With the conclusion of today's India v West Indies ODI comes the end of ODI cricket in 2011. It's been a fairly decent year for the moody middle-child of the formats, with a surprisingly good World Cup, lots of records broken, and some closely fought series. Yes, there have also been some one-sided humblings, but it wouldn't be the ODI cricket that we all know and sort of love without it, would it? Anyway, with the end of 2011 ODI cricket comes the chance to name a 2011 ODI team of the year, and here it is.
1) Shane Watson
While it may still be cool to massively hate him, 2011 has been the year that I've begrudingly given respect to Shane Watson. Yes, the occasional histrionics and highlights still remain, but his cricket this calendar year, especially in ODIs has been nothing short of astonishing. Starting with a record high for an Aussie at home with an unbeaten 161 at the MCG against England. He then followed that with a solid-enough World Cup with both bat and ball in a tough Aussie campaign, before unleashing hell on the poor Bangladeshis in the ensuing series. The 185 not out from a mere 96 balls contained a monstrous 15 sixes, and underlined Watto's capacity as an incredibly dangerous hitter. (His 2011 ODIs have seen 42 maximums clear the fence, more than anyone else, and he also boasts the best strike rate of 109 to boot). Add to that his ever improving bowling, and hawkish fielding and he's not far off the perfect ODI player. Comfortably the best all-round all-rounder in cricket at the moment.
2) Virender Sehwag
Sehwag has only played in 12 ODIs since the turn of the year, but he got quite a bit done in them. Setting the tone for India's victorious World Cup campaign with an imperious 175 against Bangladesh, he then went a few better and smashed every record going by reaching 219 against the West Indies only last week. While he was a little bit up and down at times, he remains the ultimate ODI master blaster, and to not include him in the year that he achieved so much would be cruel.
3) Jonathan Trott
Say what you like about Jonathan Trott's technique or strike rate, he scores runs. Lot of them. Until last week, he was 2011's top ODI run scorer (having played less games than eventual run winner Virat Kohli), and his strike rate of 80 isn't as woefully bad as many think (in fact, of the top 10 run scorers of the year, Trott has the 5th fastest strike rate). With two hundreds and ten fifties, Trott oozes consistent scoring, and provides support and backbone to his teammates, especially when wickets are tumbling at the other end. A shoo-in for my team of the year.
4) Virat Kohli
A coming of age year for Kohli, where his growing maturity and confidence has been reflected in his performances. Finishing the year with 1381 ODI runs, including four hundreds, Kohli has nailed down a spot in India's middle order and made it his own. The frightening fact that he is only 23 should see him become a staple part of India's teams for many years to come.
5) Brendan Taylor
2011 has seen something of a resurgence in Zimbabwe cricket, with a test return being greeted with a new found competitiveness against the bigger nations, and no other player has embodied that as much as their new captain, Brendan Taylor. A remarkable series against New Zealand that saw scores of 128*, 107* and 75 followed a World Cup where he was Zim's standout batsman, and finishing the year with an average of 49.53 is very handy indeed.
6) Yuvraj Singh
While 2011 has been up and down for Yuvraj, it would be impossible to miss him from this team after the World Cup that he had. Starring with the bat (averaging over 50 from his 14 games), and surprisingly with the ball (picking up 20 wickets at 26), Yuvraj was key to India's victory, and was deservedly named Man of the Tournament.
7) MS Dhoni
Captain, keeper, all-round hero, MS Dhoni (in ODI colours at least) can do no wrong. Taking the mantle as the ultimate ODI finisher, Dhoni's cool-hand has been seen throughout the year, but not as much as in it's biggest game, where his 91 not out in the World Cup final saw India to victory, and his name into Indian folklore. As exceptional a leader as they come, Dhoni has arguably been THE one day international player of 2011.
8) Shahid Afridi
A couple of retirements, a couple of comebacks, a loss of the captaincy, a lot of wickets and a few runs - 2011 has been another normal year in the life of Shahid Afridi. The leading wicket-taker during the World Cup, where his super-quick leg-spin accounted for far too many batsmen, he then retired, before returning in a blaze of glory to destroy Bangladesh in the UAE at the end of the year. While his batting was even more hit and miss than usual, his bowling (where he took an incredible four 5-fers) was easily the best of anyones in 2011.
9) Mitchell Johnson
Yes, he bowls to the left and the right, but Mitch's form in 2011 ODIs was surprisingly good. 39 wickets at 20 (with a more remarkable economy rate of just 4.4) sees cricket's biggest enigma make it into the team of the year.
10) Lasith Malinga
There is simply no bowler more frightening to face than Lasith Malinga. Working on the simple theory of getting it full and straight, the slinger took the most wickets (48) this year, and despite retiring from tests, is still as deadly in ODIs as he's ever been.
11) Zaheer Khan
An injury ravaged second half of the year saw 2011 peter out for Zaheer, but after the first half he had, he won't mind a bit. India's go-to bowler throughout the World Cup, he was instrumental in both taking wickets and strangling the run rate, both with the new ball, and the older one. His incredible spell at the start of the World Cup Final, where the normally free-scoring Dilshan and Tharanga were unable to get him off the square set up the win for India, and his 30 wickets from just 14 games see him into the team of the year, dodgy hammy or not.
My ODI team of 2011:
Shane Watson
Virender Sehwag
Jonathan Trott
Virat Kohli
Brendan Taylor
MS Dhoni
Yuvraj Singh
Shahid Afridi
Mitchell Johnson
Lasith Malinga
Zaheer Khan
Showing posts with label Trotty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trotty. Show all posts
Sunday, 11 December 2011
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.
Tuesday, 6 September 2011
Missing Morgan Mixes Up the Middle Order
The news that Eoin Morgan has picked up a shoulder injury that will see him miss the rest of an India ODI series that already seems to have fizzled out into a damp squib may not seem important, but it couldn't have come at a worse time for England. With a resting Kevin Pietersen missing, and now Eoin Morgan, England have absolutely no idea of their strongest ODI batting line up, and will have to wait a further few months to organise themselves properly so they can discover it.
The idea of resting players is not a new one, and it is by no means a ridiculous one. Last summer, Kevin Pietersen looked jaded and forlorn - a shadow of himself having struggled through a test series against Pakistan. So, like it or not, KP sat out the ODI series, and has since made a couple of double tons and rediscovered the form that made him one of the world's best batsmen. And it's also clear that Alastair Cook, who wasn't at the time involved in England's limited over plans clearly benefited from the time out of international cricket at the end of last summer, seen in the winter to end all winters for Cook. International cricketers can't be expected to play 24/7, 365 days a year or they'll burn out - the current plague of injuries surrounding the Indian team is testament to that.
However, Pietersen missing last year's ODI series confused the selectors in the ODI format, leading to a very haphazard build up to the World Cup ultimately ending in Pietersen being shoehorned in to open, and nobody really knowing what England's best team was. Following the ultimate disappointment that the World Cup proved to be, England had the chance to reestablish themselves as an ODI side, with a new captain, and a blank canvas on which to create the best team possible. However, the middle order is still cause for concern.
Do the selectors want to use the tried and trusted batsmen from the tests with Trott batting at three, Pietersen at four, and Bell and Morgan at five and six? But is that line-up lacking in 'explosive' players? Do they want to bring in young Ben Stokes for his all-round abilities (even though he can't bowl at the moment, which was a decision not particularly thought through...), which means that someone has to make way? Or do they want to pack the side with one-day specialists like Bopara or Patel? The absence of Pietersen automatically means it isn't England's strongest side, meaning somebody is only temping for KP, and now with Morgan missing it means that more short-term fixes are going to be made towards a long-term problem.
England's lead-up to the World Cup was very poor, and while selectors have spoken about learning from their mistakes and moving on, it's plain to see that they still have no idea who they want in or how they want them to play. With Pietersen and Morgan, England's two ODI trump cards going to be out for the rest of the series, the search for a consistent and settled team will go on. It's just as well that against the world champions, England have their ever faithful match-saving joker. The September English weather.
The idea of resting players is not a new one, and it is by no means a ridiculous one. Last summer, Kevin Pietersen looked jaded and forlorn - a shadow of himself having struggled through a test series against Pakistan. So, like it or not, KP sat out the ODI series, and has since made a couple of double tons and rediscovered the form that made him one of the world's best batsmen. And it's also clear that Alastair Cook, who wasn't at the time involved in England's limited over plans clearly benefited from the time out of international cricket at the end of last summer, seen in the winter to end all winters for Cook. International cricketers can't be expected to play 24/7, 365 days a year or they'll burn out - the current plague of injuries surrounding the Indian team is testament to that.
However, Pietersen missing last year's ODI series confused the selectors in the ODI format, leading to a very haphazard build up to the World Cup ultimately ending in Pietersen being shoehorned in to open, and nobody really knowing what England's best team was. Following the ultimate disappointment that the World Cup proved to be, England had the chance to reestablish themselves as an ODI side, with a new captain, and a blank canvas on which to create the best team possible. However, the middle order is still cause for concern.
Do the selectors want to use the tried and trusted batsmen from the tests with Trott batting at three, Pietersen at four, and Bell and Morgan at five and six? But is that line-up lacking in 'explosive' players? Do they want to bring in young Ben Stokes for his all-round abilities (even though he can't bowl at the moment, which was a decision not particularly thought through...), which means that someone has to make way? Or do they want to pack the side with one-day specialists like Bopara or Patel? The absence of Pietersen automatically means it isn't England's strongest side, meaning somebody is only temping for KP, and now with Morgan missing it means that more short-term fixes are going to be made towards a long-term problem.
England's lead-up to the World Cup was very poor, and while selectors have spoken about learning from their mistakes and moving on, it's plain to see that they still have no idea who they want in or how they want them to play. With Pietersen and Morgan, England's two ODI trump cards going to be out for the rest of the series, the search for a consistent and settled team will go on. It's just as well that against the world champions, England have their ever faithful match-saving joker. The September English weather.
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.
Alastair Cook is Relentless
Alastair Cook seems as though he is never satisfied. Even when making his first ever test 250 (and the becoming the first Englishman to make a test 250 for 21 years) he barely raised the bat to the crowd, thinking more about how he was going to score the next 250.
Alastair Cook loves batting, and he loves scoring runs. Everything he does appears to be on some sort of personal vendetta to score as many runs as he possibly can. He can never have enough runs. You can picture him in a future James Bond film as some sort of evil meglomaniac, constantly batting and refusing to get out, taking over the world by boring opponents to death whilst scoring millions of runs.
Some critics of Cook say that he can't pick up the rate and accelerate, which is sometimes needed when a declaration is in sight. But quite simply Cook sees no need to pick up the scoring rate - he's just happy scoring runs, and lots of them, and he'll try and score as many as he can. He knows that if he keeps making mountains of runs, England will keep winning test matches, and that what keeps pushing Cook on to keep going.
I don't like using the term run machine, but it's hard to give Cook any other title. He almost seems emotionless while at the crease, effortlessly switching between a heavy concentration and an automaton state of unawareness. The man doesn't even sweat, which just confirms the fact that he is clearly not human. In the film where Cook is the villain, he'd just keep coming at James Bond, no matter how many bullets are fired at him. Cook would just swat them away, with dabs into the on-side for singles to keep scoring runs. The film would only end after about 12 hours when Strauss has enough and decides to declare, but even then Cook would be unaware to what's happening around him; still focussing on scoring more runs.
Alastair Cook is an immense batsman, and will no doubt go down in history as one of England's greats - if not the best. Every successful team needs a player who is so set on scoring runs that failure is not an option; a cold hard ruthless killer who drills the opposition into the ground and demoralises them so completely that it doesn't seem to be a fair fight. Fortunately for England, they have Alastair Cook, who will continue to do that for quite a few years to come. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, they also have Jonathan Trott, who if anything, is even more relentless. Good luck, rest of the world. You're going to need it.
Alastair Cook loves batting, and he loves scoring runs. Everything he does appears to be on some sort of personal vendetta to score as many runs as he possibly can. He can never have enough runs. You can picture him in a future James Bond film as some sort of evil meglomaniac, constantly batting and refusing to get out, taking over the world by boring opponents to death whilst scoring millions of runs.
Some critics of Cook say that he can't pick up the rate and accelerate, which is sometimes needed when a declaration is in sight. But quite simply Cook sees no need to pick up the scoring rate - he's just happy scoring runs, and lots of them, and he'll try and score as many as he can. He knows that if he keeps making mountains of runs, England will keep winning test matches, and that what keeps pushing Cook on to keep going.
I don't like using the term run machine, but it's hard to give Cook any other title. He almost seems emotionless while at the crease, effortlessly switching between a heavy concentration and an automaton state of unawareness. The man doesn't even sweat, which just confirms the fact that he is clearly not human. In the film where Cook is the villain, he'd just keep coming at James Bond, no matter how many bullets are fired at him. Cook would just swat them away, with dabs into the on-side for singles to keep scoring runs. The film would only end after about 12 hours when Strauss has enough and decides to declare, but even then Cook would be unaware to what's happening around him; still focussing on scoring more runs.
Alastair Cook is an immense batsman, and will no doubt go down in history as one of England's greats - if not the best. Every successful team needs a player who is so set on scoring runs that failure is not an option; a cold hard ruthless killer who drills the opposition into the ground and demoralises them so completely that it doesn't seem to be a fair fight. Fortunately for England, they have Alastair Cook, who will continue to do that for quite a few years to come. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, they also have Jonathan Trott, who if anything, is even more relentless. Good luck, rest of the world. You're going to need it.
Friday, 5 August 2011
Flower's Selection Headache
England's selectors name their squad for the third test against India tomorrow, and they're faced with a dilemma, and his name is Tim Bresnan. After sticking with a tried and tested formula of seven batsmen and four bowlers over the past couple of years, the selectors will have to decide on whether to drastically change policy and shuffle things around, or to stick with traditional and keep the status quo.
Ever since being gubbed at Headingley by the rampant Australians in 2009, Andy Flower has had an obvious reticence to only playing six specialist batsmen. With a long tail starting at seven, England were rolled within 34 overs, and ultimately lost within three days by an innings. Despite containing 'handy' players down the order (with Swann and Broad both sharing slightly face-saving half-centuries), England lacked the safety-net of an extra batsman, and paid the price handsomely. Since then, Flower and Strauss have steadfastly refused to change their preferred shape, which as rigidly defensive as it may be, has clearly wielded great results.
Jonathan Trott is injured, and unlikely to play at Edgbaston. And normally we would just see the "next cab off the rank" in operation, with (probably) James Taylor coming in to the side to maintain the natural order of things. However. Tim Bresnan has just had an excellent game at Trent Bridge, with a five-wicket haul and a 90 certainly adding weight to the argument that he is a true test all-rounder. It would almost appear illogical to drop him after the game he's just had, if not downright cruel. So with Trott out should England move Bresnan up to seven and go with only the six out-and-out batsmen?
Things certainly seem to be in Bresnan's favour. Even though he may arguably be a touch too high at number seven, with Swann and Broad below him, there's certainly a tail that can wag viciously. Having Matt Prior at number six isn't an issue, as he's proven in the past that he's plenty good enough to bat there, and England have enough batsmen in top form to afford to add an extra bowler. The shape could still work if Chris Tremlett doesn't pass fit, with Steven Finn ready and waiting to step into the breach, and either way England would have a very strong batting and bowling line-up.
Headingley 2009 still haunts Andy Flower, and the scars of that performance have been evident in the team selections ever since. However, it's surely impossible to omit Bresnan, and the return of Tremlett would give them a very big headache. However, the injury to Trott gives England the opportunity to have their cake and eat it, and to rearrange the shape of the side. With India on the ropes, England must go out and finish them off, and the best way to do so is with an aggressive line-up. It just remains to be seen whether Andy Flower makes the brave call in changing the policy, or the safe one in sticking with the usual.
Ever since being gubbed at Headingley by the rampant Australians in 2009, Andy Flower has had an obvious reticence to only playing six specialist batsmen. With a long tail starting at seven, England were rolled within 34 overs, and ultimately lost within three days by an innings. Despite containing 'handy' players down the order (with Swann and Broad both sharing slightly face-saving half-centuries), England lacked the safety-net of an extra batsman, and paid the price handsomely. Since then, Flower and Strauss have steadfastly refused to change their preferred shape, which as rigidly defensive as it may be, has clearly wielded great results.
Jonathan Trott is injured, and unlikely to play at Edgbaston. And normally we would just see the "next cab off the rank" in operation, with (probably) James Taylor coming in to the side to maintain the natural order of things. However. Tim Bresnan has just had an excellent game at Trent Bridge, with a five-wicket haul and a 90 certainly adding weight to the argument that he is a true test all-rounder. It would almost appear illogical to drop him after the game he's just had, if not downright cruel. So with Trott out should England move Bresnan up to seven and go with only the six out-and-out batsmen?
Things certainly seem to be in Bresnan's favour. Even though he may arguably be a touch too high at number seven, with Swann and Broad below him, there's certainly a tail that can wag viciously. Having Matt Prior at number six isn't an issue, as he's proven in the past that he's plenty good enough to bat there, and England have enough batsmen in top form to afford to add an extra bowler. The shape could still work if Chris Tremlett doesn't pass fit, with Steven Finn ready and waiting to step into the breach, and either way England would have a very strong batting and bowling line-up.
Headingley 2009 still haunts Andy Flower, and the scars of that performance have been evident in the team selections ever since. However, it's surely impossible to omit Bresnan, and the return of Tremlett would give them a very big headache. However, the injury to Trott gives England the opportunity to have their cake and eat it, and to rearrange the shape of the side. With India on the ropes, England must go out and finish them off, and the best way to do so is with an aggressive line-up. It just remains to be seen whether Andy Flower makes the brave call in changing the policy, or the safe one in sticking with the usual.
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
Day Five at Lord's
Before play started...: England two down and a few ahead - could declare to set up an interesting finish.
Where did it all go wrong for Sri Lanka?: Not really anywhere. They were happy to play for the draw, and they got it.
Where did it all go right for Sri Lanka?: Restricted the big runs in the morning meaning they had a shorter time to survive, which they did very comfortably.
Where did it all go wrong for England?: Played incredibly negatively - delayed the declaration for far too long and shook hands when they were only one wicket away from the tail and a potential collapse. Poor.
Where did it all go right for England?: Another hundred for Cook, runs for KP, and some nice hits by Bell. Plus Trott proved he's a useful enough bowler to turn to as and when required.
Who won each session?: Morning - Just about England (but scored too slowly). Afternoon - Probably even. Evening - Nobody cared.
Who should have won the game?: England. Didn't play well enough today, and let the win slip away. But it would have been interesting had Dilshan and Jayawardene been able to stay on in the evening session on Day 3, as with tired ineffective bowlers, England could have conceded a fairly sizable first innings lead and it could have been a different story...
Shot of the day: Bell's guide down to third man. He was in awesome form. He even prompted me to declare him my favourite ever player (I later downgraded this to my favourite batsman to watch in the current England team. I was caught up in the emotion of the situation).
Ball of the day: "Rangana Herath's Ball of The Century" to KP. Probably the best ball he'll ever bowl - pitching well outside leg, and turning to hit the top of off-stump. Whatever's said about KP's troubles with SLA, I defy anyone to play that ball.
Man of the day: I don't know. Bell? The only England batsman to really understand the situation and bat accordingly.
Mug(s) of the day: Strauss's poor captaincy (I'll discuss that in a blog later) is saved by Matt Prior breaking a window. As such, the mug of the day is whoever put out the press releases; the first claiming that a glove bounced off a kit bag and onto a row of bats which smashed the window, and the second was that he tried to balance a bat on the windowsill, but he misbalanced it and shattered the window. Most likely, he just put his fist through it. Pretty much sums up England's day.
Where did it all go wrong for Sri Lanka?: Not really anywhere. They were happy to play for the draw, and they got it.
Where did it all go right for Sri Lanka?: Restricted the big runs in the morning meaning they had a shorter time to survive, which they did very comfortably.
Where did it all go wrong for England?: Played incredibly negatively - delayed the declaration for far too long and shook hands when they were only one wicket away from the tail and a potential collapse. Poor.
Where did it all go right for England?: Another hundred for Cook, runs for KP, and some nice hits by Bell. Plus Trott proved he's a useful enough bowler to turn to as and when required.
Who won each session?: Morning - Just about England (but scored too slowly). Afternoon - Probably even. Evening - Nobody cared.
Who should have won the game?: England. Didn't play well enough today, and let the win slip away. But it would have been interesting had Dilshan and Jayawardene been able to stay on in the evening session on Day 3, as with tired ineffective bowlers, England could have conceded a fairly sizable first innings lead and it could have been a different story...
Shot of the day: Bell's guide down to third man. He was in awesome form. He even prompted me to declare him my favourite ever player (I later downgraded this to my favourite batsman to watch in the current England team. I was caught up in the emotion of the situation).
Ball of the day: "Rangana Herath's Ball of The Century" to KP. Probably the best ball he'll ever bowl - pitching well outside leg, and turning to hit the top of off-stump. Whatever's said about KP's troubles with SLA, I defy anyone to play that ball.
Man of the day: I don't know. Bell? The only England batsman to really understand the situation and bat accordingly.
Mug(s) of the day: Strauss's poor captaincy (I'll discuss that in a blog later) is saved by Matt Prior breaking a window. As such, the mug of the day is whoever put out the press releases; the first claiming that a glove bounced off a kit bag and onto a row of bats which smashed the window, and the second was that he tried to balance a bat on the windowsill, but he misbalanced it and shattered the window. Most likely, he just put his fist through it. Pretty much sums up England's day.
Friday, 3 June 2011
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).
Sunday, 29 May 2011
Jonathan Trott Will Save Your Life
We've all thought about it. What if you're captured by aliens, and your only chance of survival is for someone to bat for a really, really long time? Only after he's scored enough runs, or bored the aliens into a stupor can you break free from their clutches and find safety. Who would be the man who you would let bat for your life?
Tendulkar might get mobbed by over-zealous fans. Kallis' wig might blow into his eyes. Ponting might come over all Ashes 2010 and start edging Anderson to Swann first ball or arguing with umpires. There's only one man who could be chosen with your life at stake. The man who's concentration would not be broken even by aliens pointing ray guns at him. A man who would instead mark his guard and check his gloves. That man is Jonathan Trott.
Jonathan Trott is everything you want in a test number three. He will score a lot of runs, form solid partnerships with other batsmen, not take many risks, and not get out. A test number three doesn't need to switch hit fast bowlers for six. A test number three just needs to accumulate an awful lot of runs and not get out. This is what Trott does.
Nick Knight on Sky this morning said that Trott is a "limited batsman" as he doesn't play a whole range of shots. Nothing could be further from the truth. Trott has studied the art of shotmaking, and worked out what shots he can play that won't get him out. He knows exactly what shot to play to any given ball, and can score runs all around the ground. During the Ashes, the Aussies thought he was an lbw candidate, so bowled straight. So Trott worked them off his legs. Sri Lanka, knowing Trott's on-side strengths, bowled short and wide of off-stump (rarely a successful strategy). So Trott cut and pushed his way to a double ton.
It seems odd that even an a day when Trott has made 200, there are some knocking him for not going quickly enough. What a ridiculous thing to say. Trott scores his runs at a strike rate of 48 - that's faster than Kallis (45), Dravid (42) and Chanderpaul (42). But strike rates aside, Trott isn't there to hit sixes and get out - he's there for a long haul and to anchor the innings.
It's becoming increasingly well documented that Trott's average (of those with over 20 test innings) is the second highest of all time (behind Bradman, obviously). After his double ton today, Trott has 1803 test runs at 66.77. To get ahead of Bradman's average, he needs to score 897 runs before his next wicket. You wouldn't put it past him to get 897 not out.
Don Bradman was a one-of-a-kind - a freak cricketer that gets thrown up once every five generations. Jonathan Trott, like Bradman, is a superhuman run machine. Quite simply, when looking at him, you just can't see any way that he is going to get out. Which is why when the aliens come, I'm sending for Trotty.
Another fun piece of Jonathan Trott average trivia
Jonathan Trott averaged 37 in Tests after his first full season with England. To get it back there now, he'd need to get 22 ducks in a row. (props to @howe_zat for that)
Tendulkar might get mobbed by over-zealous fans. Kallis' wig might blow into his eyes. Ponting might come over all Ashes 2010 and start edging Anderson to Swann first ball or arguing with umpires. There's only one man who could be chosen with your life at stake. The man who's concentration would not be broken even by aliens pointing ray guns at him. A man who would instead mark his guard and check his gloves. That man is Jonathan Trott.
Jonathan Trott is everything you want in a test number three. He will score a lot of runs, form solid partnerships with other batsmen, not take many risks, and not get out. A test number three doesn't need to switch hit fast bowlers for six. A test number three just needs to accumulate an awful lot of runs and not get out. This is what Trott does.
Nick Knight on Sky this morning said that Trott is a "limited batsman" as he doesn't play a whole range of shots. Nothing could be further from the truth. Trott has studied the art of shotmaking, and worked out what shots he can play that won't get him out. He knows exactly what shot to play to any given ball, and can score runs all around the ground. During the Ashes, the Aussies thought he was an lbw candidate, so bowled straight. So Trott worked them off his legs. Sri Lanka, knowing Trott's on-side strengths, bowled short and wide of off-stump (rarely a successful strategy). So Trott cut and pushed his way to a double ton.
It seems odd that even an a day when Trott has made 200, there are some knocking him for not going quickly enough. What a ridiculous thing to say. Trott scores his runs at a strike rate of 48 - that's faster than Kallis (45), Dravid (42) and Chanderpaul (42). But strike rates aside, Trott isn't there to hit sixes and get out - he's there for a long haul and to anchor the innings.
It's becoming increasingly well documented that Trott's average (of those with over 20 test innings) is the second highest of all time (behind Bradman, obviously). After his double ton today, Trott has 1803 test runs at 66.77. To get ahead of Bradman's average, he needs to score 897 runs before his next wicket. You wouldn't put it past him to get 897 not out.
Don Bradman was a one-of-a-kind - a freak cricketer that gets thrown up once every five generations. Jonathan Trott, like Bradman, is a superhuman run machine. Quite simply, when looking at him, you just can't see any way that he is going to get out. Which is why when the aliens come, I'm sending for Trotty.
Another fun piece of Jonathan Trott average trivia
Jonathan Trott averaged 37 in Tests after his first full season with England. To get it back there now, he'd need to get 22 ducks in a row. (props to @howe_zat for that)
Day Four at Cardiff
Before play started...: A lot of rain. An inevitable draw. Hundreds for Cook and Trott after Sri Lanka made 400.
Where did it all go wrong for Sri Lanka?: Their attack still looked toothless
Where did it all go right for Sri Lanka?: They got KP out cheaply to a left-arm spinner, meaning the Pietersen vicious cycle of left-arm spin will guarantee Herath Pietersen's wicket every innings for the rest of the series.
Where did it all go wrong for England?: They're not far enough ahead to make this game interesting.
Where did it all go right for England?: Trott's double ton. Bell's near-as-dammit ton. A handy lead. They can't lose from here.
Who won each session?: Afternoon and evening - England.
Who's winning the game?: If it was a timeless test, England would win. As it is, it has to finish tomorrow, and with more rain about, the draw is 99.999999999999999% likely.
Shot of the day: Bell lobbing Herath over his head for aDLF Maximum six.
Ball of the day: Herath bowled a corker to Trott that turned miles. But Trott still blocked it.
Man of the day: Jonny Trott.
Mug of the day: KP, mainly for fuelling the poison pens by getting out to yet another left-arm spinner.
Where did it all go wrong for Sri Lanka?: Their attack still looked toothless
Where did it all go right for Sri Lanka?: They got KP out cheaply to a left-arm spinner, meaning the Pietersen vicious cycle of left-arm spin will guarantee Herath Pietersen's wicket every innings for the rest of the series.
Where did it all go wrong for England?: They're not far enough ahead to make this game interesting.
Where did it all go right for England?: Trott's double ton. Bell's near-as-dammit ton. A handy lead. They can't lose from here.
Who won each session?: Afternoon and evening - England.
Who's winning the game?: If it was a timeless test, England would win. As it is, it has to finish tomorrow, and with more rain about, the draw is 99.999999999999999% likely.
Shot of the day: Bell lobbing Herath over his head for a
Ball of the day: Herath bowled a corker to Trott that turned miles. But Trott still blocked it.
Man of the day: Jonny Trott.
Mug of the day: KP, mainly for fuelling the poison pens by getting out to yet another left-arm spinner.
Saturday, 28 May 2011
Day Three at Cardiff
Before play started...: A lot of rain, a handy 400 for Sri Lanka, and Strauss fell before the close of play on day 2.
Where did it all go wrong for Sri Lanka?: They didn't have any bowlers who looked like they were going to take any wickets
Where did it all go right for Sri Lanka?: They got England's number 3 out cheaply. Unluckily for them, it was Anderson.
Where did it all go wrong for England?: The rain in the morning meant they aren't closer to Sri Lanka after 3 days, making the result rather unlikely.
Where did it all go right for England?: Hundreds apiece from Trott and Cook. Easy as you like.
Who won each session?: Afternoon and evening - England.
Who's winning the game?: Rain this morning meant that the draw is nigh-on certain.
Shot of the day: Cook driving Perera through mid on for four. Gorge.
Ball of the day: I would say the only wicket taking ball of the day from Mendis to Anderson, but even that was wide and crap. No award today.
Man of the day: Honours even between Cook and Trott.
Mug of the day: Honours even between the Sri Lankan bowling attack. Rather toothless against two supremely confident batsmen.
Where did it all go wrong for Sri Lanka?: They didn't have any bowlers who looked like they were going to take any wickets
Where did it all go right for Sri Lanka?: They got England's number 3 out cheaply. Unluckily for them, it was Anderson.
Where did it all go wrong for England?: The rain in the morning meant they aren't closer to Sri Lanka after 3 days, making the result rather unlikely.
Where did it all go right for England?: Hundreds apiece from Trott and Cook. Easy as you like.
Who won each session?: Afternoon and evening - England.
Who's winning the game?: Rain this morning meant that the draw is nigh-on certain.
Shot of the day: Cook driving Perera through mid on for four. Gorge.
Ball of the day: I would say the only wicket taking ball of the day from Mendis to Anderson, but even that was wide and crap. No award today.
Man of the day: Honours even between Cook and Trott.
Mug of the day: Honours even between the Sri Lankan bowling attack. Rather toothless against two supremely confident batsmen.
Monday, 23 May 2011
We All Dream of a Team of Brendan Nash
Whenever an innings is in danger of total subsidence, someone needs to put up their hands and fight. West Indies, reduced to 77-4 chasing an unrealistic amount of runs and with over a day left to save the series win, were on the brink. Step forward Brendan Paul Nash.
Every team needs a Brendan Nash. They may not be the most elegant or pretty strokemaker. They may go through horrible runs of form and not contribute anything for years. But when their team needs them most, they stand up and are counted.
Nestling in every test batting order, amongst the flashy extroverts and the powerful big hitters should be one gusty nurdler who just refuses to get out. No matter what's thrown at them (literally, in the case of Saeed Ajmal), using a solid defence and an immaculate ability to leave the ball, they can spend hour upon hour battling for their team.
Nash hasn't been in the greatest of form. His scores leading up to the final innings so far in this two match series were 5, 3 and 6. But his team were staring down the barrel, and he knew what he had to do.
The performances of the gutsy match saver are as important as the extravagant match winner. Would England have won the Ashes in 2009 without Paul Collingwood's nine hour vigil at Cardiff in the first test? Yes, Jonathan Trott scored the runs at the Oval to take back the urn, but without Brigadier Block's sheer gritty determination, it would have been Ricky Ponting hailed as the captain of all captains, not Andrew Strauss.
Brendan Nash is currently only 30 runs and 64 balls into saving the series for the West Indies, and he probably won't, but you wouldn't count against his sheer bloody-mindedness actually carrying the day for his adopted nations. Players like Nash are the essence of test cricket - those who won't stop fighting until the final wicket has been taken or the final over bowled. You can keep your powerplays, pinch-hitters and DLF Maximums - Brendan Nash is real cricket. And long may it continue.
Every team needs a Brendan Nash. They may not be the most elegant or pretty strokemaker. They may go through horrible runs of form and not contribute anything for years. But when their team needs them most, they stand up and are counted.
Nestling in every test batting order, amongst the flashy extroverts and the powerful big hitters should be one gusty nurdler who just refuses to get out. No matter what's thrown at them (literally, in the case of Saeed Ajmal), using a solid defence and an immaculate ability to leave the ball, they can spend hour upon hour battling for their team.
Nash hasn't been in the greatest of form. His scores leading up to the final innings so far in this two match series were 5, 3 and 6. But his team were staring down the barrel, and he knew what he had to do.
The performances of the gutsy match saver are as important as the extravagant match winner. Would England have won the Ashes in 2009 without Paul Collingwood's nine hour vigil at Cardiff in the first test? Yes, Jonathan Trott scored the runs at the Oval to take back the urn, but without Brigadier Block's sheer gritty determination, it would have been Ricky Ponting hailed as the captain of all captains, not Andrew Strauss.
Brendan Nash is currently only 30 runs and 64 balls into saving the series for the West Indies, and he probably won't, but you wouldn't count against his sheer bloody-mindedness actually carrying the day for his adopted nations. Players like Nash are the essence of test cricket - those who won't stop fighting until the final wicket has been taken or the final over bowled. You can keep your powerplays, pinch-hitters and DLF Maximums - Brendan Nash is real cricket. And long may it continue.
Monday, 28 March 2011
Podcast - Blame Trott
Download here
A fun podcast of choking was ruined by Jonathan Trott's sabotage of the England team, so instead Will had to resort to some punditry. The four departing quarter-final losers have their tournaments assessed, and the four semi-finalists have their chances looked at too. Some bold predictions are made, and some not so bold predictions also. All of this, plus so much more!
A fun podcast of choking was ruined by Jonathan Trott's sabotage of the England team, so instead Will had to resort to some punditry. The four departing quarter-final losers have their tournaments assessed, and the four semi-finalists have their chances looked at too. Some bold predictions are made, and some not so bold predictions also. All of this, plus so much more!
Sunday, 27 March 2011
England's One Day Failings
Yesterday I wrote about the men who were in England's ODI squad, and the immediate direction they can take. And before the World Cup even started, I named a potential team for the next summer of ODI cricket (which still doesn't look too unlikely).
However, while the short term can be looked at, the facts remain that England haven't been a top-level ODI side since reaching the final in 1992. We've consistently underperformed, citing the same reasons time after time. Ultimately, England's failures in ODI cricket aren't due to tiredness or injuries, it's a much deeper problem. Put simply, we aren't producing enough ODI quality players - or if we are, we aren't picking them. Test cricket and ODI cricket are very different disciplines - while key skills can be used in both, for players to be the very best in ODI cricket, there are other elements needed. It's widely recognised that England have a very good test side, and not such a good ODI side. But the ODI team is basically the test team without Alastair Cook. So the players who clearly have the aptitude for test cricket patently don't have the X Factor in ODI cricket needed to win World Cups.
Much of the reason must be looked at in county cricket, where the One Day competition is put in as an afterthought. And the fact that it doesn't even take the same format as international cricket doesn't suggest players are learning the skills required for ODIs. The nature of ODI selection is also wrong. Of yesterday's England side, Strauss, Bell, Trott, Prior and Tremlett were given ODI chances (or reprieves) almost exclusively on the back of test form. While this doesn't mean they are bad One Day players, it shows that selectors are only looking at the pool of international players rather than those who are proving themselves consistently in domestic List A cricket.
And even when young guys are being selected, they're given very little margin for error before being discarded. Think Davies, Kieswetter, Denly, Rashid, Woakes. These are the players who have been performing well in domestic List A cricket who are removed for those with iffy One Day records but have performed well in tests. The selection of Prior over Davies is a case in point.
Another thing - English players don't play enough One Day cricket. I'm not talking about ODI cricket, where the 400 cap club is becoming increasingly unexclusive; but one day cricket of any sort. Once a player is picked for England, the only List A cricket of any type will be ODIs, as he is very rarely released to his county for one day games which are crucial for his development. Graeme Swann and Stuart Broad didn't play any One Day games for Notts last year, and Ian Bell has played double the ODIs than domestic One Day games. England are taking the view that international cricket is a place where players have to learn skills quickly, but it's also a place where flaws are exposed and we've already seen how keen the selectors are to dispose of those who don't swim immediately after being thrown straight into the deep end. England would be far better off using the domestic One Day tournament as a breeding ground for international cricket, where players can hone their skills and learn about the ways of One Day cricket, before picking players when they're ready for international action and sticking with them.
England's failures in ODI cricket are deeper than immediately meets the eye, but they can be rectified. There are some players who have been consistently performing at county level, and the selectors shouldn't be afraid to pick them. And if they are to pick them, faith needs to be shown in them. And England's established players should be given the opportunity to go and play One Day cricket for their counties, where they can develop their game away from the glare of ODI cricket, and learn the appropriate skills for ODI cricket, rather than recycling the very different skill set needed for test cricket. England flattered to decieve this World Cup, and while cosmetic changes could be made from small short term successes, a much deeper set of decisions need to be taken if England are ever to win a World Cup.
However, while the short term can be looked at, the facts remain that England haven't been a top-level ODI side since reaching the final in 1992. We've consistently underperformed, citing the same reasons time after time. Ultimately, England's failures in ODI cricket aren't due to tiredness or injuries, it's a much deeper problem. Put simply, we aren't producing enough ODI quality players - or if we are, we aren't picking them. Test cricket and ODI cricket are very different disciplines - while key skills can be used in both, for players to be the very best in ODI cricket, there are other elements needed. It's widely recognised that England have a very good test side, and not such a good ODI side. But the ODI team is basically the test team without Alastair Cook. So the players who clearly have the aptitude for test cricket patently don't have the X Factor in ODI cricket needed to win World Cups.
Much of the reason must be looked at in county cricket, where the One Day competition is put in as an afterthought. And the fact that it doesn't even take the same format as international cricket doesn't suggest players are learning the skills required for ODIs. The nature of ODI selection is also wrong. Of yesterday's England side, Strauss, Bell, Trott, Prior and Tremlett were given ODI chances (or reprieves) almost exclusively on the back of test form. While this doesn't mean they are bad One Day players, it shows that selectors are only looking at the pool of international players rather than those who are proving themselves consistently in domestic List A cricket.
And even when young guys are being selected, they're given very little margin for error before being discarded. Think Davies, Kieswetter, Denly, Rashid, Woakes. These are the players who have been performing well in domestic List A cricket who are removed for those with iffy One Day records but have performed well in tests. The selection of Prior over Davies is a case in point.
Another thing - English players don't play enough One Day cricket. I'm not talking about ODI cricket, where the 400 cap club is becoming increasingly unexclusive; but one day cricket of any sort. Once a player is picked for England, the only List A cricket of any type will be ODIs, as he is very rarely released to his county for one day games which are crucial for his development. Graeme Swann and Stuart Broad didn't play any One Day games for Notts last year, and Ian Bell has played double the ODIs than domestic One Day games. England are taking the view that international cricket is a place where players have to learn skills quickly, but it's also a place where flaws are exposed and we've already seen how keen the selectors are to dispose of those who don't swim immediately after being thrown straight into the deep end. England would be far better off using the domestic One Day tournament as a breeding ground for international cricket, where players can hone their skills and learn about the ways of One Day cricket, before picking players when they're ready for international action and sticking with them.
England's failures in ODI cricket are deeper than immediately meets the eye, but they can be rectified. There are some players who have been consistently performing at county level, and the selectors shouldn't be afraid to pick them. And if they are to pick them, faith needs to be shown in them. And England's established players should be given the opportunity to go and play One Day cricket for their counties, where they can develop their game away from the glare of ODI cricket, and learn the appropriate skills for ODI cricket, rather than recycling the very different skill set needed for test cricket. England flattered to decieve this World Cup, and while cosmetic changes could be made from small short term successes, a much deeper set of decisions need to be taken if England are ever to win a World Cup.
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.
Thursday, 17 March 2011
Podcast - "Come On... Got Him!" (Muffled Noise)
Download this episode on Podbean
With it all on the line against the West Indies, England needed a big result. And didn't they go and get it. England's selectors finally got it right, although Will explains that they would have got it right much earlier had they been listening to the podcast. There's some unexpected love for one of England's heroes, and some very fickle predictions as to who will win the World Cup. Plus some Irish chat for the plucky boys in green, as well as some spin advice for Australia. Jonny f***ng Trott.
Enjoy this Podcast? Listen to loads like it on the Short Midwicket Podcast Page
With it all on the line against the West Indies, England needed a big result. And didn't they go and get it. England's selectors finally got it right, although Will explains that they would have got it right much earlier had they been listening to the podcast. There's some unexpected love for one of England's heroes, and some very fickle predictions as to who will win the World Cup. Plus some Irish chat for the plucky boys in green, as well as some spin advice for Australia. Jonny f***ng Trott.
Enjoy this Podcast? Listen to loads like it on the Short Midwicket Podcast Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)