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.

Have England Stumbled Across a Winning Formula?

To say England have made hard work of this group stage has been a rather large understatement. Through a combination of good luck, bad luck, competence and a heavy dose of incompetence, England have stumbled into a position where only unlikely wins for the West Indies against India, and Bangladesh against South Africa can see England denied from getting into the knock-outs. After naming teams which were mainly wrong, the selectors were thrust into making changes for the do-or-die West Indies clash, and it evidently payed off (just).

But is this the team to take England on to further glories in this World Cup?

England's hand was forced after the embarrassing loss to Bangladesh, and changes had to be made. Wright came in for Collingwood, Tremlett came in for Anderson, and Tredwell came in for the injured Shahzad.

Wright, who has been much maligned in the cricket blogosphere (mainly by me) hasn't performed very well in his many internationals over the past few years. And had there been another alternative, England certainly wouldn't have picked him. However, with Collingwood looking like he's terminally out of form, enough was enough, and it was worth putting Wright in. And today was the day that Luke Wright came of age. Coming in at a crucial position, Wright needed to play a responsible innings to get England to a respectable total. In the past, he would have gifted his wicket away slogging for not many, but here, he grafted a hard fought 40-odd (before gifting his wicket away slogging, but I'll forgive him that one). While there are certainly better batsmen who could play for England, Wright is the only other one in the squad, and when given his chance, seized it with both hands. He also does have the ability to get a few overs out - which are needed when England play a four-man attack.

The decision to remove Collingwood (an over-the-hill player who's best days are firmly behind him) is one thing, but the brave decision was to drop Anderson. Jimmy is, and will be, England's leader of the attack, and will go on to take many ODI wickets for England over the next few years. However, the current Jimmy Anderson is a shadow of his usual self, he looks dejected, out of form, and low on confidence. While it is a hard thing to do to get rid of a bowler of Jimmy's ability, it was the right thing to do, as a four man attack can't afford to carry anyone, regardless of reputation. Tremlett didn't perform particularly well, and the decision that needs to be made is whether a rest of a few days is enough for Jimmy to recover his mojo, or whether its worth sticking with Goobah.

And the final change was bringing in James Tredwell. I'm feeling rather smug this evening, as I've been calling for Tredder's inclusion since the Ireland game. Mick Yardy is a defensive bowler, who won't take wickets. While this may be handy in T20s, it's not a ploy that will work consistently in ODIs. Tredwell is an attacking spinner, and while he may leak a few boundaries, once he starts racking up some dots, he'll start taking wickets. Which was seen in his 4-fer. I'm so pleased for Tredwell, he's carried drinks around without getting games for the last few months, and for him to seize his chance so well is admirable.

So is the eleven that was put out for England the eleven that can win the World Cup? Well, Prior isn't an ODI opener. I'd much prefer to see Swann opening, but I'd also like to play up front for Chelsea. England's middle order is the strength with Trott, Bell and Morgan being supplimented by the hitting power of Bopara and my new favourite cricketer Luke Wright below. Having two attacking spinners in Swann and Tredwell is a big plus, but while Anderson was dropped in favour of Tremlett, I'd prefer to see Jimmy coming in instead of big Chris. However, that's only if it's a 100% fit and firing Jim, so if he isn't going to bowl well, he shouldn't be in the team. Shahzad has been ruled out, and will be replaced, and we've seen that getting someone new and fresh into the team has payed dividends. So, as such, (and given my penchant for random left-field selections) I'd like to see Chris Woakes come in, and go straight into the side.

England may not win this World Cup. In fact, England may still not get out of the groups. But as I write, they're still there, and as anyone who's ever watched a Dale Winton gameshow will know, you've got to be in it to win it. There are better teams out there, but there's something about this England team that's creating tight games. And when it really matters, England are just about doing enough to come out on top. Whether by luck or judgement, England are setting this World Cup alight, and whisper it quietly, but they still fancy their chances of winning it.

"What If" - a draft

I wrote this post when West Indies needed another 30 odd runs, with 4 wickets in hand. The last rites of England's World Cup campaign were being given, and I wanted to get the "England are out" post out of the way, so I wrote it while the game was still going. Just as I finished it, there was a quick flurry of action, and suddenly England are more than alive and kicking. England may still go out of this World Cup in the groups, but I'm keeping this post, mainly to jinx every other team who plays against them this World Cup. Come on England!

"So England are out of the World Cup. A team who were highly touted as potential winners have disappointed so much, and crashed out with barely a whimper in the groups.

What makes this so disappointing is that I genuinely thought England could do something at this World Cup. Yes, we'd struggled against Australia, but if you look at this England squad, there's a lot of quality.

In Strauss, Trott, Bell, Pietersen (and latterly Morgan) England had a world-class batting line-up. In Anderson, Bresnan and Broad we had a superb fast bowling trio. And the trump card - Graeme Swann - the best spinner in the world.

The worst thing about being an England fan is the hope that they give us; the hope that they just might do it - that they just might go on and win. There have been so many fine margins in England's departure - what if Swann had squeaked Munaf Patel away for two off the last ball against India? What if Kevin O'Brien had holed out early in his innings? What if they'd managed to take the final two Bangladeshi wickets? What if Jonathan Trott hadn't been adjudged to touch the boundary rope? What if Tredwell's appeal to Benn hadn't been an 'umpire's call'?

As it is, England are out, and there will be an inquest. England have a team good enough to have won this World Cup, but have massively disappointed. All England fans can ask, is what if?"

The West Indies Crunch Match - Preview

So the big decider is upon us. The biggest game of England's World Cup, until the next one (assuming we get another). I'm sure you all know the calculations by now. England must win, but hope that South Africa beat Bangladesh. (Technically England could tie, and go through on NRR if Bangladesh lose. Or beat West Indies heavily, hope India beat West Indies heavily, and sneak past the Islanders on NRR. But that's unlikely). But to even stand a chance, England must win.

I've spoken to death about how Swann should open, and Tredwell should come into England's team. Sadly, I've also spoken about England's cowardly selections, which makes big high risk changes unlikely. So for Swann to open, Tredwell to come in, or the selectors generally doing something out of the comfort zone would be a big surprise, so we're probably going to still see Prior opening and Collingwood at 7/8. Mainly because the selectors do not like admitting they are wrong, and changing it only three days after the Bangladeshi defeat would be an admittance that they got it badly wrong.

Which makes the rumours that Jimmy Anderson will be dropped surprising. Anderson has been in awful form, and had someone less senior than him been performing like he has, they would have been bombed out of the team long ago. However, Anderson is the supposed leader of the attack, and as such, has been an untouchable in the starting eleven. However, there have been calls for Tremlett to come in for Anderson, which as justified as they may be, England's cowardly selections thus far mean a big high risk decision like dropping Anderson would be a big shock - especially given there is no safety net from here on in. Luckily (or unluckily) Ajmal Shahzad has the squits, so a controversial and difficult for the selectors could be avoided, as Tremlett could replace Shahzad if Aj is unable to play.

As with the previous game, there have been calls for England to play three spinners, but for me this would be a wrong call. England have lacked a pace man in the middle overs, and while three spinners could strangle the West Indies, playing only Bresnan and Tremlett/Shahzad/Anderson for the opening overs and at the death would be a mistake, as we've seen how easily milked Yardy and Collingwood have been when pace has been taken off the ball in the middle overs. But I'd still like to see an attacking spinner in Tredwell play - especially if Swann opens (which allows England to bat properly down to seven, and play a proper five man attack).

It will be a crunch game for England, and they will massively up their game to beat a West Indies side who are on a good run of form. Don't forget - the WIndies do need to win themselves, or they suddenly have a very difficult game against India at the weekend. England, however, have been gloriously inconsistent, which makes it very difficult to predict how they'll do in any given game. I do hope they roll the dice and make some brave decisions, but as long as England win, I wouldn't care if Luke Wright opened the bowling and batting, and took over as captain.

Come on England!

Scared Selections

England's selectors are notoriously conservative. They just don't like to make brave calls. Obviously I don't want them to make high risk selection decisions every week, but a calculated gamble would be nice every now and again.

I'm not just talking about the current World Cup. England just don't make big, surprise decisions. The lack of any young, exciting batsmen who've played well at county level in this England ODI side (perhaps excluding Morgan) who've played in the last few years is testament to the fact that they don't like to mess around with the status quo. Prime example - Steve Davies; a player who could be a fantastic attacking wicket-keeper but was unproven, was dropped to make way for Matt Prior, a man who wouldn't be such a gamble, but wouldn't pay off spectacularly as much as Davies could.

If we look at this game (v Bangladesh), England had some big decisions to make. England needed a new opener and a new fast bowler, and could mix the spin-bowling options about. I touted Swann to open - a school of thought that was gathering pace. Opening with Swann would be a gamble, but it could pay off spectacularly. South Africa and a few other nations have had success with three spinners, and there were rumours that England could go that way. However, instead of bringing in Tredwell, England bizarrely brought in Collingwood, a man who is horribly out of form with the bat but is part of the establishment, and as such, is worth playing as he can be "relied upon".

England's scared selections annoyed me. This was a genuine chance to do something bold and exciting, yet the team that was put out was a cowardly choice. Prior, who has failed many times as an opener, was promoted, just because it was the least risky thing for the selectors to do. And Collingwood coming in (and batting at number eight) suggests that they knew Yardy needed to go, but were too scared to pick the mercurial James Tredwell. It seems that the selectors would prefer England to fail miserably (as they have done many times) with a stable eleven, than to roll the dice and risk being attacked for making bad decisions.

Well here's my message to the selectors. Don't be scared. Don't be scared to open with Swann, play Tredwell, or finally put Collingwood out of his misery. Don't be scared to call up Adil Rashid, Jimmy Adams, James Hildreth or even Samit Patel. England may win this game v Bangladesh with Collingwood at 8 and Prior opening, but it's a formula that has been proven to not work against the bigger teams. England will not win this World Cup with this team. Albert Einstein said that the "definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". So selectors. Do something different. Roll the dice. We'll thank you for it when we win the World Cup.

England's World Cup Winning Side

What with Pietersen and Broad going home, England will have to play a different eleven to those who narrowly beat South Africa. And given that England were hardly in sparkling form before the win, there could easily be a few more changes. So who should they pick?

Well, now that Pietersen's not there, England will need to play another opener alongside Strauss. There are a few options, but moving a Bopara or Bell from the middle order would only unsettle things further, so I wouldn't do that. Some have said that Morgan should go straight in at the top, but that would negate his biggest asset - the "cool handed finisher" which England have massively lacked so far. If he opens, while he may be able to exploit the opening powerplays, England wouldn't have him at the crucial finishing overs - the time where his star shines the brightest. So he's not an option either.

There's been some calls (even from BBC Sport's Oliver Brett, nonetheless)for Luke Wright to come in and open. And I sort of see the logic. Wright opening wouldn't impact on the successful middle order, and some argue that he could make quick runs as a pinch-hitter at the top. However, Luke Wright is a poor excuse for a batsman; he's been tried as an opening pinch hitter, a middle order accumulator and as a late-order slogger, and he's failed in every role. He simply isn't a good enough batsman (or bowler) to be playing international cricket. And considering that England will likely want to play 5 bowlers (and have either Bresnan or Yardy at seven), having Wright and Yardy (sorry Sussex fans) in an international top order is a real recipe for disaster. No team should go into an ODI with four batsmen and a keeper.

For me, the best and most obvious option to open would be Graeme Swann. So far he's been the English player who's hit the ball the cleanest, and can definitely act as a pinch-hitter. He's done it in the past for Notts, with success, and he certainly has the confidence in his own abilities to pull it off. And opening with Swann gives much greater balance to the team, as England suddenly have Prior at seven, and bat much deeper while still allowing five bowlers to be picked.
It is not hypocritical of me to badmouth Wright as a batsman, and then ask for a number 9 to open instead. Swann is a much better batsman that Luke Wright. Look at the averages. To be fair, I'm a better batsman than Luke Wright.

So Swann will open. Broad is now out, so changes will need to be made bowling-wise. England will want to stick with the two-spinner / three-seamer approach, so either Tremlett or Shahzad will come in. For me, Shahzad is much better suited to the conditions. Tremlett bowls a length which requires a lot more bounce from the pitch to trouble batsmen, whereas I think Shahzad is a better wicket-taking option in the subcontinent, especially given that he has the ability to generate reverse-swing later on.

And my other change to the side would be bringing in Tredwell for Yardy. England struggled against India and Ireland, because they couldn't take wickets (Bresnan v India aside). Part of the reason for that is Yardy doesn't really take wickets. He isn't expected to take wickets either, which puts far more pressure on the other guys. And it only takes a bad day in the office for a couple of the seamers for a big partnership to develop and bat England out of the game (see Kevin O'Brien for details). Yardy, as effective as he can be at keeping the run rate fairly low, just isn't an aggressive wicket-taking option. Also in the squad is perennial water boy James Tredwell. Admiteddly Jimmy T is yet to take an ODI wicket, but he at least is an aggressive bowler, and will take wickets if the selectors show even the faintest amount of confidence in his abilities. So I'd stick Tredwell in for Yardy.

So England's side, is suddenly looking much stronger. In Swann opening there is a gamble, but we've seen gambles pay off big time for teams willing to make those brave calls so far this World Cup. And England's batting card of Strauss, Trott, Bell, Bopara, Morgan and Prior (down to seven) is up there with the best around. The bowling may not be as strong, but in Bresnan, Swann and Anderson England have three well-established ODI players who can all be match-winners on their day. And in Shahzad and Tredwell are two players who could surprise teams, and chip in with crucial wickets. There's still a long way to go before anyone can realistically think of England winning this thing, but it only takes a couple of good performances, and that all-important momentum to come England's way, and anything could happen. (That's the trouble though, with England, literally anything could happen...)

My England team:

Strauss (c)
Swann
Trott
Bell
Bopara
Morgan
Prior (wk)
Bresnan
Tredwell
Shahzad
Anderson

How important is is that Broad (might) be coming home?

So yet another injury has hit England's ODI side. After being decimated in the Australian ODI series, this England World Cup squad is now dropping like a medieval village after a plague rat wanders into town. The latest victim to England's injury curse is Stuart Broad.

This injury is annoying rather than anything else. In the past few years Broad has grown into a very fine One Day bowler with a variety of tricks and is a genuine threat to opposition batsmen. His 4 fer against South Africa the other day underlines his importance to this England team, as a 'pressure' bowler (ie bowling at the death, or being thrown the ball in tight situations) which emphasises the trust that Cap'n Strauss places in him.

Bearing in mind that England's bowling has been distinctly poor thus far, the fact that Broad has so far come out in some credit does show he will be a big loss if he is to leave the tournament. We don't know how severe his injury is, but a side strain for a fast bowler often isn't a trivial issue, so chances are he's played his last at this tournament.

So if he is to go home, who should replace him in the squad? Well, in the short term, Ajmal Shahzad will likely come in for the Bangladesh game on Friday. Chris Tremlett has been sitting on the bench waiting for the inevitable fast bowling injury as the 16th man in the squad, so we'd assume Trem would be selected to the squad. However, given the fact England clearly lack an all-rounder (something every other nation has in abundance), it would be worth thinking outside the box rather than the 'safe' option of picking Tremlett to carry drinks with Wright and Tredwell.

Some nations have been playing four spinners, some three, most two. England have fielded one (Graeme Swann) and someone bowling darts (Mick Yardy). To say Yardy has been ineffective may be putting it mildly, so there is a real need for England to send for a spinner who actually tries to turn it. Adil Rashid would be an obvious choice - he has topped bowling lists in county cricket over the last however long, and has a couple of FC hundreds to his name, which shows he knows which end of the bat to hold. But is he good enough to bat in the top seven (where he'd need to be)? Someone who would be a better batsman (more than able to bat as a specialist, as well as offering spinning overs) would be Samit Patel. He's obviously international class, as his ODI five-fer suggests, but the obvious fitness issue means it would be a massive climb down from the selectors to pick him. Despite repeated warnings to sort himself out he hasn't bothered, which hardly suggests a brilliant attitude. Both would be options, and I'd be happy with either.

But may I proffer another name? Broad is a fast bowler, and England will want to go in with three seamers into any given match. England need a genuine allrounder who can turn games with the bat or ball. He may have never played internationally, but step forward Peter Trego. The Somerset allrounder can absolutely dominate attacks with bruising strokes - and the nice flat pitches being used would be right up his street. While his bowling may not quite be there, I reckon he'd be good to chip in with a couple of handy wickets along the way. He may be unproven internationally, but his performances in big games for Somerset suggest he has the mental fortitude to step straight into a World Cup and perform.

I'd like to see Trego in the England side (and hope it happens anyway post-World Cup) as it would give a lot more balance, and some big-hitting down the order. However, whoever I endorse is irrelevant, as Chris Tremlett will get selected. So there we are.

England's World Cup Reaction

OK, so the squad's been announced. And I didn't do too badly. Knowing there was a 'shock' selection, I went left-field. I didn't go obvious.

So the changes to my squad. Jimmy Adams was a long shot, but he didn't make it. In his places comes James Tredwell as spin cover, but do England need three spinners? However, knowing that Graeme Swann has a new injury, and that his wife is likely to give birth at any stage of the tournament (with him probably to fly home at short notice), his selection is fairly understandable. And the other ('shock') selection is Matty Prior getting the nod ahead of Steve Davies.

While dropping Davies after only a few goes (and a good attacking innings only the other day) may seem harsh, some would argue that dropping Prior in the first place was harsh. Prior's certainly in form with the bat, with big scores in the Ashes, and then early in his Big Bash stint (which has now ended as Prior's coming up to join the ODI squad), but it is an about-turn for the selectors, who evidently believed at one stage that both Craig Kieswetter and then Steve Davies were better bets for the job. But whatever, no complaints.

So that's the 15 men England have chosen. Let's just hope they can bring it home. Sprit of '66 and all that...

Boot-Camp

So our England Ashes team have returned from their trip away. Some have called it boot-camp, others team-building, and worryingly, the ECB Website calls it a bonding exercise.

The camp, which was held in Bavaria close to Nuremburg, involved players undertaking mental and physical challenges designed to better prepare them for the challenges of playing international cricket.

As well as overcoming a series of physical challenges, the team also learned more about leadership, how to make difficult decisions under pressure and the factors that make teams successful.

Their visit concluded earlier today with a trip to the memorial site at Dachau, the first of Hitler’s concentration camps where more than 40,000 people died during the 12 years of its existence from 1933-1945

By all accounts the players got to know each other better, had a bit of team-building, a bit of a laugh, and basically had a week away from cricket which will help the squad bond.

Some people (mainly "old school" ex-cricketers) have been bad-mouthing the boot-camp, but I honestly see no disadvantages to the trip. The players will have become closer both as people and as team-mates, and that can only be good. While abseiling or hiking may not help while facing Bollinger or Johnson, it will help team-spirit on a trip where famously English sides have fallen out. It's all about being totally prepared, an element which was clearly lacking in England's terrible 2006/7 defence of the urn. The fact that Tredwell, Kieswetter and Shahzad went out also shows that England see them as part of the "squad at large" even if they didn't make it into the Ashes 16. But that's by the by.

Here's the real reason for this post - some pictures of boot-camp.


















Steve Finn v Monty Panesar? Hardly seems a fair fight...

Ashes Squad Sweepstake

So everyone in the world has named an Ashes squad. Much of the expected 16 pick themselves, but because this is the Ashes, speculation, rumour and gossip still leaves a certain element of intrigue. The main questions lay in who will be reserve wicket-keeper (almost certain to be Steve Davies), who will be the second spinner (Tredwell, Panesar or Rashid) and who will be the two sub seamers (Bresnan, Shahzad or Chris Tremlett).

For what it's worth, the squad I'm about to name is not the squad I would actually pick. This is just the side I think will be picked. So here it is.

Strauss (c)
Cook
Trott
Pietersen
Collingwood
Bell
Morgan
Prior (wk)
Davies (wk)
Swann
Tredwell
Broad
Anderson
Finn
Bresnan
Shahzad

So of my side, Tredwell pips Monty, Davies gets in ahead of Kieswetter, and there's no place for Tremlett, who is beaten to the plane by Shahzad and Bresnan.

I suppose we could have an Ashes sweepstake. I've had a go - how about you? Person who gets the most wins a prize!*

*The prize may be a Follow Thursday on Twitter

Steven Finn - 9/37!

While Middlesex are in trouble against Worcestershire at New Road, the performance of Steven Finn will give a lot of heart to fans, selectors, and Finn alike. 9 wickets in 15 overs; added to 5 wickets picked up yesterday both show that he is becoming of age as a bowler; certainly at county level, and perhaps at higher.

Yes, it was on a pitch and in conditions which offered much to the bowlers, but Finn's performance, where his pace and bounce unsettled the batsmen before he knocked over their stumps was special. And any bowler taking 9 wickets in an innings is always a remarkable feat.

As Finn fired his way into the 7th best bowling figures in Middlesex history, he may also have booked his place on the flight to Australia this winter. On a tour where pace and bounce is crucial, a 6 foot 8 fast bowler is vital for England as they look to defend the Ashes. While Finn did play in England's last two tests in Bangladesh, he and other new bowlers Tredwell and Bresnan were fully expected to leave the team to make way for Anderson and Onions. While Finn did not do anything spectacular on tour, picking up 9 wickets in the prescence of Geoff Miller will put him firmly in the minds of the selectors, and could very easily displace Onions (who is certainly not assured of his place in the team after being dropped for the final test in South Africa). Personally I would put Finn into the team, both to get test match experience, and confidence ahead of an Ashes tour where both will be needed. Finn is clearly in fantastic form (after one county game), but if he continues over the next few months, he could very easily be the dark horse who sneaks into England's Ashes Eleven.

What we learned from Bangladesh

Before this series started, I named the team who I thought would play in the 1st Test against Bangladesh at Lord's in the summer. The team of Cook, Strauss, Bell, Pietersen, Collingwood, Prior, Wright, Swann, Broad, Anderson and Onions. With Strauss, Anderson and Onions unavailable for the tour, there were opportunities for Carberry, Finn, Tredwell and Bresnan to stamp their authority on the team, and put forward a good case for their inclusion, with Cook given the chance to show why he has been regarded as a Future England Captain since he first broke into the team. And nobody really took that chance.

Yes, Tredwell bowled well in his only test, and yes, Bresnan batted well in the second test. Yes, Carberry looked good in the first test, and yes, Finn did cause some problems when he was allowed to bowl. But none of them proved to be better than any of the men they replaced, and as such, none of them will play in the first test at Lord's. Tredwell toiled away on a pitch which offered little to him, and probably out-bowled Swann in the second test; but Swann's continued high level of performances (including a ten wicket haul in the first test) means he will retain his place, with two spinners in England unfeasible. Bresnan bowled OK, taking some good wickets, and took advantage of a weak attack, but the nature of England's defensive team line-ups mean that they will play 7 batsmen, and Bresnan will not get into the team on his bowling alone. While he will probably travel to Australia in the winter, it will be as a reserve for Broad and Anderson. Finn likewise will go to the Ashes, but did nothing spectacular to show why he was playing test cricket at 20. The fact that Carberry was dropped for the second test shows he has no chance of playing in the summer; now acting as England's fourth choice opener behind Cook, Strauss and Trott.

Alastair Cook did not cover himself in glory as captain, proving to be more reactive than pro-active, but it was not "his" team, and when he is allowed to be full captain, he will have much more influence and a bigger say in the team direction. While his fields were often defensive and bizarre, he is an inexperienced captain, and the tour will help him gain that experience before he gets the job full-time (remember Strauss captaining England against Pakistan in 2006 before being appointed in 2009).


Following the series, my team for Lord's has changed, with Jonathan Trott retaining his place ahead of perennial water-boy Luke Wright. England have won 100% of their matches in the Desh, and while they have now a better idea of their squad at large, they know that those replacements proved that the first choice team (even in the absence of Strauss, Onions, Anderson and Sidebottom) are England's best eleven.

England winning, but Bangladesh could be winning in the long-run...

While there has been some criticsm that England have "only" taken 8 wickets in a day, were this not Bangladesh, the press would be dreaming up new superlatives to celebrate England's day. While England are not in firm control of the game, they are dominant, and if they bat well, should cement their position tomorrow.

Perhaps it is the preconception that Bangladesh were to be rolled over in two sessions, before conceding 700 runs for 3 wickets. However, after forcing England to 5 days in the first test (and not without an outside chance of saving the draw), and a fantastically attacking innings from Tamim Iqbal, it is evident that Bangladesh are not the poor outfit that everyone expected. While they do still have a long way to go before they can start winning games against the top test nations, they are starting to become competitive. England, or at least the English media, had underestimated the Bangladeshis, and if they reset their expectations, they will realise that they have performed fairly well today.

On debut, James Tredwell posed problems throughout (bowling 29 overs in the day); Graeme Swann bowled as well as ever, and Bresnan, Broad and Finn also chipped in. While England's catching was not great, there were a couple of good ones taken, and overall, wickets were taken at regular intervals. While there were a few 50 partnerships, England were able to keep pressure on, and never really allow Bangladesh to get firmly on top.

However, the 85 from 71 balls by Tamim Iqbal looked like it could. Attempting to score a century in the opening session, Iqbal may have been unfortunate to be given out on the sweep off Tredwell, with his attacking play accelerating the run rate, and causing Alastair Cook some real problems - his first proper test as English skipper, and the jury is still out as to whether he won that battle. The nature of Iqbal's dismissal (and those of Mahmudullah and Siddique) are indicative of the problems which beset Bangladeshi test cricket - they do not know when / how hard / whether to attack, and often go too hard, too early, and end up getting out. While that level of attacking may be acceptable in the one day formats, it often does not translate into test cricket, and will continue to hold Bangladesh back until they are able to rectify it.

I do not know just how much first-class cricket the Bangladeshi team have played, but some of the dismissals would be examples of those who have very little first class experience. This team will need to play more and more four or five day matches with the intention of playing long, big innings, rather than the quick-scoring cameos shown in this game.

While we won't really know just how good a batting pitch this is until England have a go (and hopefully double what Bangladesh get), Bangladesh have exploited it quite well, but the regular wickets mean that England have the upper hand . While this series is slipping away from Bangladesh, it may well be a different story the next time England travel to Dhaka and Chittagong.

Why selectors shouldn't try to appease the Cheese...

While I blogged earlier, it was in many ways a very poor attempt at covering the action. Which is probably because I didn't really watch the game. For a variety of reasons (mainly me wanting a lie-in), I didn't get up to watch a match with a result that was never in doubt. While Tamim Iqbal offered slight resistance, the bare fact that no other Bangladeshi scored more than a fifth of his score meant that they never had a defendable score, especially with a very sketchy bowling attack. And England had enough about them to win very comfortably. While England will be pleased to win, it was only Bangladesh, and it is doubtful whether that performance would have been enough to beat an Australia, India or South Africa.

While it is natural that England wouldn't need to fire on all cylinders in a fairly comfortable game, overall team selection has hampered England somewhat. In ODI cricket, playing the pitch can often be as important as playing the opposition, and England missed a big trick in playing only Swann as a specialist spinner. While Pietersen and Collingwood can offer some assistance, they are far too 'part-time' to restrict the rate or take wickets against quality opposition. With the World Cup being played this time next year in the same venues that England now play, it is more than essential that James Tredwell gets a run-out in the next two as a foil for Swann. Bangladesh proved that two good spinners operating from both ends is very effective in strangling run-rates, and can pick up handy wickets throughout. While ideally (for me) Adil Rashid should be in the mix, Tredwell is that second spinner, and should play in the next game on Tuesday.

Batting at six was wicket-keeper Matt Prior. I have written before at my opposition to Prior playing in the same team as Kieswetter, purely as I think it to be unnecessary. There is absolutely no need to play two keepers when a much better batsman or all-rounder could be put in his place. It is almost an apology from the selectors to Prior for adding Kieswetter to the squad. Prior would have left Heathrow fully expecting to play every game in the Dubai / Bangladesh tour as he was the only keeper in the squad. However, due to Kieswetter's late addition, this has been thrown into jeopardy. Whoever is in charge has clearly looked at Prior's relative form behind the sticks over the last 18 months and thought "We can't drop him, he's slightly improved on his glovework. Let's stick that young Kieswetter in, and keep Prior as well, as he might get upset otherwise". Prior has indeed improved on his keeping, but still is a long way behind many of his other international counterparts (Kamran Akmal not included). He is still guarenteed to play the summer tests (and almost certainly the Ashes in the winter). Dropping him for a few ODI's and Twenty20 games does not show a lack of confidence in Prior from the selectors - but a show of confidence in a young cricketer in Craig Kieswetter. By playing Prior as an out and out number six, the selectors are trying not to upset a popular (I guess) figure in the dressing room. Ultimately however, they are compromising the team's performance, as however you try and dress it up, Prior should not be batting at number 6 for England based on purely his batting. While it could be argued that there are no other options in the squad, that is the selectors fault for not picking a properly balanced squad.

While these issues will not make any difference in the forthcoming two ODIs, which England will again win very easily, England will need to review the makeup of their fifty over team in preparation for an important 12 months for their one day team. Whether it includes Tredwell or Prior is another matter.