may have preferences as to who gets in, if their man makes a duck whereas someone else makes a triple ton, it will be very hard to not pick them.
Samit Patel has lost weight
Samit Patel is a big lad, and his weight issues are very well documented. However, after a couple of years of apathy towards fitness, he spent the winter on the treadmill, and has lost a bit of weight. While he will never win any sort of bathing suit competition, the fact that Patel has been able to make the holy grail of Level 12 on the Bleep Test (a prerequesite of being an England player) shows that he is finally taking it all much more seriously. And the fact that he's been named in the Lions squad shows the selectors definitely rate his talents, and want to welcome him back into the fold. While he is probably a fair way off test cricket, if he chips in with runs and wickets (mmm, chips) he could force his way back into the ODI team by the end of the summer.
The selectors don't like Adil Rashid
The numbers certainly stack up for Adil Rashid, as both a spinner and as a handy lower order batsman. Arguably the second best spinner in the country (behind Swann, obviously), and in top form this year, Rashid must be mystified about why he continually keeps being ignored by the powers that be. Nothing against Danny Briggs, who also has an awful lot of potential, but the prolonged invisibility of Rashid is beginning to smack of something sinister. It isn't a talent based snub - so is it a clash of personality?
Bunny's back
I've always liked Graham Onions, and it's great to see him back in the fray after his long lay-off. The fact that Onions has been selected shows he's firmly in the selectors minds, and can be added to the incredibly strong pool of fast bowlers that includes Anderson, Broad, Tremlett, Finn, Bresnan, Shahzad and even Dernbach.
Competition for Keepers
As well as extraordinary strength in fast bowling and batting, England have a reserve of top wicket-keepers ready to step up if required. Steve Davies and Craig Kieswetter have both had excellent starts to the season and have had international success, but neither have made the squad behind new double centurion Jonny Bairstow. This added competition can only be good, and any of the three could step up if Matt Prior got injured. Wicket keeping is in rude health at the moment.
English cricket is doing pretty well
All across the board the Lions side is very strong. Quite feasibly all of that squad could represent England this summer, which both shows the strength in depth that county cricket is producing at the moment. With the fixture congestion and burnout that many have been complaining about, the 'fringe' players may be getting more and more international cricket, and England certainly wouldn't be let down by any of these players.
There's a lot we can learn from this squad announcement - and it will be interesting to see how they do against the Sri Lankans. A strong performance from a player, and it may not be the last time they play against Sri Lanka this summer...
The twelve men who have been selected for the game at Derby next week are as such:
James Hildreth (Somerset, captain)
Jimmy Adams (Hampshire)
Jonny Bairstow (Yorkshire, wicket keeper)
Danny Briggs (Hampshire)
Ravi Bopara (Essex)
Jade Dernbach (Surrey)
Steven Finn (Middlesex)
Eoin Morgan (Middlesex)
Graham Onions (Durham)
Samit Patel (Nottinghamshire)
Ajmal Shahzad (Yorkshire)
James Taylor (Leicestershire)
There's a fair bit we can work out from who's been picked.
The selectors haven't chosen their replacement for Collingwood
... or if they have, they haven't made it at all obvious. In the podcast I did the other day I spoke about how there are four men all vying for the vacant spot in the test batting order. The fact that all of them (Morgan, Bopara, Taylor and Hildreth) are all in this team suggests that selectors are encouraging a "shoot-out" (sorry for using a massive cliche) for the spot. While the selectors may have preferences as to who gets in, if their man makes a duck whereas someone else makes a triple ton, it will be very hard to not pick them.
Samit Patel has lost weight
Samit Patel is a big lad, and his weight issues are very well documented. However, after a couple of years of apathy towards fitness, he spent the winter on the treadmill, and has lost a bit of weight. While he will never win any sort of bathing suit competition, the fact that Patel has been able to make the holy grail of Level 12 on the Bleep Test (a prerequesite of being an England player) shows that he is finally taking it all much more seriously. And the fact that he's been named in the Lions squad shows the selectors definitely rate his talents, and want to welcome him back into the fold. While he is probably a fair way off test cricket, if he chips in with runs and wickets (mmm, chips) he could force his way back into the ODI team by the end of the summer.
The selectors don't like Adil Rashid
The numbers certainly stack up for Adil Rashid, as both a spinner and as a handy lower order batsman. Arguably the second best spinner in the country (behind Swann, obviously), and in top form this year, Rashid must be mystified about why he continually keeps being ignored by the powers that be. Nothing against Danny Briggs, who also has an awful lot of potential, but the prolonged invisibility of Rashid is beginning to smack of something sinister. It isn't a talent based snub - so is it a clash of personality?
Bunny's back
I've always liked Graham Onions, and it's great to see him back in the fray after his long lay-off. The fact that Onions has been selected shows he's firmly in the selectors minds, and can be added to the incredibly strong pool of fast bowlers that includes Anderson, Broad, Tremlett, Finn, Bresnan, Shahzad and even Dernbach.
Competition for Keepers
As well as extraordinary strength in fast bowling and batting, England have a reserve of top wicket-keepers ready to step up if required. Steve Davies and Craig Kieswetter have both had excellent starts to the season and have had international success, but neither have made the squad behind new double centurion Jonny Bairstow. This added competition can only be good, and any of the three could step up if Matt Prior got injured. Wicket keeping is in rude health at the moment.
English cricket is doing pretty well
All across the board the Lions side is very strong. Quite feasibly all of that squad could represent England this summer, which both shows the strength in depth that county cricket is producing at the moment. With the fixture congestion and burnout that many have been complaining about, the 'fringe' players may be getting more and more international cricket, and England certainly wouldn't be let down by any of these players.
There's a lot we can learn from this squad announcement - and it will be interesting to see how they do against the Sri Lankans. A strong performance from a player, and it may not be the last time they play against Sri Lanka this summer...
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.
Tuesday, 12 April 2011
A Bandwagon That Worked!
Way back when, after England legend Jamie Dalrymple was ousted amidst plenty of controversy from Glamorgan, I started a bandwagon. Having always been a Dazzler fan from his success at Middlesex and his all-round brilliance in ODIs for England, I started to tweet the #dalrympleformiddlesex hashtag.
I know it didn't have much of a chance. Middlesex were hardly flush with cash, and had announced they were happy with who was already there. Plus, Dalrymple left under a bit of a cloud a few years back, so getting him in would be a long shot. But still, I hashtagged anyway, hoping the powers that be would see the bandwagon, and sign him up.
The months went on, and Dalrymple remained unsigned by any county. My faith remained, and the bandwagon continued. The Kenyan born off-spinning batting hero remained in limbo, and the #dalrympleformiddlesex bandwagon grew.
Until finally, on the eve of Middlesex's season starting, it was announced that Dalrymple had re-signed for Middlesex. While head honcho Gus Fraser said things about "fine cricketer", "natural leader" and "match winning middle-order batsman", sources close to Gus claimed that the real reason was the public pressure created by the #dalrympleformiddlesex bandwagon. I'm taking the credit.
On a more serious note, how strong will Middlesex's batting line up be this season? If all are fit and available, Middlesex will have a batting order of Strauss, Rogers, Malan, Dexter, Morgan, Dalrymple and Simpson. Throw into the mix the likes of Murtagh, Roland-Jones and Finn, it looks as though Middlesex have the makings of an incredibly strong county side. While this team will never play together as an eleven due to international and other committments, on paper Middlesex should be pulling up a few trees. However, as it always is with the Middle, the key is finding a level of consistency, and performing to the level expected week-in, week-out.
But anyway, here's a nice flash image of Dalrymple's finest hour, THAT catch in the 2007 ODI series against Australia...
I know it didn't have much of a chance. Middlesex were hardly flush with cash, and had announced they were happy with who was already there. Plus, Dalrymple left under a bit of a cloud a few years back, so getting him in would be a long shot. But still, I hashtagged anyway, hoping the powers that be would see the bandwagon, and sign him up.
The months went on, and Dalrymple remained unsigned by any county. My faith remained, and the bandwagon continued. The Kenyan born off-spinning batting hero remained in limbo, and the #dalrympleformiddlesex bandwagon grew.
Until finally, on the eve of Middlesex's season starting, it was announced that Dalrymple had re-signed for Middlesex. While head honcho Gus Fraser said things about "fine cricketer", "natural leader" and "match winning middle-order batsman", sources close to Gus claimed that the real reason was the public pressure created by the #dalrympleformiddlesex bandwagon. I'm taking the credit.
On a more serious note, how strong will Middlesex's batting line up be this season? If all are fit and available, Middlesex will have a batting order of Strauss, Rogers, Malan, Dexter, Morgan, Dalrymple and Simpson. Throw into the mix the likes of Murtagh, Roland-Jones and Finn, it looks as though Middlesex have the makings of an incredibly strong county side. While this team will never play together as an eleven due to international and other committments, on paper Middlesex should be pulling up a few trees. However, as it always is with the Middle, the key is finding a level of consistency, and performing to the level expected week-in, week-out.
But anyway, here's a nice flash image of Dalrymple's finest hour, THAT catch in the 2007 ODI series against Australia...
Saturday, 26 March 2011
Where To Now for England?
So yet another World Cup has slipped away for England, and another World Cup where England have failed to reach expectations. After somehow squeaking through the groups, England folded meekly against a Sri Lankan side who were just better than them.
A World Cup is the end of a four year cycle in international cricket - a four year cycle where plans are set, players blooded and markers set. England, sadly, haven't performed anywhere near the high standards that are expected of them. However, with the end of the previous cycle, England go home from this World Cup knowing that a new cycle is beginning. So what of the 19 men who flew out to be part of England's squad this World Cup?
Andrew Strauss (captain)
Strauss as a batsman had a good start to the World Cup. The 141 against India was as good as any innings this World Cup, and nearly guided England to victory. However, since that big score, Strauss has been slightly found out as an opening batsman, as he struggles to play spin from the off. Facing spinners who were opening the bowling bogged Strauss down, and he struggled from there. As a captain, however, as sacreligious as it is to say, Strauss has been pretty poor. The games against Ireland and Bangladesh were lost by England rather than being won by the opposition, and Strauss's captaincy left an awful lot to be desired. After their last few World Cups, England's captains have stepped aside to allow others to take the team forward, and there is a growing school of thought that Strauss should be allowed to focus on his test captaincy (which to Strauss's credit, is amongst the best in the world). If England want a radical overhaul post World Cup, it would make sense for a 'flagship' change in ODI policy, and the end of Strauss's ODI career (again) may well be that headline announcement.
Kevin Pietersen
News of KP's ODI retirement broke before the World Cup, and while he did perform OK while he was there, the fact that he picked up another injury while doing so may help encourage Kev that ODI cricket is too much of an unnecessary hindrance to his career. While he did contest thoughts of his premature ODI retirement, he also didn't appear to put up much of a fight when he picked up his injury, when (allegedly) many of the team officials felt that he could have stayed on. He opened the innings in the games that he did play in, but it was a 'quick-fix' approach that wouldn't have lasted post World Cup. I'd doubt whether KP will ever open the innings for England again, and would doubt further if he'd ever play ODI cricket either.
Jonathan Trott
England's shining light this World Cup, and the main reason they got this far. Thoughts that he bats too slowly for ODIs are ridiculous - without his runs England simply wouldn't have been competitive in most of their games. A good ODI side need a steady accumulator at number 3, and Trott is just that. His place is more than safe going forwards.
Ian Bell
The man who should have been opening for England throughout the World Cup, Bell was finally given his chance at the top in the final game. Seemed to be war weary from being the only Englishman to have played in every single game of the winter marathon from October to March. But he is a classy player, and should be given a longer run at the top of the order post WC. A man with lots of international experience, and with a growing maturity, Bell could be a major candidate is the captaincy is vacated. And you know what, I'd support it.
Paul Collingwood
Collingwood looked finished as an international player during the Ashes, and hasn't dispelled those feelings. Colly simply has nothing left to give, which doesn't detract from his great career, but enough is enough. And if someone else is moved to the ODI captaincy, surely Colly would be replaced as T20 skipper, which would put the final nail in the coffin for Collingwood.
Ravi Bopara
Should have been a mainstay in the ODI side, but only took an injury to Morgan to get him into the squad. Performed well when there - England's best batting all-rounder who should become a first choice fixture from now on. Given the selectors apparent retiscence to picking him, whether he does or not is doubtful.
Matt Prior
Clearly isn't an international opener, seen repeatedly over the Australia series / World Cup, and shouldn't ever be used as such again. Pity that the final England game was the only game where he was used properly as the finisher that he is. Prior was average this World Cup, and will likely be replaced by Davies after the World Cup.
Tim Bresnan
Bres bowled well - especially against India - but isn't good enough to spearhead an international attack, as proved in the absence of Broad and Anderson. Still a useful prospect in ODI cricket, however, and will no doubt be a big part of the attack going forwards.
Graeme Swann
Swann at times looked like the world class spinner that he is, but let frustration get the better of him at others. Will obviously be a huge part of the team post World Cup.
Stuart Broad
Looked really good before getting injured at the worst possible time. Real shame that he had to go home, and will be back in the side when his injury clears up.
Jimmy Anderson
A weird one this. Anderson came into the World Cup on the crest of a wave with supreme confidence, but left it with his reputation in serious doubt. Touted as the leader of the attack and the man to win the World Cup for England (after winning us the Ashes) he underwhelmed spectacularly, and looked a shadow of himself. Looked jaded and in need of a rest, and maybe a break would be the best thing for him, before triumphantly returning in the summer as the good old Jimmy Anderson that we know and love.
Michael Yardy
Sadly left the World Cup early for reasons which may see him never pull on an England shirt again, but without wanting to appear as heartless as Geoffrey Boycott, he may not have ever done so again anyway. He didn't bowl well enough for an international bowler, and didn't bat well enough to even bat at number seven. England have better options regardless of Yardy's mental state, and depression or not, I'd be surprised to see Yardy play for England again.
Ajmal Shahzad
Overawed against India, awesome against Bangladesh, and really unlucky to pick up an injury just as he'd earned his spot in the starting eleven. Whether he makes a first choice eleven post World Cup remains to be seen, but will no doubt play many more times for England.
James Tredwell
Did well against West Indies, and looked threatening-ish against Sri Lanka, but Tredwell isn't the second (or third) best spinner in England. There are better options available, and given the selectors use of him only as the complete last resort, I'd again be surprised if he were to play internationally again.
Luke Wright
Luke Wright is Luke Wright. Dropping him is the most obvious thing in the world, but he is Luke Wright, which probably means he'll take over as captain.
Eoin Morgan
England were too hasty to deselect him, and he has proved that he should be playing every ODI game for England. No worries there.
Chris Tremlett
Drafted into the World Cup squad on the back of good performances in the Ashes, but his overall One Day record suggests that he's not really good enough in the colours for England. His indifferent two games, where wickets were rather scare (to be non-existent) suggests that ODIs aren't his game. England have other, better options, and will use them ahead of Trem going forward.
Jade Dernbach
Came in when Shahzad went home, and didn't play. However, his selection over the likes of Woakes and Finn suggest he is very firmly on the radar for future honours.
Adil Rashid
Only after the Yardy withdrawal did the bandwagon eventually get what they wanted. Still obviously something stopping him playing (perhaps an attitude problem) but can be a big part of England's team, as he is good enough to bowl as the second spinner behind Swann and bat at number seven - something Yardy and Tredwell failed to do. Should play more regularly, but will need to prove that he is ready before the sharks start circling once more.
So where can England go from here. Incidentally, the team that knocked us out are out next opponents, as we face Sri Lanka in a series in the summer. We may have a new captain, exciting new bowlers or dashing new batsmen. We may have more of the same. But at the moment, the best place for England to go now... is home. This team have been on the road since October, with no rest. They're clearly pining for home, and it must have had some effect of the performances. England do have the basis of a good ODI side, and given a good break and a few tweaks, they can become one of the best in the world. That's almost what makes this World Cup performance more disappointing - the fact that we do have good players. We should have done better. But only when the preparation (by which I mean a settled side who know what their roles are months in advance as well as coming into a World Cup refreshed) is right can England really make a mark in a World Cup. We've now got 4 years to get it right for next time.
A World Cup is the end of a four year cycle in international cricket - a four year cycle where plans are set, players blooded and markers set. England, sadly, haven't performed anywhere near the high standards that are expected of them. However, with the end of the previous cycle, England go home from this World Cup knowing that a new cycle is beginning. So what of the 19 men who flew out to be part of England's squad this World Cup?
Andrew Strauss (captain)
Strauss as a batsman had a good start to the World Cup. The 141 against India was as good as any innings this World Cup, and nearly guided England to victory. However, since that big score, Strauss has been slightly found out as an opening batsman, as he struggles to play spin from the off. Facing spinners who were opening the bowling bogged Strauss down, and he struggled from there. As a captain, however, as sacreligious as it is to say, Strauss has been pretty poor. The games against Ireland and Bangladesh were lost by England rather than being won by the opposition, and Strauss's captaincy left an awful lot to be desired. After their last few World Cups, England's captains have stepped aside to allow others to take the team forward, and there is a growing school of thought that Strauss should be allowed to focus on his test captaincy (which to Strauss's credit, is amongst the best in the world). If England want a radical overhaul post World Cup, it would make sense for a 'flagship' change in ODI policy, and the end of Strauss's ODI career (again) may well be that headline announcement.
Kevin Pietersen
News of KP's ODI retirement broke before the World Cup, and while he did perform OK while he was there, the fact that he picked up another injury while doing so may help encourage Kev that ODI cricket is too much of an unnecessary hindrance to his career. While he did contest thoughts of his premature ODI retirement, he also didn't appear to put up much of a fight when he picked up his injury, when (allegedly) many of the team officials felt that he could have stayed on. He opened the innings in the games that he did play in, but it was a 'quick-fix' approach that wouldn't have lasted post World Cup. I'd doubt whether KP will ever open the innings for England again, and would doubt further if he'd ever play ODI cricket either.
Jonathan Trott
England's shining light this World Cup, and the main reason they got this far. Thoughts that he bats too slowly for ODIs are ridiculous - without his runs England simply wouldn't have been competitive in most of their games. A good ODI side need a steady accumulator at number 3, and Trott is just that. His place is more than safe going forwards.
Ian Bell
The man who should have been opening for England throughout the World Cup, Bell was finally given his chance at the top in the final game. Seemed to be war weary from being the only Englishman to have played in every single game of the winter marathon from October to March. But he is a classy player, and should be given a longer run at the top of the order post WC. A man with lots of international experience, and with a growing maturity, Bell could be a major candidate is the captaincy is vacated. And you know what, I'd support it.
Paul Collingwood
Collingwood looked finished as an international player during the Ashes, and hasn't dispelled those feelings. Colly simply has nothing left to give, which doesn't detract from his great career, but enough is enough. And if someone else is moved to the ODI captaincy, surely Colly would be replaced as T20 skipper, which would put the final nail in the coffin for Collingwood.
Ravi Bopara
Should have been a mainstay in the ODI side, but only took an injury to Morgan to get him into the squad. Performed well when there - England's best batting all-rounder who should become a first choice fixture from now on. Given the selectors apparent retiscence to picking him, whether he does or not is doubtful.
Matt Prior
Clearly isn't an international opener, seen repeatedly over the Australia series / World Cup, and shouldn't ever be used as such again. Pity that the final England game was the only game where he was used properly as the finisher that he is. Prior was average this World Cup, and will likely be replaced by Davies after the World Cup.
Tim Bresnan
Bres bowled well - especially against India - but isn't good enough to spearhead an international attack, as proved in the absence of Broad and Anderson. Still a useful prospect in ODI cricket, however, and will no doubt be a big part of the attack going forwards.
Graeme Swann
Swann at times looked like the world class spinner that he is, but let frustration get the better of him at others. Will obviously be a huge part of the team post World Cup.
Stuart Broad
Looked really good before getting injured at the worst possible time. Real shame that he had to go home, and will be back in the side when his injury clears up.
Jimmy Anderson
A weird one this. Anderson came into the World Cup on the crest of a wave with supreme confidence, but left it with his reputation in serious doubt. Touted as the leader of the attack and the man to win the World Cup for England (after winning us the Ashes) he underwhelmed spectacularly, and looked a shadow of himself. Looked jaded and in need of a rest, and maybe a break would be the best thing for him, before triumphantly returning in the summer as the good old Jimmy Anderson that we know and love.
Michael Yardy
Sadly left the World Cup early for reasons which may see him never pull on an England shirt again, but without wanting to appear as heartless as Geoffrey Boycott, he may not have ever done so again anyway. He didn't bowl well enough for an international bowler, and didn't bat well enough to even bat at number seven. England have better options regardless of Yardy's mental state, and depression or not, I'd be surprised to see Yardy play for England again.
Ajmal Shahzad
Overawed against India, awesome against Bangladesh, and really unlucky to pick up an injury just as he'd earned his spot in the starting eleven. Whether he makes a first choice eleven post World Cup remains to be seen, but will no doubt play many more times for England.
James Tredwell
Did well against West Indies, and looked threatening-ish against Sri Lanka, but Tredwell isn't the second (or third) best spinner in England. There are better options available, and given the selectors use of him only as the complete last resort, I'd again be surprised if he were to play internationally again.
Luke Wright
Luke Wright is Luke Wright. Dropping him is the most obvious thing in the world, but he is Luke Wright, which probably means he'll take over as captain.
Eoin Morgan
England were too hasty to deselect him, and he has proved that he should be playing every ODI game for England. No worries there.
Chris Tremlett
Drafted into the World Cup squad on the back of good performances in the Ashes, but his overall One Day record suggests that he's not really good enough in the colours for England. His indifferent two games, where wickets were rather scare (to be non-existent) suggests that ODIs aren't his game. England have other, better options, and will use them ahead of Trem going forward.
Jade Dernbach
Came in when Shahzad went home, and didn't play. However, his selection over the likes of Woakes and Finn suggest he is very firmly on the radar for future honours.
Adil Rashid
Only after the Yardy withdrawal did the bandwagon eventually get what they wanted. Still obviously something stopping him playing (perhaps an attitude problem) but can be a big part of England's team, as he is good enough to bowl as the second spinner behind Swann and bat at number seven - something Yardy and Tredwell failed to do. Should play more regularly, but will need to prove that he is ready before the sharks start circling once more.
So where can England go from here. Incidentally, the team that knocked us out are out next opponents, as we face Sri Lanka in a series in the summer. We may have a new captain, exciting new bowlers or dashing new batsmen. We may have more of the same. But at the moment, the best place for England to go now... is home. This team have been on the road since October, with no rest. They're clearly pining for home, and it must have had some effect of the performances. England do have the basis of a good ODI side, and given a good break and a few tweaks, they can become one of the best in the world. That's almost what makes this World Cup performance more disappointing - the fact that we do have good players. We should have done better. But only when the preparation (by which I mean a settled side who know what their roles are months in advance as well as coming into a World Cup refreshed) is right can England really make a mark in a World Cup. We've now got 4 years to get it right for next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)